Gun Violence Restraining Orders: The Beginning of the End? Question of the Day

Spree killer Elliot Rodger

Nobody wants a crazy f*ck to have a gun. Or a knife. Actually, knives are OK. So are cans of gasoline and chains and matches. Focus here! Guns are bad! Take away the guns! That’s how the anti-gun rights states roll these days . . .

They’re enacting so-called gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).

GVRO’s are dumb. Why wouldn’t you take a crazy f*ck into protective custody and get them help? Removing a crazy f*ck’s guns to make them safe is like taking whipped cream off a piece of Cheesecake factory cheesecake to make it non-fattening.

But the really scary bit — which we’ve been flagging since California responded to a triple knife murder (along with two firearms-related homicides) by creating GVROs — is the stunning lack of due process afforded gun owners subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

Surprise! You’re a crazy f*ck and we’re here to take away your guns. And ammo. And papers and computers. Don’t blame us Sir. It was your soon-to-be-ex-wife who tipped us off. You want them back when? Hire a lawyer. See ya in court!

I played the ex-wife card for a reason. Take it from a two-time loser, ex-wives go a little crazy when they fall off the gravy train. Without due process a gun owner with a pissed-off husband or wife is smack dab in the middle of the state’s firearms-confiscating crosshairs, and not because he or she’s a crazy f*ck.

It’s getting worse. Not only are more states hopping-on to the GVRO bandwagon, not only is the President of the United States up for it (for at least 10 minutes), lawmakers are expanding the category of people who can trigger a GVRO (so to speak). Check this from

Amidst a crowd of students and advocates rallying for stronger gun regulations, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed Monday the first piece of legislation addressing the issue since the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last month.

The law expands the prohibition of gun ownership to people convicted of domestic violence against non-married intimate partners — closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” . . .

“Closing the ‘intimate partner’ is an important step to keep Oregonians safer from gun violence,” Brown said. “I’m hopeful that the tide is turning on our nation’s gun debate.”

So, in Oregon, anyone you date, for however short of long a time, regardless of whether you made the beast with two backs or not, can tell a judge you’re a crazy f*ck with guns, who can direct the cops to take them all away (and your papers and computer) without prior notice.

Did I wake up in Communist Russia this morning? No, Texas, thank God. Anyway, is this the gun confiscation camel’s nose lovers of firearms freedom have been warning us about for decades? Is this the beginning of the end? 


  1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    “It’s for the children”, so it must be okay?

  2. avatar Mr. savage says:

    till you knock on that door and they become that crazy f*ck, knock on my door and tell me you are here for my guns, find out just how right I am.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Yeah the whole thing smells of catch 22. Love that book, hate the fact that reading it makes it easier to see how crazy we are as people.

  3. avatar Bloving says:

    So what sort of amendment will be added to protect against false reports? Will false reporters be charged with a crime? Will they have to serve hard time for conspiring to take away a citizen’s civil rights without just cause?

    …. yeah, I didn’t think so.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      They won’t.

      It will fall under the “if it saves just one life…it is worth a small inconvenience”.

      Or at least that is how it will be portrayed. Not acknowledging that it is violating a persons rights, and will cost a ‘more than inconvenient’ amount of time and hard money to get those items back (assuming you don’t stand in front of a activist judge who just thumbs his nose at you, you evil “murderer in waiting”).

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Of course not. That would be sexist!

    3. avatar bobo says:

      A nice few million dollar civil suits will change that I am sure

      be very sure they are nuts====or loose your whole life and livelihood in court!

  4. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    Ex parte proceedings (one sided) generally suck. The potential for their abuse is too great.

  5. avatar Huntmaster says:

    Given the judgement and discretion a lot of men use when choosing who to hook up with, maybe they shouldn’t be trusted with guns.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      A popular song by Buckcherry comes to mind…

    2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        Hilarious and so true!!!

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Why is Georgia Concealed Carry involved in the video? It’s just a joke, but it is polarizing, off topic, and not “big tent.”

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    They just assume that the person with the gun is the crazy one. That no person ever levying the accusation could ever be crazy. I know I sure as hell have never had a crazy ex or crazy neighbor or rando stalker or vindictive family member. Nope. Never.*

    *Had all of those and then some.

  7. avatar ironicatbest says:

    My wife went off on me. She’s a hydro addict, slapped herself, tore her shirt, 9-1-1 call, cops show up haul me off to jail. DV charge, misdeamnor, no guns for life, . Luckily she didn’t show up for court, probably hydro codeine induced comma and the case was dissmissed. Still it cost me 3 days n jail and lawyer money. Xwife now, .. My new girlfiend is a goat, it can’t dial a phone but occasionally it does say Naa. Like am I hurting you baby? ” Naaaa”

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      *snicker* At least you can find humor in the current situation.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      And people wonder why MGTOW is a thing? That’s story is enough to turn you into a monk.

