Why Haven't Restraining Orders Been Challenged?

[John_Wick]

I don't know how anyone that purports to support the Second Amendment could be on board with this. Someone makes a claim and you lose your rights at least until the hearing. At the hearing the judge decides based upon the civil preponderance of the evidence standard whether or not to take away your gun rights for life.

About 26 years ago I made the mistake of becoming intimately involved with a close friend - friends with benefits type of thing. Let's call her Sally. One night I'm on a date that leads to me and my date being naked on the sofa. All of a sudden I hear someone banging at the door like they're going to break it down and I hear Sally screaming about how she knows I'm in there with another woman, she's going to kill her, etc. No way I'm opening that door. After a few minutes it stops. About 15 minutes later I see Sally's face popping up and down outside my LR window like she's on a pogo stick. She is jumping up and down on a pile of objects she had stacked up outside my rear window and is screaming again. I go the window, tell her I am calling the police if she doesn't leave and then close the curtains. The next day I am at work and get a call from the local PD telling me I need to come down. I do that and am served with a TRO as Sally says I attacked her. No basis for it. She was very upset about seeing me with this other woman and wanted to punish me. Nonetheless, the TRO was issued and it was about a month before we ended up before a judge. I showed up with several witnesses, including my date for that night. Sally never showed and the TRO was lifted. It could have just as easily gone the other way though, especially in today's world where it is nearly always assumed that the woman is the victim and the man is the liar.

Now if we change the PFA standard to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, then I can get on board with it, but until then, nope.

[ray h]

Even so, you are making someone a criminal based on something they may or may not do in the future. How can it be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone will eventually attack another person?

[RockIsland]

Even so, you are making someone a criminal based on something they may or may not do in the future. How can it be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone will eventually attack another person?

[GunLawyer001]

Judges run for re-election, and none of them are eager to take the chance that 1 out of 1000 denied petitions will end up with the subject killing the denied petitioner.

Doesn't matter that a PFA is like a paper bulletproof vest, doesn't matter if she gets knifed to death. The campaign ads will crucify the judge for "refusing to protect a woman and causing her death"; defending against that is too steep to prevail. So temporary PFA's get issued with only the petitioner represented, and semi-permanent ones are issued with a "let's issue it just to be safe" attitude. "He yelled at me once when I let his dog run loose into traffic and he got run over, and I feared for my life." "He has guns and he has the ability to shoot me." "He might find out that our children aren't his, and get angry."

Had a client whose case was predicated on catching his wife in a motel with some other guy, and his wife feared his reaction after he knocked on the motel door. Her misdeed, he got the heat.

And some domestic lawyers urge ALL of their women clients to apply for them, which is probably an ethics violation.

Have you heard of any lawyers getting disbarred for that? Nope. Any women sent to jail for exaggerating the risks? Nope. Worst case, they don't get their petition granted, which is like trying to deter shoplifting solely by making the thieves give back what you catch them stealing.

[Walleye Hunter]

Judges run for re-election, and none of them are eager to take the chance that 1 out of 1000 denied petitions will end up with the subject killing the denied petitioner.

Doesn't matter that a PFA is like a paper bulletproof vest, doesn't matter if she gets knifed to death. The campaign ads will crucify the judge for "refusing to protect a woman and causing her death"; defending against that is too steep to prevail. So temporary PFA's get issued with only the petitioner represented, and semi-permanent ones are issued with a "let's issue it just to be safe" attitude. "He yelled at me once when I let his dog run loose into traffic and he got run over, and I feared for my life." "He has guns and he has the ability to shoot me." "He might find out that our children aren't his, and get angry."

Had a client whose case was predicated on catching his wife in a motel with some other guy, and his wife feared his reaction after he knocked on the motel door. Her misdeed, he got the heat.

And some domestic lawyers urge ALL of their women clients to apply for them, which is probably an ethics violation.

Have you heard of any lawyers getting disbarred for that? Nope. Any women sent to jail for exaggerating the risks? Nope. Worst case, they don't get their petition granted, which is like trying to deter shoplifting solely by making the thieves give back what you catch them stealing.

Ironically, it doesn't seem to bother them when they release hoodlums on the street and they kill or maim anyone.

[GunLawyer001]

Ironically, it doesn't seem to bother them when they release hoodlums on the street and they kill or maim anyone.

The media will cover for them then, because of identity politics. But when guns, men & women are involved, there's only 1 correct option, to "support women", "believe her", "help get guns off the streets".

[esh21167]

Losing gun rights because you have a restraining order doesnt make sense.
Who are you going to shoot, the person you already can't legally be near?
Ignoring a restraining order is a crime, murder is a crime.
This nothing more than a gun free zone surrounding the person with the PFA and it's well established, people who break the law don't care about gun free zones.

I'd like to see stats on the percentage of domestic shootings where the shooter had a PFA filed against the. Seems like the PFA can be a trigger to go over the top.

[bigandy1966]

The issue is not about the 2nd amendment, the issue is if a person has been deemed to be a violent threat and a history of violent behavior in a court of law, with documented instances of abuse or assault of another family member or any other person,. These people should not have access to firearms. If you cannot control your violent impulses then they should not have access to guns
Furthermore, anyone with a history of instances where they exhibited mentally unstable behavior and documented by a psychological mental health professional enough to be a threat to others, then NO thy should not have access to firearms.
This is already the law and I do not support removing or changing it simply because of anecdotal here say. There are comprehensive mechanisms in place that imperfect though they may be, they still are an added deterrent to those people who would face greater penalties if caught in the possession or attempting to gain access to firearms. You do not hear about the thousands of vulnerable people who have been protected by these laws.

[ray h]

The issue is not about the 2nd amendment, the issue is if a person has been deemed to be a violent threat and a history of violent behavior in a court of law, with documented instances of abuse or assault of another family member or any other person,. These people should not have access to firearms. If you cannot control your violent impulses then they should not have access to guns
Furthermore, anyone with a history of instances where they exhibited mentally unstable behavior and documented by a psychological mental health professional

A couple of things,
1st off, you may have changed my mind, at least you have me thinking.
"B": maybe the two instances are the same, repeated assaults and harassment could be the same thing as a mental issue.
Thirdly: why is such a person already not prohibited after multiple convictions for various things? This still seems like a "loop hole" around your basic criminal prohibition. "We can't criminally convict the guy for just being a creep, so we'll use a PFA to prohibit him".

[John_Wick]

The issue is not about the 2nd amendment, the issue is if a person has been deemed to be a violent threat and a history of violent behavior in a court of law, with documented instances of abuse or assault of another family member or any other person,. These people should not have access to firearms. If you cannot control your violent impulses then they should not have access to guns
Furthermore, anyone with a history of instances where they exhibited mentally unstable behavior and documented by a psychological mental health professional enough to be a threat to others, then NO thy should not have access to firearms.
This is already the law and I do not support removing or changing it simply because of anecdotal here say. There are comprehensive mechanisms in place that imperfect though they may be, they still are an added deterrent to those people who would face greater penalties if caught in the possession or attempting to gain access to firearms. You do not hear about the thousands of vulnerable people who have been protected by these laws.

You're missing the point. Temporary and emergency PFAs don't require anything other than an accusation. There is no need to prove anything and they take effect immediately upon service. Additionally, a final PFA does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal proceedings; it only requires a preponderance of the evidence. This means the court only needs to believe that it is more likely than not (51% vs 49%) that the plaintiff is telling the truth. If Jack shows up at court alone and Diane shows up with her best friend Nancy, who claims she saw Jack hit Diane, a final PFA will likely be issued. Physical evidence is not required. Medical records are not required. Criminal conviction is not required. I would not disagree with you if PFAs required the burden of proof you seem to believe they do, but they do not. A simple "she said" can result in the loss of your right to bear arms.