West Posted June 21, 2024 Report Posted June 21, 2024 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-federal-gun-ban-those-under-domestic-violence-restraining-orders Turns out you cannot own a firearm in the US if there's grounds to believe you committed Domestic Violance related offense. Lets see how the left weaponizes this ruling though Quote
robosmith Posted June 21, 2024 Report Posted June 21, 2024 44 minutes ago, West said: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-federal-gun-ban-those-under-domestic-violence-restraining-orders Turns out you cannot own a firearm in the US if there's grounds to believe you committed Domestic Violance related offense. Lets see how the left weaponizes this ruling though Not JUST GROUNDS, a RESTRAINING ORDER IN PLACE. Duh Being wrong is what comes from believing FOS LIES. LMAO Quote
West Posted June 21, 2024 Author Report Posted June 21, 2024 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: Not JUST GROUNDS, a RESTRAINING ORDER IN PLACE. Duh Being wrong is what comes from believing FOS LIES. LMAO So you were wrong about the Supreme Court. Care to admit that you are clueless? 1 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted June 21, 2024 Report Posted June 21, 2024 2 hours ago, West said: So you were wrong about the Supreme Court. Care to admit that you are clueless? No. He won't do that. Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights. However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights. That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
West Posted June 21, 2024 Author Report Posted June 21, 2024 3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: No. He won't do that. Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights. However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights. That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court. This is true. I fear this ruling will lead to many untrue claims just to jam up the system. Though in theory I dont disagree with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people Quote
Rebound Posted June 21, 2024 Report Posted June 21, 2024 7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: No. He won't do that. Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights. However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights. That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court. You do have the right to a hearing in a restraining order case.it is not a jury trial, but the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the order is justified, and the defendant can rebut the evidence. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.”
gatomontes99 Posted June 21, 2024 Report Posted June 21, 2024 6 minutes ago, Rebound said: You do have the right to a hearing in a restraining order case.it is not a jury trial, but the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the order is justified, and the defendant can rebut the evidence. That is not always true: https://legal-info.lawyers.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/restraining-orders.html "In federal courts, the object of the order (the person subject to the order) is not necessarily entitled to notice of the application; in state courts, notice is typically required, though the time period may be quite short and might not apply in a domestic violence situation." Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.