Posted on 03/02/2010 7:13:41 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
On Wednesday, March 3, the House Civil Justice Committee will hold a hearing on House File 1396. This bill includes a provision that would allow a court that issues a domestic abuse protective order to prohibit the respondent from having any contact with a PET OR COMPANION ANIMAL OWNED, POSSESSED, OR KEPT by a party protected in the order. This new provision could have serious consequences for Minnesotans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
Any number of relatively innocent or unintentional scenarios could easily be imagined for such contact. Even intentional contact with a pet that is the subject of a protective order is clearly too low a threshold for a person to lose the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. The same considerations simply do not apply to contact with animals as apply to contact with people. While this bill was originally designed to protect animals, it would also provide unintended and unjustified deprivation of peoples Second Amendment Rights.
“....it would also provide unintended and unjustified deprivation of peoples Second Amendment Rights.”
Camel...nose...tent.
Paymar is on the commitee. One of the biggest condescending, a-hole,gun grabbing, metrocrats in the Twin Cities.
Paymar.....
Unnnghhh....
Do the Crips and Bloods give a sh&$ about this law??
one ‘what-if’ case in point: Officer Friendly’s spouse files for divorce and ,at the recommendation of their attorney, files a restraining order to keep officer Friendly from visiting their child at times other than the court-designated visitation time. Officer Friendly runs into their kid at the grocery store and says hello.Officer Friendly is then made the subject of an OFP for this infraction and it includes ‘protected pet’, Scraps the Dog. During Officer Friendly’s morning run in the nieghborhood, Scraps the dog gets loose and runs to his former master. Officer Friendly can’t outrun Scraps and has ‘contact’ with the Scraps in full view of the former spouse who is chasing Scraps.
Now Officer Friendly loses their firearms rights as well .
Protection orders for a pet?!? WTF? This country has literally gone to the dogs! I wish I knew at least one western country that hasn’t gone B@tsh!t crazy, but there are none or I’d have moved there already.
one ‘what-if’ case in point: Officer Friendly’s spouse files for divorce and ,at the recommendation of their attorney, files a restraining order to keep officer Friendly from visiting their child at times other than the court-designated visitation time. Officer Friendly runs into their kid at the grocery store and says hello.Officer Friendly is then made the subject of an OFP for this infraction and it includes ‘protected pet’, Scraps the Dog. During Officer Friendly’s morning run in the neighborhood while carrying and concealing their personal firearm, Scraps the dog gets loose and runs to his former master. Officer Friendly can’t outrun Scraps and has ‘contact’ with the Scraps in full view of the former spouse who is chasing Scraps. Under this language, that would be deemed “use” of a firearm in the commission of the violation.
Now Officer Friendly loses their firearms rights as well and heretofore is restricted to a desk job.The “remainder of the person’s life is a very long time” and it seems openly vague,too restrictive and open to loose interpretations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.