[supercat]

Or rather that it constitutes a "reasonable" infringement, just as being sent to prison for say robbery does not consitute a violation of the right to liberty.

That's covered by the Thirteenth Amendment, if you read it closely. Note that the same rationale allows for disarming convicted criminals. Emerson, however, was never convicted of anything. On what basis, then, should he not have the rights of a free person?

[El Gato]

Emerson, however, was never convicted of anything. On what basis, then, should he not have the rights of a free person?

I was only explaining, not agreeing. When I post from work I have to keep the size down and much ranting got deleted from that post in order to get it through. In general I aggree, the standard in a restraining order case is much too low for denial of a fundamental right. Of course the divorce court never applied that restraint, only the federal law does that. Perhaps the 5th circuit found itself bound by precident on this issue, and was setting up an appeal to the Supreme Court so that it could take another look at that precident? Haven't read the whole thing even yet, so that's only a WAG.

[FreeTally]

It would appear now that a court will have to rule that the standard of proof for restraining orders is not high enough to suspend someone's 2nd amendment right. You are correct; it is absurd. There is no standard of proof in most states. I cant see how any logical person can claim this is due process.

Any idea of how a case could reach a Federal court where this decision could be rendered? I guess someone would just have to plain challenge the law after being charged?