  8. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    The idea that the police could have visited the Parkland murderer’s residence 39 times and not have been able to arrest him with the laws already in place is ludicrous. Anti-gun progressives are okay with “zero tolerance” enforcements against kids that eat a pop tart in the shape of a gun Idaho but are defending the BCSO for not acting when Cruz was caught with live ammunition and knives at school. This whole narrative of “we need more lawz” (sic) because he didn’t do anything wrong before the shooting is bullshit on every level. This narrative is designed to hide the incompetence of standard progressive encouraged policing practices by the Sheriff’s Office and failed progressive “look the other way” disciplinary directives by the School Board.

    1. avatar DesertDave says:

      With that moron Sheriff spouting anti 2A all over the airwaves and the Bumbling FBI blowing it so glaringly, it makes one wonder if the libritards weren’t willing to sacrifice some children to push their anti 2A agenda. I would not put it past them.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        And Vegas too

  9. avatar Gman says:

    The beginning of the end is reserved for the poor sonofabitch who is tasked with getting those guns.

    And exactly how does anyone official know what guns you own or not?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “And exactly how does anyone official know what guns you own or not?”

      That’s what “Universal Background Checks” are for. Universal gun registration.

      I’ve said it before – The end game is that if you ever get into a heated argument with someone, that will be grounds to put you on the prohibited list.

      After all, if you can’t control your temper, you’re much to dangerous to entrust with owning lethal weapons.

      Yet another step on the road to inevitable Civil War part two, unless we dissolve this toxic marriage…

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        And if they get UBC the next requirement will be listing what you have already because there will be limits and rules on owning retaining things. Lie or omit anything and you catch a felony perjury charge.
        The end game is legislating guns out of law abiding hands even if that means incriminating everyone.

        1. avatar Red in CO says:

          And let’s not forget ammo regs! Remember how the anyis creamed their pants when CA passed its most recent slew of law? You can’t even buy ammo in a caliber you don’t own (or “don’t own”) anymore

  10. avatar Gman says:

    Don’t these people remember the last time the Government came looking for guns?

    72 Killed, 200 Injured In Boston In Attempt To Confiscate Banned Assault Weapons

    National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
    Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
    Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
    One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.” Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
    Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.
    Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
    Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

    American Revolution
    April 20, 1775
    Let us not forget

    1. avatar jaytrain says:

      Well done Sir Well done indeed

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      Gman, I had better see that cut, pasted and posted on the comments of every pro-gun-owner-control hit piece on every news site.

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Nobody wants a crazy f*ck to have a gun. Or a knife. ”



    1. avatar Bloving says:


      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        The SWAT team is probably going through their pre-op right now.

      2. avatar Ing says:


        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          NO IT’S NOT!

          OH CRAP….

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          1) emotional stability is not a pre-requisite for gun ownership. “Emotion” is not even found on the form 4473.

          2) ALL CAPS IS A SIGN THAT SAYS ‘LOOK HERE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION’ TO YOUR BRAIN. Warning labels do it, marketing ads do it, it’s a convention that’s used all over bc it works. Part of your brain is grateful for what it considers ‘help’ at sifting out the important information, and that part of your brain becomes more favorable to what is written in all caps.

          3) yes it is ‘catching’, obviously. AND I WISH YOU WOULD QUIT COPYING ME.

  12. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Doesn’t TX have a GVRO law on the books?

    1. avatar Brian says:


  13. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Those danged NRA people and their muzzle loader assault weapons. These ML’s are just designed to kill . Outlaw the wooden stocks that can be used to assault someone ! Outlaw the lead ammo that they use and save the planet ! Do something !

  14. avatar Texan Trapped in (USSR?) FL says:

    Nope…it’s the beginning of the beginning

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Not to be “one-upping”, but….

    76 dead in Waco for committing no crime. Any guess as to what happened next?

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      They could have gotten Koresh in s grocery store, but NO. I like how to save the children they burned them up, our tax dollars at work

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        And the revolution that followed Waco ended when?

        1. avatar DrDKW says:

          The following year, in Oklahoma City.


        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The following year, in Oklahoma City.”

          Then the revolution failed, and like all losing revolutionists we are getting what we deserve?

          You could be right, but what does that say about POTG?

  16. avatar Felix says:

    Every leads to reaction; every action tends toward excess, and that causes backlash. Here, these will eventually be expanded into such common things that there will be restraining orders against Tommy’s parents for letting him think that chewing a pop-tart into a gun shape is acceptable behavior. And the backlash will undo that and more.

    But it will take 20 years.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…I have only one crazy ex-wife. Thank GOD there were no kids. Women do lie…I’m damn lucky I have all my rights intact. Does your ex read your blog RF?!?

  18. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    The wacko left would like to see a violent revolution to overthrow the government. BHO was a promoter for revolution until he was counseled to try their plan to overthrow from within and he made great strides that direction. What we see is just a continuation of their overthrow plans.

    The definition of progressive is to chip away at the constitution a little at a time and eventually they will get to their goal, a “socialist” (marxist) paradise with them in charge.

    I am sorry to say that demographics are in their favor. Look at all the snowflakes emerging from the various schools around the country, and they will all be able to vote in just a few years.

    Be Prepared !

