Can a VPO require disarmament?

[Billybob]

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.

Yes to that, especially since false allegations are known to occur and never charged. During my divorce I had to prove and buy my way out of every false allegation my ex made but she was never held accountable for making them. Then when she was arrested(weapons charge dropped, larceny deferred), failed drug test, and endangered the children, allowed harm,(one was beaten and had furnace imprints on his feet) nothing happened and I was still the bad man who had to pay to prove myself. Playing to emotions is not justice.

 

[HMFIC]

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."

What he said... and it sucks... and it's not right... and there's pretty much nothing that we can do about it.


Unfortunately VPO's get issued ALL THE TIME during divorce and child custody hearings when the other party wants to gain leverage or advantage in the proceedings. The standard is low to get one and I'll wager that hardly anyone ever gets in trouble for making false allegations.

 

[HMFIC]

Yes to that, especially since false allegations are known to occur and never charged. During my divorce I had to prove and buy my way out of every false allegation my ex made but she was never held accountable for making them. Then when she was arrested(weapons charge dropped, larceny deferred), failed drug test, and endangered the children, allowed harm,(one was beaten and had furnace imprints on his feet) nothing happened and I was still the bad man who had to pay to prove myself. Playing to emotions is not justice.

I feel your pain brother...

 

[Glocktogo]

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.



"poor innocent women and children" ?

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

Under the circumstances, the sarcasm is well deserved. The Lautenberg Amendment is an unconstitutional POS that retroactively backdoors the stripping of the constitutional rights of a large number of citizens, who never got the benefit of a criminal trial. Many of those affected never did anything more than marry a crazy or vindictive person.

I'm a huge supporter of victims rights, especially women and children who are abused. However, this is one law that never should've passed.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Many of those affected never did anything more than marry a crazy or vindictive person.

Some just asked the girl from the bar out on a second date.

 

[761mph]

when my father was still alive he and one of his neighbors were in an on going pissing contest over a dirt road that run adjacent to both their properties (dad was in his 80s, neighbor in his 60s)
on a regular basis they, along with their spouses would get into verbal and sometimes physical confrontations
and one or the other would file a VPO against the other, then the other would have the wife counter-file a VPO
this went on for the better part of 5 years
i could always tell when the VPOs started flying becuse dad would load up all his firearms and bring them over for my safe keeping

 

[Billybob]

I feel your pain brother...

Far too many have, mostly children.

 

[mons meg]

I feel I should restate that the individual involved in this case was not present at any adversarial hearing, he was simply served with the VPO. So I don't see how he could have been disarmed under Lautenberg. OK law does not seem to authorize preemptive disarmament, so I'm highly curious how this practice is remotely legal. "Because a judge said so" is not the rule of law.

 

[angsniper]

yes to that, especially since false allegations are known to occur and never charged. During my divorce i had to prove and buy my way out of every false allegation my ex made but she was never held accountable for making them. Then when she was arrested(weapons charge dropped, larceny deferred), failed drug test, and endangered the children, allowed harm,(one was beaten and had furnace imprints on his feet) nothing happened and i was still the bad man who had to pay to prove myself. Playing to emotions is not justice.

^^^exactly this^^^^

 

[Fyrtwuck]

In my last divorce, I was served with a VPO. I asked the ex about it and she said it was cause her attorney said it was standard procedure in all divorces she handled. My ex contacted the court clerk and had it stopped before it could go before a judge, but I had to pay all the service and paperwork fees.