Jump to content


Photo

Temporary restraining orders?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 bmurph44

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 17

Posted 18 February 2018 - 12:22 PM

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.



#2 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,213 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 18 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

Depends on who is signing off and whether or not the accused has a chance to speak on his/her own behalf.

Personally I hate all forms of gun control.

#3 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,963 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 18 February 2018 - 12:44 PM

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.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

NRA Life Member
ISRA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)


#4 RacerDave6

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,388 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 07

Posted 18 February 2018 - 12:49 PM

Would this stop what happened last week?
Who would make the determination that the accused is a threat?
Is there due process?
BTW, Illinois already revokes the FOID of someone with an Order of Protection against them, and it takes months and mucho $$ to get the FOID reinstated.
Firearms are not a talisman against evil. When used properly, they are an antidote to evil. T.Dunn

"Shoot the bad guy and keep shooting him until he stops doing whatever it
was that got him shot in the first place."


Match Director-IDPA at ASC
United States Riflemans Asscn instructor
NRA Certified instructor
NRA & ISRA member
Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry License instructor

#5 luckydawg13

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,990 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 18 February 2018 - 12:49 PM

Lot to think about Like my psycho ex girlfriend or wife makes out a report Next thing I know there's a knock on the door and there collecting my firearms

Kid's that Hunt and Fish don't Mug old Ladies 


#6 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,236 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 18 February 2018 - 01:51 PM

Bottom line, if someone is too dangerous to have a gun they should not be roaming the streets. There's nothing these laws accomplish because someone motivated will hide guns or use other means.

If the threat is credible and there's evidence put the person in a place they can't cause harm.

Edited by chicagoresident, 18 February 2018 - 01:52 PM.


#7 hgmeyer

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,025 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 13

Posted 18 February 2018 - 02:57 PM

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.

I've matured enough to where I am like a rodeo bull... If you can hang in there for eight seconds you just might win... But, those eight seconds are gonna be the toughest of your life.

 

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."     Jeff Cooper


#8 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 18 February 2018 - 03:51 PM

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.

Edited by Smallbore, 18 February 2018 - 03:55 PM.


#9 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,240 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 18 February 2018 - 04:36 PM

The problem is not them being used as they are "meant to be" but as a vindictive weapon of an spurned person, ex spouse or someone with a grudge. They are already over used and abused in divorce cases etc. Just another way for the powers that wanna be to control those who won't bow to their superiority.



#10 mic6010

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 14

Posted 18 February 2018 - 05:13 PM

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


"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night."  - John Hendricks.


#11 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,854 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 18 February 2018 - 05:34 PM

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. 


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#12 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 18 February 2018 - 05:35 PM

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 ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#13 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,588 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 18 February 2018 - 07:39 PM

What constitutes due process?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#14 mic6010

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 14

Posted 18 February 2018 - 08:06 PM

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.


Edited by mic6010, 18 February 2018 - 08:12 PM.

"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night."  - John Hendricks.


#15 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:19 PM

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.


Edited by OldMarineVet, 19 February 2018 - 12:27 PM.


#16 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,588 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:19 PM

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

#17 civilone

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 37 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 16

Posted 19 February 2018 - 04:17 PM

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.



#18 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:41 PM

 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?


Edited by cope, 19 February 2018 - 09:42 PM.


#19 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,007 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:20 AM

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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#20 biggun 1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:44 AM

as i said on the other thread on this matter,just about every guy who files for divorce will loose his 2a rights and will need to go through heck to get them back,this equils being charged without ever breaking the law or doing anything wrong.it is another ploy to disarm us for no reason.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users