Replies

Of course prohibiting a person from owning the tools of his crime trade is reasonable. I really don't know anything about the case of the husband under a restraining order, but if he did not brandish the weapon, or visit his wife with one tucked in his pants, he should not be prohibited from possession. The law disagrees with me, so I am wrong in this I fear.

I've done a bit of research since I read your post. About the most I can find in the court records is an assertation by Mrs. Emerson that Mr. Emerson threatened her boyfriend. I do seem to remember that there may have been a scene in his office involving a firearm but I cannot find reference in the court procedings to that.

But that is generally beside that point to our discussion here which revolves around two points. Do "reasonable" restrictions exist and was the restraining order issued by the court and it's implied restrictions on Mr. Emerson's firearms possession reasonable. The court did find that the 2nd, like any other right, can be subject to "reasonable" restrictions which answers the first question. The court also found that this restriction was unreasonable since there was no reasonable basis to think that Mr. Emerson's possession of a firearm constituted a real threat to Mrs. Emerson, at least none sufficient to deny Mr. Emerson his RKBA.