Reporter Michael Luo, of The New York Times reports that In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection. He sets things up by presenting a sympathetic victim and her horrifying story:
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
… In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.” …
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. [Corey] Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home … What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.
Now before jumping on the “OMG they should have taken his guns!” bandwagon, let’s do something that the antis hate; let’s stop and think for a moment. Here we have a man who violated his restraining order by coming to his ex’s house, planning to murder her in front of their children. And yet does Luo seriously expect us to believe that if only the judge had ordered Corey to turn in his guns, none of this would have happened?
Yep, that is precisely what he wants us to believe:
For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms.
Indeed this episode might have been prevented if only Stephanie had gotten herself a gun. I don’t normally make a habit of blaming the victim, but if she truly believed (as she stated in her affidavit) that her husband posed a deadly threat, where the heck was her gun?
According to the story she managed to dial 9-1-1 on her cellphone during this ambush, so I find it hard to believe she wouldn’t have had a chance to end the threat to herself and her family if only she had taken responsibility for their safety instead of relying on the overworked and undermanned police department.
So whose fault is it that Corey had a gun? You guessed it…the NRA’s:
But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders.
I’ll set aside the question of how many of those supposed DV advocates agitating for more gun control are actually antis dancing in the blood of different victims and point out that temporary restraining orderss (like the one issued to Stephanie in this case) are often granted without informing the person against whom the order is granted or allowing them the chance to rebut the allegations.
They’re frequently an emergency measure to be used until the court can hear from both sides. The idea that the courts should be able to strip people of their rights on a mere allegation of wrongdoing would be greeted with howls of protests for anything but Second Amendment rights.
But Luo explains why it’s really important to strip people of their rights at the slightest accusation:
Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
Well, yeah, the majority of murders (about 2/3) are committed with firearms regardless of whether it is an “intimate partner” a drug dealer or a gang-banger whose hand is holding the gun.
In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Are you saying that only women are subject to domestic violence? How sexist! As for the right to bear arms being required to “give ground” to protect lives? First and foremost, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. Second, even if that were not so, the fact of the matter is that more than twice as many lives are saved in defensive gun uses annually than are lost in criminal gun uses. Third, if Stephanie had been carrying a gun to protect herself and her family, odds are she would not have wound up at the mercy of her ex, cowering, hysterical, on the floor.
But Mikey gives away the real agenda a couple of paragraphs later:
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. …
That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.
Since the Newtown shooting had absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence, it’s obvious that the real agenda here has nothing to do with preventing domestic violence. Instead, the antis are just taking advantage of the latest atrocity in order to push their agenda.
Luo drones on for several pages, but it’s all basically rehashing the same stories in different states. In some of them, intimate partners were killed. In others they were assaulted, but the common thread running throughout is not that someone “had access to a gun”; instead, the common thread is that someone ignored restraining orders, laws, mores and societal conventions and committed murder (or tried to). One more law isn’t going to stop them, nor will closing this loophole or that exemption. The fact of the matter is that bad people sometimes do bad things, and those of us who don’t do bad things shouldn’t be punished for those who did.
“For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms.”
*facepalm*
Yes, because we all know that if you tell someone “No”, they automatically listen due to some ingrained sense of right and wrong. I declare, seriously, liberalism really is a mental deficiency. Only a liberal would believe that bad people obey laws. Yikes.
Obviously if he had his guns taken from him he would never think to grab a knife, a wrench, baseball bat, or just use his fists to beat his wife to death (or threaten it).
Heck, having the cops take all his guns might make him more mad at the situation.
What would have prevented this A-Hole from illegally obtaining a different firearm even if his legal ones were confiscated?? Criminals do not abide by laws and it’s unreasonable to expect them to do so.
Well, had he been forced to relinquish his weapons to the state police, and then of course had he gotten tagged and thus prevented from purchasing any other weapon, then he would have had to steal a firearm, or get one from what would have turned out to be an accomplice in the end.
Inconvenient to the ppl of the gun, perhaps, but it’s kind of hard to argue around the fact that the underlying story shows a real problem. He was identified early enough as someone capable of doing violence for no good reason. He had firearms, and as predicted, he used them. So what do we do with people like that? Waiving the 2nd A around is not persuasive.
