“I am hoping that the Court somehow focuses on the procedural issue side of this case and demands some meaningful judicial review. Something like a very prompt mandatory hearing re the actual facts and history of the alleged abuser.”
That’s the best that could come out of this very dangerous case.
Bad facts make for bad law. Noone on the court wants to say this guy is not violent. But the law they convicted him under is the law that removes guns from people with a domestic violence restraining order, not a law that provides any confidence that he is actually violent or dangerous.
“But the law they convicted him under is the law that removes guns from people with a domestic violence restraining order, not a law that provides any confidence that he is actually violent or dangerous.”
I hear what you are saying; but the other side of the coin is that a judge (a court) reviewed the application for the restraining order and rendered his or her opinion as to the validity and legality of that application and either denied the application or affirmed it (thus, some will argue, that review and order constituted due process).