The standards of evidence required in a restraining-order hearing are below those required in a civil-damages case, and far below those required in a criminal case. Indeed, this low standard would not be a bad thing if the restraining order simply meant that the recipient had to stay away from someplace he had no particular right to be anyway (e.g. in cases where the person seeking the order was the sole tenant or owner of her dwelling). Since an order in such case would not infringe upon the recipient's liberties, there would be no due-process requirement before imposing it.
The Court here has acknowledged that enforcement of the Lautenberg Act would indeed infringe upon the civil liberties of those served with restraining orders. What I find untenable is the notion that the process for getting a restraining order, the standards for which were set low because no civil liberties were involved, constitutes sufficient due-process to justify indefinite abridgement of someone's civil liberties. That is just plain absurd.
I can't understand why some people like this ruling. To me, it says "the Second Amendment protects the right of the people--ordinary citizens--to keep and bear arms, without restriction, except when the government deems that they shouldn't". I can't see how that's a good thing.
The lesson here is don't tick off your wife or signifigent other, or come to that your kids. They'll file for a "domestic violence" restraining order, and you'll lose your RKBA, although if you dispute the order you will have a stronger legal ground to stand on than if you don't.
First of all, it's not uncommon for someone who is an agressor to seek a completely-unjustified restraining order as a means of attacking the other person. Consider as well that a man who wishes to attack a woman but is afraid she might be armed can now file a restraining order against her so she'll be disarmed when he attacks. Even if the man wouldn't otherwise think to try this, it's SOP in many cases for restraining orders to almost automatically be made mutual. So a woman who files a restraining order against a man is apt not only to make him mad, but to leave herself defenseless when he seeks revenge.
Also, how long do you think it will be before groups start offering 'incentives' to encourage [supposedly] 'victimized' women to come forward against evil gun-loving former acquaintances?
I can't understand why some people like this ruling. To me, it says "the Second Amendment protects the right of the people--ordinary citizens--to keep and bear arms, without restriction, except when the government deems that they shouldn't".I can't see how that's a good thing.Bingo!