Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would imagine so, if the DV restraining order were public knowledge.  


There's a very large flaw in this debate coming from your side of the aisle.  The fact that the property being confiscated is firearms is not the issue, the issue is that private property is being confiscated without the accused having any opportunity to defend themselves.  GM, in typical Fred fashion, has attempted to couch this objection as a support of domestic violence.   This is as absurd as it is disingenuous, another common tool in the arsenal of GM and his buddies.  The system, as set up, is ripe for abuse by ill intentioned people.  Restraining orders are not uncommonly used as weapons by parties who feel aggrieved, or simply spiteful.  Normally, the effects are not onerous, staying 500 feet away from, and having no contact with, someone you have no desire to interact with, is something the accused would happily do.  When you throw the confiscation of personal property in the mix, and all that entails, now there is a significant burden imposed on the accused, again, all occurring before the accused has any chance to defend themselves.

What you are seeing with this type of law is unfortunately typical, unintended consequences.  Lawmakers often have no practical first hand experience with the real world impacts of the laws they pass.  As said in another thread, Feinstein's bill that would ban anything that "increased a firearms rate of fire" would effectively ban trigger upgrades, as a good trigger group will do exactly that.  In this instance the good intentions of the law, to prevent a real domestic abuser from possessing weapons with which they could kill a woman who is attempting to leave the abusive relationship, can quite easily be subverted by anyone with ill intentions, acting out of malice or spite.  I'm sure we'd all like to think that there aren't many people who would go through the restraining order process just to cause grief and hardship to someone they now loathe.  It is unfortunately not as uncommon as we'd like to think.

I have simply asked why the guns are more important than the potential safety of the alleged victim.  If the accused is simply removed from their residence they also do not have access to their private property.  Any difference?  In that case they didn't take his guns away from him...they too him away from his guns.