Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can a VPO require disarmament?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1889532" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1889532, member: 4235"] 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." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can a VPO require disarmament?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom