Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
A restraining order does not, and should not, typically require any particular level of proof of criminal conduct (or even allegation of criminal conduct) because it should not interfere with any particular rights of the recipient.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I would wear one by my side.
And if "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers.

As it stands now in California, without this amendment, there is no particular right that the amendment interferes with, because according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest authority in California short of the US Supreme Court, "...the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own or possess firearms..." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 2002)

Passing this amendment, causing a restraining order lacking a basis in proven violent conduct to interfere with a particular fundamental and inalienable right of the recipient under State law as well as Federal, but on different terms, will throw a wrench into the works and force a careful reexamination of the manner in which restraining orders operate.

15 posted on 02/16/2003 10:21:02 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: mvpel
"...no particular right that a restraining order interferes with," that should read.
16 posted on 02/16/2003 10:21:46 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson