Interesting case. FWIW, I’m no fan of taking away the right to bear arms from convicted felons, at least those who are not in prison. To me these sort of laws beg a more fundamental question: if this person is so dangerous that we have to make it a crime of their merely touching a gun, then why pray tell are they out of prison in the first place?
Another implication that probably hasn’t been litigated yet is that the state of Louisiana would apparently no longer be able to require a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Or be able to regulate the types of firearms possessed.
Hee is the warning to the defendant.
The court only has to give you ‘opportunity to be heard’ .
Then the judge issues the protective order. The order does not have to ban you from owning a gun.
Then federal law 922(g)[8] kicks in. The existence of the protective order bars youfrom owning guns.
Are they not sneaky?
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 922 [g][8], AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING, THE DEFENDANT IN AN ORDER THAT EITHER INCLUDES A FINDING BY THE JUDGE OR BY ITS TERMS EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS CERTAIN BEHAVIOR MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER IF THE PROTECTED PERSON(S) IS RELATED TO THE DEFENDANT AS A CURRENT OR FORMER SPOUSE, CURRENT OR FORMER COHABITING INTIMATE PARTNER, CHILD, HAS A CHILD IN COMMON WITH THE DEFENDANT, OR IS THE CHILD OF DEFENDANT AND/OR DEFENDANT’S CURRENT OR FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER.
A question I have long been asking and I have never gotten a good answer. Maybe there is none.