03-02-2018, 12:08 PM
(03-02-2018, 06:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In a way, yes. If your personal property is in the home of the alleged victim (even if it is your own home) then you are denied access to your property.
And even if you do not consider that a "confiscation" it is a limit on your personal liberty which some people would argue is worse. The point is that due process works the same way. The temporary order does not mean the person is not entitled to a full hearing.
No one said it didn't entitle the person to a full hearing. Quit arguing points that aren't being made. What is being said, and it is true, is that this type of law allows for the confiscation of private property without the opportunity of the accused to defend themselves. You don't think that having to lug all your firearms, and ammunition, to a dealer, who will charge you for the storage, or to your local police station is a significant burden? That the stigma of having to do so isn't real?
Quote:Actually there isn't. A private party can swear out a warrant and many times an officer's probable cause is based on nothing more than a victiim/witness statement.
In such cases the person is almost always entitled to be cited out and released OR. It would be out of the norm for a person to be detained in jail based on nothing more than a person's word. Even in those cases the accused will see a judge within 48 hours (business day hours). Is such a short turn around time guaranteed under these restraining orders? Absolutely not, as that is the amount of time allotted to the accused to surrender their private property.
However, as usual, we are arguing minutiae, the point was that what Trump stated already occurs. This isn't really a fact in dispute.
