[Ancesthntr]

While some attorneys intentionally may seek to trigger the Brady Act...

No kidding! Of course it is used intentionally. Mary and John Smith are having a really bad divorce, though no violence or threats have ever been made either way. John owns some guns, and Mary knows that he values them and his 2nd Amendment rights. Now suppose that John and Mary have a big disagreement on some piece of property, or on the terms of the custody agreement. Tell me - what lawyer wouldn't use Brady against John? Not one.

The solution, at least until the Lautenberg amendment gets repealed (if ever), is to move to the jurisdiction of the 5th US Circuit Court. The Emerson decision offers protection against this nonsense.

[middie]

Judges in Florida frequently require participants in adversarial dissolutions of marriage (divorce in most states) to divest themselves of all firearms. When individuals are involved in emotional situations like these it often makes very good sense to remove the temptation to give in to a very bad--albeit transitory--impulse. One of my parnters does domestic cases and is very happy when the judge orders the parties to surrender their guns until the stressful period subsides and they are not tempted to cause harm to an adversarial spouse or the lawyer(s).