  19. avatar TFred says:

    Someone too dangerous to be walking around with a gun is ALSO too dangerous to be walking around WITHOUT a gun!

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Exactly. But actually locking truly dangerous people away would cost way too much money, even if it’s “for the children”.

  20. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    So, we need to give more latitude to the mental health, education, and public safety mechanisms that let whack job-guy at large after 20-50 contacts, let him into a school, and failed to do anything once he started shooting.

    But, they’re arresting a father who hands a card that says “gun” to a teacher.

  21. avatar strych9 says:

    As much as it sucks GVRO’s probably won’t stand up to court scrutiny.

    Yeah, that sucks. It’s gonna take time and money to get them struck down and people are going to suffer under them while they exist but over time they will probably go the way of the dinosaur because legally they’re fairly hard to defend.

    So no, they are not the beginning of the end. The truth is that the 2A “fight” is one that will never end. There will always be pro-gun and anti-gun people out there and there will always be tension between them. The pendulum will swing one way and then another, never resting, never stopping.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… legally they’re fairly hard to defend.”

      I emphatically disagree. Any woman can say that their husband/boyfriend beat them and immediately get a restraining order with the “no firearms allowed” option. This happens without any knowledge, input, statement, nor legal representation of the husband/boyfriend.

      I see no substantive difference between a classic restraining order with the “no firearms allowed” option and a “gun violence restraining order”.

      And courts will up hold this abomination as “due process” because a duly elected legislature passed the law and a judge issued the order based on what they will say equates to “probable cause”. Remember, a cop can arrest you and confiscate your property based on nothing more than probable cause without an arrest warrant and without a court order. If that is permissible, surely a court order based on the equivalent of “probable cause” is permissible.

      1. avatar Ken Bach says:

        Keep in mind that the reason Emerson never turned out to be the landmark case that Heller eventually became, was that we lost on due process at the court of appeals level. That ruling upheld summary process for restraining orders. GVROs are worse, but similar enough that it’s not safe to assume the courts will dispose of them.

  22. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Because the person on the receiving end will be presumed to be insane, but the accuser walks away w/o any type of scrutiny. This will be abused to no end as a revenge technique.

  23. avatar Chris Hammers says:

    Where does the quote say anything about GVRO? It says that if you are convicted of beating your partner, it’s considered domestic violence….seriously what am I missing?

  24. avatar rt66paul says:

    Sounds like reason enough for a no knock entry warrant…..

  25. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Nobody wants a crazy f*ck to have a gun. Or a knife. Actually, knives are OK. So are cans of gasoline and chains and matches.
    Geee….what about big trucks?

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Totally cool.

  26. avatar Troubled Soul says:

    Washington state just pasted a red flag law.
    And the Seattle police just confiscated some guys guns in Belltown.
    From what I have read, the guy broke no laws, but was open carrying (lawful in WA).
    His neighbors called the police because they felt unsafe.
    AND he stared at them through the windows.
    There maybe more to this story, but that is what I have seen reported.
    The police got to decide to remove his guns, based on a complaint by the neighbors.
    No judge, nothing. Just took his guns.
    Now the neighbors still have a crazy man (supposedly) and nothing was done to help or stop him from harming someone.
    So what did they accomplish?
    They got to take away some guns. (which was the only agenda)

  27. avatar J says:

    The petition web site has a lot of pro-2nd Amendment petitions that need people to view and sign if possible. Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Look at these and decide which to sign. There are too many to link here.

    A lot of anti-2nd Amendment petitions are post there also.

  28. avatar Marcus says:

    Well there is a good chance this will one day be abused and challenged in court ending such orders or at least increasing the threshold of “crazy” and hard punitive punishment for false reports. Better it be at a sacrificial test state then mine!

  29. avatar Gunr says:

    I live in Oregon, and it’s a sad day indeed.
    I guess I wont be able to beat my wife anymore.

  30. avatar davzway says:

    One of the scariest or saddest parts in this nonsense is Legislators in State and US Congress are educated people who should know that you CANNOT pass a Law that will prevent a Felon/Criminal from breaking the law and/or doing a violent act (they ARE criminals who don’t care a whit about the law- why they are called criminals. Also, same Legislators are smart enough to KNOW that NO LAW will prevent a crazy person from committing an insane act like mass murder at a school or anywhere else. These are POLITICIANS who are looking to get a ‘Sound Bite’ on TV or news media that proclaims “look at me, I’m concerned and doing something to protect you; don’t forget to vote for me by the way in next election.

    So you must ask the question: WHY? Blaming a knife or a gun or any inanimate object for a crime is ludicrous; absurd on so many levels that it is patently indefensible in any Legal Court. When the day comes that ANYONE can accuse someone else that they ‘might’ commit violence with “oh horrors, this man owns guns and LOTS of ammo AND leads to that persons arrest along with confiscation of his property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (i.e being accused, arrested by Law Enforcement officers after they investigate and find probable cause, which results in a JURY TRIAL in Legal Court of Law WITH CONVICTION OF A CRIMINAL ACT), then this country is no longer America, Land of the Free with a Constitution and Bill of Rights protecting it’s citizens.


Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email