And no, Bruce, arming the victim is not always the right choice. It’s not only calloused to put the blame at her (“I don’t normally make a habit of blaming the victim” yet you do); it also squarely conflict with the general thinking that firearm ownership is a choice, and the last thing needed is firearms in the hands of those that don’t want them, don’t train with them, don’t understand them.
“NYT Discovers Bad People Do Bad Things”. Wow, what a revelation!
My GOD! Just how long as this been going on?! Shocked, I am SHOCKED to find that bad people WITH guns do bad things to people who don’t HAVE guns! I know what–let’s just get RID of all of the guns, and then people will just live together in perfect harmony with the rainbow unicorns and gumdrop bunnies in the lollypop forest.
Who’ll join me? C’mon, you KNOW you want to do it.
As long as I can keep my rubber-band repeater and shoot the gumdrop bunnies, I’m with you.
Gun grabbers have this utopian idea that if they just wish hard enough, if they just demonize the 2nd Amendment and the NRA and those rotten redneck gun lovers enough, they can live in a world where there are no guns, ever. And no one has to die from a bullet ever again. No one has to live in fear.
What they fail to realize is this would require disarming our military and police, and removing not only all guns but all machines capable of creating guns and all materials used in their manufacture — many of which have common uses elsewhere. Indeed, they would have to destroy the very idea of firearms in the minds of every living human being. It’s an impossible and, quite frankly, irresponsible dream. They would call us “gun nuts” but the truth is we’re the only rational party left in this “national debate”.
I fear for the future of my country.
What future?
What country?
Advice for spouses who are in fear for their life from their “intimate” others and are not willing or are unable to defend themselves:
DO NOT EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT YOU. THAT IS A DELUSION. PICK UP, GET OUT OF DODGE, AND HIDE.
In short, get off the X.
“In short, get off the X.”
What!? Take personal responsibility!?
Childish, magical thinking is all about blaming everyone else and depending on everyone else!
I’m not defending confiscation, but this is semi-unrealistic. The couple made a bad decision to get married and they do have to live with it, but most often these situations are a result of them having children together. Just getting up and fleeing requires you to leave your children, or to uproot them and take them away, which can be construed as Kidnapping. Even without children, you’re expecting this person to abandon their life, all their family and friends, just because their spouse may be violent? It’s all just pushing guilt on the victim. That’s what we’re trying to stop here.
The failing in the NYT article is the assumption that firearms enable people to do bad things. As if violence and abuse of women suddenly sprung into being when the first firearm was produced. It takes very little to mangle or murder humans. They’re surprisingly fragile if they don’t receive medical attention in a timely fashion. Killers aren’t prone to calling 911.
Generally speaking, an unarmed fight or grapple between a male and female spouse is going to end up with the female getting the crappier end of the deal. The same is true of any weapon (Improvised or otherwise) that requires physical strength to deliver. If the assailant is intent on murder, it’s going to happen.
Both the rational argument, and the gun-grabber’s argument is the same “Let’s attempt to equalize the two parties if a confrontation exists”. NYT is saying “remove his guns”, because they negligently think that removal of the gun somehow makes a 90 lbs woman equal to a 200 lbs man in a confrontation. The rational person realize this is total crap, and the better answer is to train and arm the woman.
This is why civil disarmament is de facto misogyny.
John Rand,
Very good points; I’m going to incorporate these into my discussions with anti-gun people.
The liberal mind’s delusions know no bounds….
Tom
well, more often than not all parties are to blame to some degree. She should have been more prepared (even if the judge had taken the weapons), but the judge should have taken the weapons. Family lawyer in the family, and very rarely are domestic disputes totally one sided.
P.S. why are some of my comments getting eaten on this new platform?
So you’re ok with your property being confiscated with no investigation or due process? An OOP is completely one sided. A lot of times, the target is not even allowed to argue the initial issue until much later. What if the OOP was sworn out falsely?
Maybe, that’s why it’s called OOP!
I keep telling you, “People should NOT think!” This is a dangerous procedure that can only get the average moron in trouble.
… isn’t this the same newspaper that wheeled out gatling guns to mow down protesters outside of its offices?
