Tag: restraining order

The Gift Horse

Hey Ohio! Elliot Forhan, Democrat candidate for Ohio Attorney General, responded to Charlie Kirk’s assassination with “F*** Charlie Kirk.” A man running to be Ohio’s top law enforcement officer celebrating murder? That’s not leadership—it’s moral rot. He must withdraw from the race. [More]

Now let’s think this through.

The guy was “stripped … of nearly all his privileges due to allegations of ‘abusive’ and ‘violent’ behavior — and the ‘pattern of harassment, hostility, and intimidation of colleagues and staff’”…?

A black, female Democrat lawmaker felt compelled to file for a protection order against him because she “did not feel safe… after a number of female Democratic lawmakers accused him of aggressive and threatening behavior in private and public interactions”…?

Just the guy to lecture us on guns…

This guy is a gold mine. Why would Republicans want a Democrat candidate who doesn’t bear such political vulnerabilities to run in his stead?

[Via Michael G]

Taking the 5th

Boston firefighter faces over 40 charges after failing to turn over firearms following a restraining order [More]

Of interest from the video:

He initially lied about having weapons, but his defense attorney explains those firearms weren’t registered. He hadn’t done them on time.

So if he’d complied with the order and produced the guns, that would have been self-incriminating.

Didn’t the Supreme Court already weigh in on that?

Anybody know who is his attorney is, and if he knows about this?

Ah, here we go.

All we can do is offer:

[Via Jess]

Hell Yes, Lock Him Up!

Given what Paxton calls O’Rourke’s “vulgar disdain for the rule of law and immense personal wealth,” the attorney general says imprisonment is “absolutely necessary to persuade him to obey the lawful restraining order.” [More]

So… what will Megan Fahey do?

And is any gun owner still a fan of these idiots?

[Via Sweet Babboo]

We’re the Only Ones Four-Dimensional Enough

A hearing in which a judge will consider a full order of protection is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Monday in a St. Louis County courtroom. A ruling could also impact the Sheriff’s ability to carry a gun. Typically, subjects are required to surrender their firearms, but there is often an exemption for police officers, who are sometimes required to turn in their guns before the end of each shift. [More]

How does that work, when he’s safe in this time and space, and unsafe in another?

[Via bondmen]

While the Iron is Hot

Major breaking news: Attorney General Merrick Garland and his solicitor general are trying to strike while the iron is hot, so they think. They have just requested of the United States Supreme Court that the court take a series … of cases involving Second Amendment challenges … basically trying to take advantage of what they think is a huge win for them in the Rahimi case… [Watch]

It was a huge win. It showed just how malleable all the “good” Bruen judges, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, are.

And like all jackals, emboldened when they sense weakness, they move the circle in to attack.

[Via Jess]

The Shape of Things to Come

Supreme Court upholds law barring those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms [More]

The decision ignored the law, and no one will be made safer.

Roberts sure was stretching it– there’s a world of difference between “misusing” and “possessing.” There was nothing comparable to a restraining order at the time of ratification — those who received due process and were convicted were removed from society.

Thomas was the only one who got it right. Leave it to Giffords’ litigation director to literally cast aspersions on a black man’s “humanity” and get away with it.

Long Walks On the Beach and TROs

Restraining Order Based on Unwanted Online Contact Upheld, but Weapons Restriction Struck Down [More]

Since when is any conflict not made better by adding “Only Ones” into the mix?

It actually sounds like they both deserve each other, but the legal hurdles, penalties, and expenses raise a question as to just how far “the law” could go, depending on the jurisdiction.

We’re the Only Ones Unbelievable Enough

The family of a man who was shot and killed by police while under an active court order for involuntary mental health treatment has sued the systems and individuals they believe were responsible for their son’s death. [More]

It doesn’t matter what the family believes. The police WERE responsible for their son’s death.

What a cluster from the word “Go.”

[Via Mack H]

Comment Update from Mack H

David, I Wanted to discuss this a little bit further. The video has a segment on the family that does not show up in the article, so perhaps you missed it. Be sure and watch the video, starting around four minutes. The family says the officer shot their son six times. Does that seem right to you? Also, the CPD has a policy that all on duty officers have their body cameras active when Interacting with any person. So there has to be video of the officer shooting Byers with the hatchet. But the CPD refuses to release the video. CPD says “Ongoing investigation” – I say CYA.

The Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards Act

Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Protect Domestic Abuse Survivors From Gun Violence [More]

Durbin, Duckworth Join Colleagues To Introduce Legislation To Deny Constitutional Rights to the Accused — there, I fixed it for them.

No prognosis yet on GovTrack, but with a Republican House consider this political posturing by the usual gang of rights prohibitionists in anticipation of SCOTUS enraging them in Rahimi.

Assuming the GOP doesn’t blow ’24.

[Via Jess]

Jam Session

How a Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court is putting gun rights groups in a jam [More]

That’s one way to spin getting your usurping @$$ handed to you…

“If someone is dangerous enough that society can’t trust them with a gun, they should be behind bars − it’s that simple,” Pratt said.

Bingo.

Unauthorized Means Unlawful

The US Department of Justice made a major concession involving whether licensing officials working for executive agencies may exercise “discretion” over CCW permits. [Watch]

That is big.

And using that rationale, I’d argue they can’t exercise executive “discretion” in “rulemaking” not backed by legislation, either.

Or in creating new classifications of “prohibited persons.”

[Via Jess]

If Truth Be Known

The Right to Bear Arms and Terrorize Your Partner [Listen]

Or don’t. Noting who is featured and by whom, starting out with a bald-faced lie makes me not want to waste my time being lied to.

[Via Michael G]

Related UPDATE

Here’s some truth. [Watch]

But we still don’t have a decision.

Let’s hope the storm crows are wrong.

[Via Jess]

Trouble Ahead?

The Supreme Court appears inclined to uphold a federal law banning guns from those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term. [More]

Looks like some of the pundits assuring us Bruen was a magic bullet may have some ‘splainin’ to do…

The question now is which of the “justices” will show the beliefs no one dared ask them about during confirmations…

UPDATE

Or maybe not.

Why We Must Punish Everyone

“He would not have been able to access that gun if we had these current laws in place,” Glenn said in an interview with The Associated Press that took place outside the Supreme Court. [More]

Why aren’t they telling us his Colorado TRO said he couldn’t get a gun?

And if “prohibited persons” can’t get guns, what’s all this about?

Not that reality and logic could ever compete with heartstring-tugging anecdotes…

[Via bondmen]

One Man’s ‘Enemy Combatant’…

Historically, at the time of the Founding, any laws that disarmed an entire category of people were limited to those individuals who remained loyal to the crown because they posed a threat to the success of the patriot cause in the Revolutionary War. Many of these people were literally considered to be enemy combatants and the total disarmament was viewed in the context of a war and the survival of a fledgling nation. Today’s laws that disarm private citizens subject to civil restraining orders must be considered in a peacetime context, where national security is not an issue. [More]

Maybe that’s why DOJ is using terms for rowdy protestors like “insurrectionists” and smearing patriots as domestic enemies…

Posers

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday, Sept. 5, approved recommendations intended to promote and track the filing of gun violence restraining orders against people who pose a danger to themselves or others. [More]

If they’re proven dangers, why aren’t they in custody until they no longer are?

If it hasn’t been proven, how is saying they pose a danger not libelous?

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights