Posted on 06/21/2024 10:38:32 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
More here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245803/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245781/posts
🤔😊👍
I don’t know if a woke neighbor’s restraining order is more severe (and requiring a conviction) than a red flag law. But they can say you are a crazy gun nut and you get your guns taken away right away as you go through the process of them proving you “guilty”.
I was disappointed when Trump said he supported red flag laws. I hope he has changed his views.
Ironically, same-sex couples are more likely to commit/experience domestic violence
“If it can be restricted it is not a Right.”
“Shall not be infringed means that-—”
What is the definition of “a right”, of that which shall not be infringed.
‘”shall not be questioned”’
Doesn’t this deny the right to free speech?
Why do that? It should be a local and state issue. There is nothing in the constitution that either bans or protects 2nd Amendment rights for those under a restraining order.
I’m a retired female domestic law attorney. It’s true that a lot of women lie to get restraining orders. I only practiced in one county but the judges there were very careful not to grant those restraining orders, especially if there was a divorce and/or custody case pending. It does happen though. The husband/father absolutely has to fight it and sometimes even do a cross petition. The woman can get a temp order but the man needs to challenge it, if he has the money, with a good lawyer. I’ve won many of those. And one thing I often did was petition that all issues be absorbed into any pending divorce or parentage case. I had one man who was told by his wife and her mother that in that state (not mine) she would be able to get subsidized housing if she filed a PFA. I practically screamed at him not to stipulate to it.
Thank you for your honesty. It’s what I have always suspected.
“Doesn’t this deny the right to free speech”?
Article 1 section 21 of the PA Constitution states:
‘The rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned”.
The point of the LAW above has nothing to do with “free speech”, it is to limit government on regulating firearms or bearing arms. These are limits that government can NOT infringe upon or over reach-—yet, these criminals in government do it daily.
The only means for confiscation would be in the use of murder or coercing-—found guilty and thrown in jail. However, once released they should be returned to you-—it is your property.
All gun laws are illegal
You’re not kidding. I’ve personally known 2 really great guys whose wives went off the deep end recently. Both women claimed violence and needed a restraining order. Both women are full of crap. Both men had police and troopers apologize to them when the dust settled because they knew the women we full of it. Both men ended up significantly more poor in all ways because of these Jezebels.
It does.
First Amendment rights are restricted every day.
In fact. ALL of the first 10 Amendments have been violated by the Government.
Your experiences show how the system can be manipulated.
Still good for genuine victims of DV.
Start getting restraining orders slapped against agents of three letter federal agencies.....
Wait until Roberts is screwed by a lying wife and her boyfriend is coming.
First, this outcome is hardly surprising.
Second, DV restraining orders take away a lot of “rights,” including property rights (man gets booted from his home), First Amendment rights (man can’t contact wife/girlfriend), right to travel (can’t go at or near victim’s residence or work).
Third, the decision is actually GOOD in that it suggests that there has to be a specific finding by a judge that a person is a credible threat to his wife/gf. In other words, if it’s a “consent” restraining order your 2A rights may not be suspended.
Fourth, the decision didn’t address the issue as to what STANDARD a court can use in doling out restraining orders. In MD, it’s a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is low.
Terrible decision. As a female family law lawyer, you wouldn’t believe how many females lie to get those restraining orders, just as a quick and dirty way to get the dad out of the house and get custody of the kids. Now those dads have no house, no access to their own kids, and no way to defend themselves.
The corallary to that is that we need to prosecute all false and frivolous claims against men committing domestic violence.
Until Domestic Violence Restraining Orders are printed on Kevlar vests, such a decision may not be a bad idea. However, a clearly defined appeal process should be in place.
“If it can be restricted it is not a Right.”
______________________________________________________
There is not a single “Constitutional right” that is absolute and cannot be restricted some way under due process of law. That includes our right to liberty, property, or even life itself.
I don’t trust government enough for this power to not be abused.
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.