Jump to content

Temporary restraining orders?


bmurph44

Recommended Posts

Opinions.......Who would or would not be in favor of temporary restraining orders that allow judges to permit confiscation of guns from people shown to constitute a threat to themselves or others.

 

Such laws are already on the books in California, Connecticut, Washington State, and Oregon and could be enacted in several more states. David French, a National Review writer, suggested in a column Friday that Republicans should embrace such orders as a means to limit gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if there is due process. They can't be just taken away by someone's accusation. Denial of ANY civil right is on the government to PROVE in a court.

 

This was the argument against people who were on the "do not fly" list being denied the right to buy a gun. There was NO proof given and the accused had no recourse to fight for their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRO in Illinois can be obtained ex parte (without notice) solely on "one sides)

" factual presentation. Usually lasts 10 days, at which time a hearing is set for argument on a preliminary injunction. Proponent is then required to show a likelihood of success at a full hearing to get a preliminary injunction. There are other substantive and procedural rules but that is the general landscape. By statute there are other flavors such as emergency orders of protection that would probably more closely resemble what is contemplated here. But, is has long been established that even the one sided ex parte orders which afford a party an opportunity to challenge them after issuance comply with required matters of due process.

 

So, it is likely that a scheme discussed here would not always require an opportunity to be heard prior to issuance, only an early opportunity to challenge an obtain a reversal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fundamental tenets of freedom is "due process".

Over the years i have seen "due process" eroded to the point it is questionable if we can claim to be a free people.

The accused is treated no better then the convicted.

Freedom keeps us safe from all.

"Due process" keeps us safe from tyranny.

Too many today have bought the Marxist excrement about "the greater good for the greater number". This justifies them destroying "due process". Marxist get people to ignore that the "greater number" is made up of individuals. Without individual rights-"due process"-"the greater number" is screwed by the power controling minority.

To question, to accuse, to incarcerate the gov must show just cause while not violating the individuals rights. To ignore "due process" endangers all.

"Due process" is not quick and easy nor should it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if there is due process. They can't be just taken away by someone's accusation. Denial of ANY civil right is on the government to PROVE in a court.

 

This was the argument against people who were on the "do not fly" list being denied the right to buy a gun. There was NO proof given and the accused had no recourse to fight for their rights.

+ 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions.......Who would or would not be in favor of temporary restraining orders that allow judges to permit confiscation of guns from people shown to constitute a threat to themselves or others.

 

Such laws are already on the books in California, Connecticut, Washington State, and Oregon and could be enacted in several more states. David French, a National Review writer, suggested in a column Friday that Republicans should embrace such orders as a means to limit gun violence.

 

 

Terrible idea. The bar is very low for a temp restraining order, and you don't even get a chance to defend yourself. These are often granted based on the word of one person with no substantiation, and no right for the accused to defend themselves before issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with his suggestion is that the GVROs proposed by the anti gun crowd don't fit the parameters he lays out:

 

1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);

 

2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;

 

3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;

 

4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly preferably within 72 hours; and

 

5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

In Illinois, for example, it's been proposed that we expand our existing, very comprehensive system of restraining orders with laws that:

 

1. Allow law enforcement and the courts to file on behalf of another, even against their wishes.

 

2. Allow evidence as flimsy as the recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition.

 

3. No allowance is granted to contest as no notice is given of the proceedings.

 

4. Hearings are not guaranteed within anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.

 

5. Orders do not lapse automatically. Restoration of rights must be sought by the respondent even when there is no actual threat.

 

Again, these are proposed additions to our already robust law on restraining orders. Other states have similar. It's what comes when laws are written only from an anti gun perspective.

 

In the article, the author states that the FBI admitted its error - that it was given the kind of information that would lead to a GVRO. Rather that giving the FBI a pass on that, I'd prefer they enforce the law they could have enforce instead of creating new law that might, or might not be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What constitutes due process?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly the right question to ask. And the answer to that differs depending on which side you ask.

 

To the anti gunners just the simple act of a judge signing off on the prohibition of your Constitutional rights is enough to satisfy that demand. Never mind if there's any actual evidence or the fact that in America you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty before you lose a right.

 

Anything having to do with firearms = By any means necessary to them. The Constitution and your rights be darned. They put the Monger in fear mongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What constitutes due process?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simply put, "due process" is a person's entitlement to his/her "day in court." At a high level, the prosecutor presents his/her story and the accused presents his/her story. Then the judge decides the outcome.

 

Here's one reference to "due process" in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got lots to say about restraining orders, and the current state of affairs. I won't say it all, but I'll just say how I think it ought to be.

 

EOOPs are worthless. It is a legal concept that should not exist. If there is sufficient evidence to issue an order, then there should also be sufficient evidence to hold the accused without bond until an accuser can stand before a judge and give a sworn statement, AND evidence can be presented to the court. If the arrest is legit, then the accused will remain held without bond until regular court proceedings can take place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some recent thoughts I sent to elected officials concerning proposed Illinois legislation - HB2354 Lethal Order of Protection - seems to come close to or may actually violate our 1st amendment - free speech, 4th - unreasonable searches and seizures, 5th - due process and 6th - confront the accuser (and the 2nd amendment, obviously) at least under the "emergency" portion of the legislation. Illinois currently also has some of strictest mental health screening in the nation in order to obtain FOID/CCL. The National Review can write what they choose...I would not be in support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I speak as someone with first hand knowledge, this is not a good idea at all. I was arrested without previous due process on a restraining order (it was thrown out by the prosecutor, but arrested just the same).

 

My crime, I was in the middle of a divorce and upon request of my ex I brought her some money to help with the kids. As I found out in Illinois when you file for a divorce a restraining order is automatically in place.

 

What you are proposing I could have lost all my guns. Thankfully I was met with a prosecutor who wasnt willing to play her lawyers game, and a police officer who wasnt either.

 

Thankfully it was removed from my record by the judge and the prosecutor as it was a game her lawyer played. Otherwise I would have lost all my rights for simply doing the right thing.

 

How many gun owners would have to stay married just to keep their rights to own firearms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions.......Who would or would not be in favor of temporary restraining orders that allow judges to permit confiscation of guns from people shown to constitute a threat to themselves or others.

 

Such laws are already on the books in California, Connecticut, Washington State, and Oregon and could be enacted in several more states. David French, a National Review writer, suggested in a column Friday that Republicans should embrace such orders as a means to limit gun violence.

What constitutes a danger to themselves and others? It's a clever way for antis to disarm as many people as possible with hearsay and has nothing to do with safety. For antis anyone who has a gun is a danger to themselves and others and should be disarmed. This is a slippery slope and a trap by Bloomberg and the people behind the conspiracy to disarm us and we should not fall for it no matter what the safety promised. Who is next to say you're a threat to yourself and others and your right should be taken away, your ex, your neighbor, your employer, the police or anyone who doesn't like your beliefs or politics? That's what police states do and there's where we're slowly headed. Thomas Jefferson said anyone who is willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...