Evidence Process of domestic violence restraining orders? Is it a rigorous process for domestic violence?
So now a restraining order is essentially a conviction in terms of losing gun rights.
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.
They are jockeying to stay a separate branch of government by kissing up to the Dems who hate them.
They were warned by lawfare threats to Thomas and slander threats to Alito and his wife.
Kissing the rear ends of the woke anti-2nd Amendment crowd will not actually win out.
I do not believe they are deciding based on law or thoughts of true justice.
Just trying to look good like other politicians.
As a campaign promise, President Trump, and the GOP House and Senate candidates, can commit to passing a federal law that would protect the Second Amendment Rights of people with restraining orders.
Thought: Clarence Thomas is good.
If it can be restricted it is not a Right.
No Due Process.
Suspension of rights.
Unconstitutional.
“The Beotch Rule”.
Now. If only ONE right-thinking legislative body passes a law REQUIRING anyone getting an ex-parte order in a domestic abuse situation to HAVE and CARRY a gun in accordance with their RIGHT under the second amendment I’ll believe this is about “safety” and not disarming anyone and everyone by any means necessary.
Could a woke neighbor get a restraining order? Could a tranny child get a restraining order? How about a woke co-worker?
One has nothing to do with the other unless convicted in a court of law-—But then again, I have little trust in our criminal “justice” system.
Let’s answer it this way-—Change the headline and see how that would fly:
“SCOTUS Votes 8-1 to Uphold abortion Ban for Subjects of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders”
Shall not be infringed means that-—”shall not be questioned”!
The decision limited itself to the particulars of this case. Rahimi is a bad guy with more than just a rote restraining order against him. The Supremes chose the Rahimi case to side with Schumer on a case which doesn’t matter.
The law which should only be applied to the feds, not the states, violates the Second Amendment, which is probably the basis for Justice Thomas’ dissent.
The most accurate way to read and apply the Constitution is as written and originally understood and intended. Looks like Justice Thomas is the only Justice who consistently does that. God bless him.
6/21/2024, 3:50:58 PM · by Carriage Hill · 25 replies
Fox News ^ | 6.21.20214 | Brianna Herlihy, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245803/posts
It’s fine, but also make strong penalties for making frivolous requests for restraining orders.
More here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245803/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4245781/posts
🤔😊👍
Ironically, same-sex couples are more likely to commit/experience domestic violence
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.