Best
116 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    Surrender Their Guns? Because one on them was pissed at the other and wanted to cause some sh_t!!
    OH HELL NO!!!!
    You have got to be kidding me here.......OMG The Left has gone absolutely Insane!!!
  • #55
    !
    I can see the stats on murder. I cant to see the stats on people who get productive order on bs lies to harass. Too often Its Actually to harass
  • #63
    !
    @NOObama
    Yes I had an ex Gf file one on me before, yrs ago, Because I wanted her to move out.
    Luckily I was able to get an attorney and get it taken off my record.
    Most people cant afford to do that so they end up being screwed over by an idiot.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    This is a tough decision for me. I know the divorce from my first wife was not a pretty thing but she was the violent one and I was the one with the guns. I got the guns out before I even left because she would have shot me. I can understand the theory behind this but I also know if a woman today goes to court and says a bunch of lies (which my first wife tried to do because I walked over her violence) that today she would have gotten that protective order and I would have lost my guns. From a persona experience standpoint I would disagree but from a general standpoint it seems to be logical. I just don't know. I'll read others comments here.
  • #9
    !
    I had to think about this to and thought of the same dilemma. If it is proven that the person was violent against the person taking out the protection order than I have no problem with it but if its just accusations with no proof the guns should be kept.
  • #10
    !
    @Libertyiskey Yeah Liberty if they have a prior history of violence I don't that would even be debatable. Take those guns under as you describe.
  • #18
    !
    @PNWest Good point. But define "history of violence" since the courts plea things down so often today there is a lot of violent people out there with no felonies so technically? Man this whole world is getting too complicated for me. I gotta get out of here.
  • #19
    !
    Yep, been there and down that with wife number 3......and she had and threatened to use her hunting rifle on ME! Then wanted protection....I wanted it more!
    I really wanted to say not just yes, but hell yes. But your point did change my mind.....somewhat. In case with hard physical evidence (bruises, black eyes, police reports with photos....etc), I still say hell yes. The other cases, like your's and mine, where BS is the order of the day, I say no way!
    My ex's only evidence was her word.....which the judge saw right through and denied her order! Only problem I have with that deny of the order, the judge should have thrown her and her sinister lawyer in jail for contempt and awarded me lawyer costs for her false claims! But, that's my idea of justice!
  • R Load more replies

  • #40
    !
    Well there is a trial...The judge may order a temporary order ---pending the outcome of a hearing/trial to determine is a protection order is really needed. Then the defendant will get his/her day in court...
  • #45
    !
    @Sonny a protection order is not a trial. Criminal charges are only made if someone violates these orders. There is no accused, no crime, no trial, and no punishment. One of the examples they gave was based on the word of one woman, that the man had his 2nd amendment rights suspended. Is that all we need to suspend constitutional right?

    P.S. Can you no longer commit murder with out a gun?
  • #52
    !
    @Yank No sir---that is NOT true at all.........."Within 7 days after Temporary Order is issued, the Final Protective Order hearing is held before a judge. The victim must attend this hearing; the abuser will usually be at this hearing, and may bring a lawyer. You may bring a lawyer if you wish, or a court companion from your local domestic violence program..." ---You are "jumping the gun"---Of course charges are filed, if a protective order is violated......But a trial/hearing is also ordered to determine a protective order will be put in place at all....

    You have gotten your info all twisted in this matter---I suggest you look up the term "protective order" or "peach order" before you continue to give the people here more bad information....

    Even in the initial hearing---there is an "accused" (defendant)----and he/she does get to have his/her day in court so that the judge can determine if such an order is needed in the first place....Please go back and recheck your facts on this one.
  • #82
    !
    Where I live all you have to do to get a protective order is go to the sheriff's office, say "he hit me"-with no proof-and they will issue one on the spot, no questions asked. Seen it done a hundred times. Which is bs if they are going to take someone's guns over this. And I am a woman.
  • #13
    !
    Maybe if they specifically used or threatened to use a firearm, or after they violate the order in some other way. But a protective order requires little evidence since the burden of proof to get the order, by necessarily weighted in favor of granting the order as a precaution, is too light to justify depriving one of a constitutional right without more. Threatening to use a firearm, or in any way violating a lawful protective order would, however, justify requiring surrender of the firearms, in my opinion.
  • #5
    !
    Dont tell me women cant kill in such situations .The article makes it sound as tho only women are killed.I had a friend killed by his wife.Should they surrender their guns ?No.They should protect them selves when the police cant by buying their own weapon and hope they dont have to use it.
  • #31
    !
    The question would be more fairly asked "Should a person have to surrender their guns because someone files a protection order against them?".
  • #38
    !
    My thoughts EXACTLY. Accusations and orders of protection do not always state a fact. It is often a feeling or presumption. We cannot base a law on a presumption. Can we?
  • #49
    !
    @spluvsjp yep. The way it is asked doesn't take into account the fact that the person who takes out the order is just as likely to be the psycho in the situation. My ex...PSYCHO and she's one of those types who'll file something like this just to cause me job problems or hassle in general...use the state as "bludgeoning tool". A relationship/marriage has become a great risk and liability. Lol "perpetually single" has become a solid business principle!
  • #24
    !
    Not automatically. We don't want a protection order being used as a bludgeoning tool. I know of a LOT of instances where the woman filed for a protection order with absolutely no reason to do so. There should be much more to the decision. Half of the failed couple shouldn't have power over whether or not the other loses a constitutional right. There are always three sides to a story..each person's version and then the truth.
  • #15
    !
    I have girlfriends or I should say people I know that have gotten them on guys that didnt do anything. So I say they shouldn't automatically take their guns. If they are prosecuted for domestic abuse some states do take them. But it's too easy to get a protection order.
  • #12
    !
    Or maybe the person who requests such an order should be placed into a witness protection program by the court and paid for by the state. that might work you could give them a new life, new car new house in the climate that they desire and a new job and identity. sweet.
  • #50
    !
    Wonders if this not just more fodder for gun control? Terroristic threatening is a crime, no gun control needed for criminal charges. If the person making the threat is in jail, they can't shoot from there, problem solved, question answered.
  • #44
    !
    If women are really so afraid of violence from men then buy a gun, learn how to use it, practice, and get a concealed carry permit. Then if you file that protection order and the person comes for you they won't have an easy victim.