As Savage says; “liberalism is a mental disorder”. I would also add that “Liberals” hi-jacked the term; they are neither liberal nor particularly constructive thinkers.
The problem in all of this is that there really isn’t any legitimate argument put forth by those who would gut the Second Amendment. And if there isn’t anything in the way of an informed, logical argument, it then holds we have little to work with to counter the argument.
Point being; it does very little good to present history, fact and precedent in a well crafted argument (with the hope of seeing that little cloud-filled epiphany), to an opposing argument, if the debater on the other end is fine with his conjecture, fear and ranting.
This entire fight or at least this particular iteration of the fight, is about nibbling at the edges of the insanity crowd and we will/are winning some over who have not yet slipped into the pit from which there is no return. Characters like Michael Luo are idealists – irrational, fear ridden idealists, but idealists never-the-less and the hardest thing for an idealist to do, is give up on his pre-suppositions on any subject encapsulated within the paradigm that is his irrational, idealistic realm.
Seems like as good a point as any to jump in… yup, the term “liberal” is pretty much irrelevant in any classic sense of the word; it’s been demonized by Fox news and the faux-conservatives as much as the pseudo-left has demonized gun ownership… it’s worth keeping in mind that there are two polarized groups that are given to conjecture, fear and ranting. True story: I recently met my sister’s fiancee… nice guy, but very much a “conservative” who is obsessed with the “liberal agenda.” Foolishly, I was trying to point out that both parties are shills for big-business special intrests who create tempests in teapots (gun control, abortion, gay marrige) in order to distract attention from little things like corporate personhood and campaign finance reform. As an example, I tried to point out that the policies that were spoon-fed to President Reagan by Wall Street destroyed the family farm in the early 80s (an executive order caused the USDA to forclose on all farm loans of under a quarter-million no matter what the repayment record was; it killed tens of thousands of economically sound family farms) and it was Reagan who deregulated the S&Ls, which was such a great idea it made perfect sense for later administrations (both Republicrat and Demican) to deregulate the rest of the financial industry. When I started to say anything critical of St. Ronnie my future brother-in-law – who obviously has drank deep of the Fox Kool-Aide – began twitching and foaming at the mouth and screaming about how much Obamacare is going to cost in 2016. Ah, a pox on both their houses.
But yeah, restraining orders…. first time I filled out an ATF yellow sheet that had been upgraded with the restraining-order question I said, yup, I know some psycho women (including some ex-girlfriends) who would love to add to the “Fatal Attraction” mind games by filing a spurious restraining order that would take their husband’s/ boyfriend’s guns away as punishment…. and I’ve known a few psycho men who, if they went all the way with their “if I can’t have her nobody will” nonsense would not be bothered by the least in a restraining order. Essentially, a woman in fear needs a shotgun a lot more than she needs a court order.
“In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations”
And just exactly how does the NRA do this, all by itself. Oh yeah, they don’t. They alert their membership base to pending BS legislation and they citizens themselves come out to either vote down or lobby thier representatives to vote it down for them. Bottom line, it’s the citizens who refuse to be disarmed. Because no spouse, in a fit of jealous rage, ever filed a false police report in an attempt to get even. Ever.
Which states would’ve take Holton’s guns? Avoiding them sounds like a protip.
And how would they have asked him to surrender his guns in the first place? Probably, via a letter sent to his address with a proposed deadline. “Mr. Holten: Due to a recent court-ordered restraining order taken out against you, you are hereby required to surrender all firearms by [date two weeks from letter date].” It’s never immediate, giving some psycho adequate time put their plan to harm in motion.
Look at the case with Terrell Suggs of the Baltimore Ravens. His girlfriend took out a restraining order against him on November 20, 2012, resulting from an alleged domestic abuse incident that occurred in September. He didn’t surrender his firearms until December 7, 2012 – basically 2 1/2 weeks later.
Hmmm not from Washington, but it looks like they have a 5 day waiting period if you don’t have what they call a Concealed Pistol License. So there is no way that Stephanie Holten could have purchased a gun to protect herself, since she was attacked in 12 hours. Sometimes these stupid laws that block access to firearms cut both ways.
