CNN: Rubio proposes "Gun Restraining Orders"

[KellyinAvon]

SOME restraining orders, not all. The court papers will indicate if the given restraining order does or not, at least in Indiana. I can't recall the exact wording but it's something like "Brady qualified" or the like. I think only restraining orders between domestic partners qualify, but there might be other qualifiers that could make one "Brady" that I'm unaware of.



...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such personhad the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

Thanks for the clarification BBI.

 

[jamil]

So . . . the solution to a massive law enforcement failure is to give Florida law enforcement and the FBI yet another law to do nothing with?

Yeah, no thanks. We already weaponize personal grudges. Hard pass.

I get that. The way what's proposed seems to be written in a way that makes it likely to be abused as a weapon.

But as far as already weaponizing personal grudges, are you talking about PO's? I know that happens a lot. I've heard enough stories about couples having marital problems will often race to the courts to be first to get a PO on the other. I work with a guy whose wife, years ago, got a PO against him just to get him fired. His employer had a zero-tolerance company policy, so the wife convinced a judge to issue a PO against him, and then she called his employer to get him fired. Of course, that was his side of the story.

But either way, PO's can be helpful in domestic abuse cases.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Clearly you fellows have never been blindsided by a spouse who (in consultation with her local "abused womens" organization ) realized that all she had to do to control the direction of a divorce was to tell her attorney that she was "afraid " of you, and get a restraining order. You think you have constitutional rights? Huh! A right to due process? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Falschirmjaeger]

Clearly you fellows have never been blindsided by a spouse who (in consultation with her local "abused womens" organization ) realized that all she had to do to control the direction of a divorce was to tell her attorney that she was "afraid " of you, and get a restraining order. You think you have constitutional rights? Huh! A right to due process? Don't make me laugh.

Bad enough if it's a contrived domestic situation. How about a hostile neighbor with whom maybe you've had strong words, who sees you carrying "evil black rifles" to and from your car and decides you're a "threat"? No thanks.

if Rubio ever had a set of stones, he sure doesn't now. All it took was a mob of angry school kids and their media enablers to set that fast-acting case of testicular atrophy into motion.

 

[jamil]

Clearly you fellows have never been blindsided by a spouse who (in consultation with her local "abused womens" organization ) realized that all she had to do to control the direction of a divorce was to tell her attorney that she was "afraid " of you, and get a restraining order. You think you have constitutional rights? Huh! A right to due process? Don't make me laugh.

Women definitely have the privilege in that area. I'm not sure how to fix that. Certainly it's complicated. There's a legitimate legal protection needed. But I don't think there are enough checks and balances to make sure that protection isn't also weaponized. And creating a system like that for guns is likely to have the same problems.

INGO lawyers, since Indiana has a law where guns can be confiscated through a court proceeding, do you have a sense of how often that's weaponized. Or is it pretty much executed in a way that's fair?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I get that. The way what's proposed seems to be written in a way that makes it likely to be abused as a weapon.

But as far as already weaponizing personal grudges, are you talking about PO's? I know that happens a lot. I've heard enough stories about couples having marital problems will often race to the courts to be first to get a PO on the other. I work with a guy whose wife, years ago, got a PO against him just to get him fired. His employer had a zero-tolerance company policy, so the wife convinced a judge to issue a PO against him, and then she called his employer to get him fired. Of course, that was his side of the story.

But either way, PO's can be helpful in domestic abuse cases.

Usually after the fact though. There have been a lot of women (and men I suspect) that have been killed or injured by those against whom the PO was in force. It might help with the prosecution of such, but as a deterrent to a determined abuser, not so much.

 

[jamil]

Usually after the fact though. There have been a lot of women (and men I suspect) that have been killed or injured by those against whom the PO was in force. It might help with the prosecution of such, but as a deterrent to a determined abuser, not so much.

Sure. It’s not a deterrent. It’s a legal reason to arrest the person. Fat lot of good that does if the respondant’s violation of the PO is murder the petitioner. There are some programs which notify the petitioner when the PO is served so they know to lay low for awhile. And maybe that’s good enough for some cases.

 

[1stLast&Always]

Its seems like this got a little side-tracked and went into domestic cases with ROs or POs. Just concerned it will be used to give gun owners a lot of grief.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

INGO lawyers, since Indiana has a law where guns can be confiscated through a court proceeding, do you have a sense of how often that's weaponized. Or is it pretty much executed in a way that's fair?

I've had several. They have all been close calls.

I think the biggest weaponized case is the Redington matter in Bloomington. That case was definitely weaponized use of the law in that he made the BPD look foolish so they declared him "dangerous". Very Soviet.

 

[rugertoter]

This turd of a RHINO won't make back to office

....yeah, probably to be replaced by a bigger turd, this time a Democrat.

 

[Wolffman]

Our gun rights our in jeopardy as well as our safety. A month or two ago someone swatted a guy in Witchita, KS, and the police proceded to murder the unarmed guy in his own home.
This rediculous proposal from Rubio is the same thing. Anyone can make the claim that your guns should be removed. They are good at setting up a system to remove someones guns, but pretty poor at setting up the process to undo someone's lie.
You're right. Rubio is nothing but a RINO of the lowest order.

 

[Jomibe]

Its seems like this got a little side-tracked and went into domestic cases with ROs or POs. Just concerned it will be used to give gun owners a lot of grief.

Completely unrelated, just wanted to say hi to a fellow SoM fan. I love that first album.