    I've seen too many protective orders be made by jealous women who are angry at their men for leaving them. I had a close friend who was one of the nicest most compassionate people you'll ever meet. His wife started messing around on him. She wanted a divorce and his money so she filed a protective order, claimed he physically assaulted her, and put him through hell. He spent tens of thousands of dollars in court costs. She still got the winning deal in the divorce too. His experience really made me completely re-evaluate women and people in general. Very sad.
  • #11
    !
    How could anyone in their right mind support domestic abusers having access to firearms? Well no one in their right mind could but plenty of gun nuts do!

    2,793+ and counting dead Americans by gun violence since the Newtown gun massacre. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

    The total would be even higher if the police and fire department hadn't arrived so quickly in Florida earlier today. http://abcnews.go.com/US/massacre-thwarted-fl... This guy had legally been acquiring guns for a massacre at the University of Central Florida. Fortunately the Police and fire department arrived in time to prevent it.

    Here's a couple of recent domestic violence gun murders that are all too common:
    http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/2-dead-in-...
    http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_22804151/woma... |met:0000300|cat:0|order:2
  • #51
    !
    I'm torn on this issue. Domestic violence is horrible and deserves to be addressed. I'd certainly support this if the accused has any past concerning violence. In cases where no history can be shown I would not because I believe one's rights should not be denied without due process.
  • #54
    !
    @Medicinebow There are always going to be situations where someones rights are impinged upon no matter which way the decision goes. It's a tough call.
  • #8
    !
    Such a penalty would not effect level-headed, law-abiding citizens. It would only effect people that the courts have determined to be a real threat, male or female.
  • #92
    !
    @AlexMIA - For every woman who "fakes it" there are several who really are in danger. How about a cooling off period? Don't take his gun permanently, just keep it for him until the authorities have had time to investigate.
  • #97
    !
    @Denizen_Kate They better have very compelling evidence before hand. No one man or woman should be disarmed wrongly, not a single day. Two points for you. 1) Anyone that really wants to kill someone can and will do it without a gun. 2) A manipulative person can and will use the law wrongly to their advantage. This could happen in either direction, but I'm going to explain it in a way you a woman will understand. Suppose I am or was in a relationship with a woman who owned a gun and I did not. And suppose I was the manipulative, abusive punk in the relationship, but I was also smart and cunning enough to be insidious about it. Now I want to hurt my woman, but I know she's armed. I beat her to the punch and call the cops first, and tell them my manufactured story. I describe the gun, she's the one that's armed, I'm not. Now they confiscate the gun, how ever temporarily! Now the real predator has disarmed the victim! This can happen the other way around too. It doesn't matter either way.
  • #98
    !
    @AlexMIA - Which is why every precinct should have a paid professional to deal with domestic abuse cases - someone not fooled by the manipulative punk. Barring that, if the police on the scene just take both parties in, or even just one of the two, that right there could be considered a "cooling off period." You can take someone in without actually charging them with a crime or getting a criminal charge on their permanent record. Sit 'em down, cool 'em off, and get the real story before making decisions about pressing charges or confiscating weapons.
  • #7
    !
    If the protection order is against someone who has threatened to kill and/or has a past record of violent crime or has violently attacked the person who has taken out the protection order (and its proven not just accusations) and this said person somehow has a legal firearm then I see no problem with the state taking away said persons firearm for they are a criminal.
  • #74
    !
    I would say it needs to be on a case by case basis. Many women file Protection Orders at the instruction of their LIARS (southern pronunciation of "lawyers") in order to get the upper hand in matters of child custody, settlements, etc. If there have been documented incidents of domestic violence, REAL domestic violence, not slamming of doors, yelling or banging a fist on a table, then I would say YES, the firearms may be turned over to the attorney representing the party against whom the Protection Order was obtained UNTIL THE ORDER EXPIRES. If not, leave them where they are. If there have been no incidents of domestic violence, no sense in provoking someone into possibly acting out by castrating him/her and rendering them helpless to defend themselves against possible criminals during the ordeal by disarming them. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT is Napoleonic Code, not U.S. Law.
  • #68
    !
    So in some states you can be deprived of property based on the allegations of one person who is hardly likely to be disinterested?

    Is that even constitutional?
  • #58
    !
    Ridiculous! Disarm women simply because of alleged domestic abuse? Guess the liberals forgot about the movie Double Jeopardy with the new airhead political wannabe Ashley Judd.
  • R Load more comments...
Post