Then she should have started the process prior to obtaining the restraining order. Relying on the police to protect you is both lazy and extremely stupid. Not only are the police not legally obligated to protect individual citizens, they will almost certainly be nowhere to be seen when you actually need them. Police response times average from several minutes to nearly an hour in some places and that time only starts when the crime is reported.
Agreed, but my point is her lack of defense could be blamed on a waiting period.
No waiting period in WA state for a private sale or a loan of a handgun, or the purchase of a Biden-approved high-capacity 12 gauge tactical shotgun.
Banning/confiscating guns because a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of guns are used to commit murder is like banning Muslims from airline travel because a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of Muslims are terrorists. It is bigoted whitewashing of a whole group based on the actions of a tiny few, it assumes guilt before innocence, it is statistically irrational, it is undemocratic, it is unjust, and it goes against the values that America stands for.
Why have liberals so eagerly and wholeheartedly taken up an argument that at its very core relies on vilifying 100 million law abiding American gun owners as future murderers?
Ummmmm. . . Your analogy is suspect. Since about 1972, the only folks hijacking and blowing up aircraft have been Muslims or their allies. Given that, one can infer that the propensity for Muslims and their allies to be terrorists is considerably higher, a LOT higher, than that of any other groups. Mere common sense would dictate, therefore, that banning Muslims from airline travel is a logical, common-sense thing to do. It’s not bigotry, it’s simple statistical probablity–banning them would prevent the vast majority of air terror.
Indeed, ban them, along with small children who won’t shut up and stop kicking the seat in front of them, fat white guys who drink too much, and everyone who tries to bring their entire collection of worldly goods onto the aircraft to stuff into the overhead bin.
And smelly people. And any male in shorts, flip-flops, and a wife-beater.
I’m not just exactly comfortable with your comparison. Given that, since 1972, virtually every catastrophic terrorist airline incident has had Muslims and/or their allied groups involved, the statistics emphatically say that refusing Muslims airline travel is a common-sense airline safety measure, irrefutable in its logic. If the statistics clearly showed that elderly white women with colostomy bags were the prime actors in airline terrorism, the logical thing to do would be to prohibit elderly white women with colostomy bags from flying.
Using statistical certainties to enhance safety is not bigotry; it is mere practicality.
Naturally, other forms of airline terrorism that fall short of bringing down airliners are committed by certain groups, which should also be forbidden to fly:
Small children who won’t shut up and keep kicking the seat in front of them.
Fat white guys who drink too much.
Smelly people.
Any man who wears shorts without underwear, a wife-beater, and flip-flops.
ANYbody in flip-flops.
People who pack all of their worldly goods to bring onto the aircraft and try to shove all of it into the overhead where YOUR stuff should go.
Fat, sweaty people who inhabit the middle seat and slop over the armrests.
See?
They are losing, they are angry, they need a target, and the bigger the better. Hence, the NRA. It’s typical misdirection of course. They are unwilling to accept that WE THE PEOPLE don’t want what they are selling, and further, the democrat legislator “pals” they were counting on used NRA money to get elected.
Saul Alinsky’s rules on progressive activism, all on display in any anti gun shills blogs, notes, wailing, or responses, and I remind them of it daily, they just hate that when their opponent knows their pkaybook as well as they do.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign.
Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The craziest part is that they want to disarm someone based on an EX PARTE protective order.
Ex Parte means you have no notice and no say. Based on one person’s affidavit, which is often a load of crap, the Court enters a protective order saying you have to stay x feet from your soon to be ex-wife. The Court then sets a hearing for you to come in and give your side. After the hearing, the protective order either continues or is terminated.
The Times now wants the Court to curtail a fundamental right and seize personal property based on one person’s side of the story. We have due process in this country. Sometimes that due process gives a bad person enough time to do bad things, but that is the cost of freedom.
This article helps illustrate why gun registration is bad: it’s harder for them to take away what they don’t know you have. It also helps illustrate why I’m making it a point to avoid the northeast for the rest of my life.
Robert, I have a theory that goes like this: someone who has an obsession about his wife cheating on him is a cheat in heart. Someone who has an obsession about people stealing from him is a thief in heart. Applying this theory to anti-gunners what do you think it reveals about their hearts? I’d say they secretly harbor the desire in their hearts to inflict injury with guns.
Before everyone rejects this notion outright consider this: I was part of a group of counter protesters at a pro-safe act rally in Rochester, NY yesterday. There was a very angry, intense man there trying to provoke the anti-safe act group into saying something sensational on camera. Who’d a thunk it? Anyway this is what he was saying: “You probably want to shoot me don’t you? You probably want to shoot Cuomo don’t you?” The guy was a loon but he said those thing with such venom and anger I believe that’s what he wanted to do to us. “That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”
I think there’s a lot to this – and I would go so far as to say that those who abstain from criminal acts only under threat of punishment are the ones who project that attitude on the rest of us. They advocate gun control because they can’t imagine people with guns who aren’t tempted to use them illegally.
And gun grabbers have no problem with an innocent party being deprived of their guns because of a false allegation.
“[T]emporary restraining orderss (like the one issued to Stephanie in this case) are often granted without informing the person against whom the order is granted or allowing them the chance to rebut the allegations”
Got to love America 🙂
This gem stuck out to me.
“He owns guns, I am scared.”
I would be willing to bet money that in the Spokane area more people do than don’t. Seriously, eastern Washington & northern Idaho is as gun country as it gets. The question in reply should have been “and you don’t”?”
When are men ever gonna learn?
“A woman is not property, and husbands who think otherwise are living in a dreamworld.” ~Robert Heinlein (Time Enough for Love, 1973)
I like the Heinlein quotes.
This varies widely by area of the world and sand-cult affiliation.
You racist bastidge! Next, you’ll be saying that nervous young adult male Arabs with shifty eyes, who are sweating profusely, and whose shoes are smouldering shouldn’t be allowed to fly!
The whole domestic violence thing is tragic.
That being said, an unfounded accusation is not sufficient “due process” to relieve someone of their rights. This happened to my brother-in-law who never threatened or did anything threatening to his now ex-wife. She simply did it because she wanted to hurt him any and every way possible.
From a practical sense, disarming people will not stop serious injury or death in a domestic violence situation. If the aggressor is willing to ambush the victim, the victim stands little chance whether the aggressor uses a firearm, knife, club, or especially a car.
Same thing happened to my lady’s brother. His wife served him with a RO, but thankfully they worked things out before anything permanent took place. I wouldn’t say they’re ‘happily’ married (they’re both borderline insane), but they’re making it work.
I can’t fathom this ‘if I don’t acknowledge it, it doesn’t exist’ mentality in regards to the existence of evil. It sucks, and of course I wish everything was great all the time, but it’s impossible. Think about it: if there was no evil, how would there be any good? There would just be varying levels of “Eh, it’s ok”. So because I wish great things for myself, my friends and family, and for that matter most other people, there must be bad days, bad things and bad people sometimes. I choose to protect myself and my loved ones against that element of evil by owning firearms. I hope to God that evil never comes a-knocking, but if it does, I am prepared to defend all that is good. And that’s just the way it is.
Bruce,
Good article. I always appreciate reading your posts.
Years ago, I was married to an emotionally, sexually, and physically abusive man. The one and only time I fought back, as soon as I took one swing, (which didn’t leave a mark) he stopped – and reached over to the phone and immediately CALLED THE POLICE ON ME to file a domestic violence report on me. As he hung up, he snidely told me that now the police would have a record of me hitting him, so next time I hit him, when he killed me, it would be justifiable homicide. I stood there in silent shock and panic as the police officers pulled up and took his calm and measured report, then spoke with me.
I was fortunate in that I think the officers knew what was going on – deep down – and nothing ever came of the matter, in the courts anyway. But what that incident did do was give him free rein from that point on to do as he pleased, because he knew I feared him all the more.
I finally left while pregnant for my first child and never looked back. I got the prerequisite order of protection, etc… I was lucky in that I was able to hide well enough and/or he was too lazy to pursue. Other women are not so lucky. I met several on my road to wellness that had found the order to be useless, and one that was on trial for manslaughter after defending herself from her ex-husband turned stalker.
