Can a VPO require disarmament?

[twoguns?]

I wish they would have taken the whole boat ....But NOOOOO...they took all the rods and reels ..and of course The guns stored in it.
What good is a boat with no guns or rods and reels ? Dad Gumit!!!!
Sounds like thier gonna get your guns somehow, but if your not buying ,selling , or tradeing....seems like it doesnt apply?

 

[mons meg]

Just something to keep in mind. We're not supposed to have to hire counsel to defend basic rights like this from judges who should know by now that the McDonald case incorporated the 2A under the 14A using...the Due Process clause. Or did I miss something???

 

[twoguns?]

Just something to keep in mind. We're not supposed to have to hire counsel to defend basic rights like this from judges who should know by now that the McDonald case incorporated the 2A under the 14A using...the Due Process clause. Or did I miss something???

I agree ,but with the Mis-alignment of ..Some.. Judges and what they can order and .Make peple do...what are the alternatives...not comply and explain.?
Sadly most people dont know when their Rights have been violated..therefore...Barrister Time?
Everyone has the Right to protect themselves, some choose the Legal system....my thoughts are ...they should be taught how to protect themselves.
How many VPO's have been violated and the person still is harrased or harmed...not much use in my humble Opinion.
I choose to protect my own....even through these ,,"crazy boatin Incidents"

 

[AllOut]

A buddy of mine got a PO put on him by his girlfriends ex husband A month or so ago(the guy was threatening him constantly and received an arse whoop'n lol)
Anyway, in his protective order it says something about not possessing any firearms/weapons. I knoticed it and brought it to his attention (he owns quit a few guns). He asked his lawyer about it and he told him not to worry about just to stay away from the guy.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Just something to keep in mind. We're not supposed to have to hire counsel to defend basic rights like this from judges who should know by now that the McDonald case incorporated the 2A under the 14A using...the Due Process clause. Or did I miss something???

The only "right" covered by McDonald is to lawfully possess a handgun for purposes of self defense within the home. Any other restriction is presumed Constitutional until otherwise determined through litigation.

 

[Billybob]

A buddy of mine got a PO put on him by his girlfriends ex husband A month or so ago(the guy was threatening him constantly and received an arse whoop'n lol)
Anyway, in his protective order it says something about not possessing any firearms/weapons. I knoticed it and brought it to his attention (he owns quit a few guns). He asked his lawyer about it and he told him not to worry about just to stay away from the guy.

Think the lawyer will defend him for free,(or even admit what he said) if your buddy does get busted for it?

 

[AKguy1985]

When my psychotic meth head uncle tried to put a P.O. against 3/4 of my family there was something in the paperwork about brady law applying or not applying. P.O. never got granted as my uncle died in jail the night before court. Told the judge that and she didnt bat an eye.

 

[henschman]

The way it works is that when someone files for an emergency victim protective order, there is an immediate ex parte hearing, which means that the defendant is not present and the judge decides whether to issue a temporary emergency VPO based solely on what the plaintiff tells him. The standard of proof is good cause that an emergency order is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the defendant due to domestic abuse, harassment, or stalking. The VPO can include any terms that the judge reasonably finds necessary, including disarmament of the defendant. Then if the temporary VPO is granted, an adversarial hearing is set within 20 days where the defendant can appear as well, to defend himself. The defendant must be served for this hearing to be held. The legal standard that must be met for the issuance of a VPO is reasonable belief that it is necessary to bring about the cessation of domestic abuse, stalking, or harassment of the victim.

The Lautenberg amendment to the federal code prohibits a person from owning a gun if in an adversarial proceeding (one in which he can defend himself), a court issues a restraining order against him for domestic violence (violence against a spouse, domestic partner, parent, or someone he lived with). So a person's permanent right to bear arms isn't impacted until the adversarial hearing where he can actually come defend himself. However, in a VPO hearing, the standard of proof is a lot lower than in a criminal court. In my experience, if there is an allegation of physical abuse, and it can't be rebutted by serious impeachment of the plaintiff's credibility, the judge will go ahead and order the VPO, which permanently deprives the defendant of his right to bear arms and generally causes him to be discharged from the armed forces or fired from a law enforcement job. I don't think most plaintiffs and defendants realize how serious the consequences are to a VPO, and many Judges don't either. Hell, many times a defendant will agree to have the VPO issued, thinking the only consequence will be that he can't go near a crazy vindictive ***** that he has no desire to be around anyway; but ends up permanently losing his right to bear arms. Sometimes a guy won't know about that consequence until he tries to buy a gun from a FFL and ends up being denied on the NICS check. The Lautenberg Amendment isn't particularly vigorously enforced, but the fact remains that it makes possession of a firearm a federal felony carrying serious prison time. It is a serious violation of our rights that needs to be done away with ASAP... but of course domestic violence is one of those issues for which it is easy for politicians to demagogue opponents of laws that are to "protect those poor innocent women and children."

 

[KOPBET]

.. thinking the only consequence will be that he can't go near a crazy vindictive ***** that he has no desire to be around anyway; but ends up permanently losing his right to bear arms.

My daughter's VPO is for three years. I believe Oklahoma law says he is only restricted from possessing/purchasing a firearm during that period.

... but of course domestic violence is one of those issues for which it is easy for politicians to demagogue opponents of laws that are to "protect those poor innocent women and children."

"poor innocent women and children" ?

I hope you don't mean that as sarcastically as it sounds.

 

[henschman]

I don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be able to be taken away from someone in what amounts to a civil proceeding, with such a light burden of proof. It often comes down to "he said she said," and the judges like to err on the side of caution and go ahead and issue the order if they think there might be a possible issue.

I think that force/law should only be used to prohibit and punish actual violations of people's rights, rather than preemptively stripping people of their rights in case they MIGHT violate someone else's rights in the future. And the fact is, politicians love to distract from serious issues like rights and liberty by trying to stir emotions with sympathetic subjects, and claiming that anyone who doesn't support their legislation is an enemy of women/children/the elderly/handicapped, etc.