If you want to protect the women in your life, arm them. Arm them with self-confidence, self-respect, and self-reliance. Arm them with a firm grasp on the realities of life. Arm them with defensive skills in hand-to-hand combat. And arm them with the ability and the skills to use a gun when the situation calls for it.
Excellent advice, but there seem to be an inordinate number of women who absolutely will not consider taking any responsibility for their own safety. I have spoken with many men who are exasperated that their wives want nothing to do with learning to defend themselves in any way.
I’ve seen it too, even among my own friends. Denial is a powerful thing, unfortunately, it renders one pretty much useless. I don’t consider myself a feminist – but I just don’t get the whole “My man will take care of me” crap. I’d love to say I’ve got some answers for why they act that way and how to reach these women, but I don’t. Sheeple come in all sizes, shapes, genders, and colors, sadly.
Whenever I get a chance, I try to get women to go to the NRA’s Refuse To Be A Victim class. It is a class where you can go as a couple. After taking this class, many women seem to want to take the next step. The class is often sponsored by many police organizations as part of their community policing efforts. They go over Home Security,
Personal Security, Automobile Security, Workplace Security, Technological Security.
It is a start, and even if you do not like guns, there are no guns involved in the class but it gets you thinking and the thinking looks to lead you to acting and that means the next step in personal protection.
http://refuse.nra.org/
Restraining orders, education programs don’t always prevent domestic violence deaths
Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Restraining-orders-education-programs-don-t-2278674.php#ixzz2OBn8hut0
Maybe as temporary pre-divorce property settlement, the judge should have ordered half the guns to go to her. Insert Sam Colt here!
In most cases of Divorce and Child Custody, a lot of Lawyers will have the wife file for a restraining / protective order. All it takes is saying “I’m scared”. That’s all the Judge needs, and the order is given. This tactic is used to give the person, usually the wife, the upper hand during the Divorce / Child Custody hearings. In a lot of states once the order is issued, the person owning the firearms, must turn them in. Also it means the husband / father has to move out of the home, but still pay for all the support the wife needs to continue living without any loss. The Voilence against Women Act (VAWA) supports the man lose everything he has and give it to the wife / girlfriend.
OK, on the case law of restraining orders (and expectations of enforcement), I’m going to quote it again:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html
In short, ladies, Uncle Sugar doesn’t care about you. If it’s convenient, he might help out. The hard truth of life is that you’re on your own, and you should worry less about getting someone else’s guns removed and more about acquiring some of your own.
Can we all maybe agree to err on the side of caution and stop making arguments were we freaking defend criminals. The basic facts of the situation here is that a woman made a clear case that she believed her husband might try to kill her with a firearm, and then he actually goes and does just that. We can argue till we’re blue in faces that he the husband was a bad guy who could have used a bat, or brick or whatever, but we can’t argue that the solution to these problems is keeping guns away from bad guys and then turn around and talk about why it’s stupid to take guys away from bad guys! It’s frustrating as hell to hear stupid arguments for gun control from anti’s and then just as stupid arguments from your allies in the fight.
Who argued that the solution to these problems is keeping guns away from bad guys?
Once upon a time when the world was perfect, OOPs were not given out like party favors because they were rarely demanded. Nowadays, lawyers routinely ask for OOPs as a litigation tactic, and judges hand them out like party favors because they need to curry favor and cover their black-robed @sses.
The apparent unfairness of the process doesn’t seem to faze the radical left because its agenda encompasses the emasculation of men. Men can be more of a handful to subdue than women, so beating them down is important to promote the dominance of the state. Still, it’s both genders who are being used. The women just haven’t caught on yet.
Exactly.
Listen, if you have a court ordered restraining order, you are not allowed to own a firearm. Not that I agree with that necessarily, but that is the case.
It seems quite possible that Stephanie was one of those shrinking violets that would not get a gun if she knew her life depended on it – and she knew it DID. Doubtless she’s among the enlightened few who would rather die for “non-violence”. Ugh! Boy, when you put it that way, it really *IS* twisted-sounding!
NYT discovers something any 2nd grader could have told you. DUH? Is the the nyt still hiring idiots, or did they take over the main office there?
Temporary restraining orders can be a joke. Many men have been subject to abuse at the hands of vengeful women and moron courts.