Well it happened, PFA on my friend and he has questions

[kevco]

Police report, court documents, and if they walk into the hearing and under oath repeat the false statements they made when filing the PFA, lying under oath. Dickhead pulled the standard routine of filing a PFA against her within hours of being served with the temporary order, filled it with a mountain of lies that were proven in court, and got nailed with all 3 by the judge.

Sounds like Karma strikes again! HA!

[Koli01]

Guess I've just watched too many of those shows were the 'tough guy' storms across the lawn. The woman (or her friend) says "You can't come near me (her)"! Tough guys says, "F*** You"! and proceeds to beat her to death.

[mjfletcher]

some people really are that stupid I guess.

I would be much more impressed if the TPA came with a LTCF firearm permit to protect the abused. Want to put teeth to it? there ya go

You mean like this:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109

§ 6109. Licenses
(m) 1 Temporary emergency licenses.--

(1) A person seeking a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed firearm shall submit to the sheriff of the county in which the person resides all of the following:

(i) Evidence of imminent danger to the person or the person's minor child. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "minor" shall have the same meaning as provided in 1 Pa.C.S. § 1991 (relating to definitions).

(10) As used in this subsection, the term "evidence of imminent danger" means:

(i) a written document prepared by the Attorney General, a district attorney, a chief law enforcement officer, judicial officer or their designees describing the facts that give a person reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon the person or the person's minor child. For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term "chief law enforcement officer" shall have the same meaning as provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8951 (relating to definitions) and "judicial officer" shall have the same meaning as provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions).

(ii) a police report.

Bold/underlined would be a PFA.

I think if I was in your situation I would be armed every minute of every day. Good luck

I am

btw - I don't think ANYONE has any issue with PFA's being used for their REAL purpose, like yours. Its the abuse of them that really ticks most people off

I know, some people just come across as being totally opposed to them.

[Dredly]

Hmm didn't know that was in there, cool. Is there a time frame that it must be completed in?

[GunLawyer001]

Police report, court documents, and if they walk into the hearing and under oath repeat the false statements they made when filing the PFA, lying under oath. Dickhead pulled the standard routine of filing a PFA against her within hours of being served with the temporary order, filled it with a mountain of lies that were proven in court, and got nailed with all 3 by the judge.

These things are abused far more often than they are used for their intended purpose. They DO get granted by judges who are afraid of denying one and then having an incident hit the papers; judges will issue 1000 baseless ones instead of risking one attack on a woman who was denied the Order, even though a PFA is no deterrent to someone who's willing to kill without the possibility of gain (seriously, what sort of thought process allows a man to kill the woman who he can't live without?) The liberal newspapers would crucify a judge who denied the victim's PFA application, even though killers would ignore the PFA, so they save no lives. It's like putting up a sign on the bank door, "NO ROBBERIES".

I have never personally been the subject of a PFA, a divorce, or had my personal relationships resolved by the courts or the police, so I have no particular ax to grind here. I don't even handle these types of cases, I just see the paperwork when it relates to my practice in firearms law. But I'll tell you, men traditionally get the shaft in domestic matters. Sure, you can find examples the other way, but I've heard "success stories" for Amway salespeople, too, and they don't reflect reality, either. The usual rule is that misbehaving women are coddled, men are used by the courts as sources of funding who have no enforceable rights. The operating assumption is that women are whores who are entitled to payment for sexual service rendered, and that's the view of the FEMINISTS (how often have you heard the bitter NOW hags argue that years of child support are justified even if the woman lied about being on the pill or even about the identity of the father, because ultimately, the man has to "pay for his fun"?)

PFA's are routinely granted against men because the woman has done something immoral and vile, and she expects him to react like a betrayed human being; so he gets punished for her misdeeds. Being a gun owner will count against you. And I've never heard of a woman in Pennsylvania being sanctioned for applying for a PFA without good cause. Have you?

What I'd like to see is a voluntary, mutual agreement that the parties will steer clear of each other, without the baggage of loss of firearms and other punitive sanctions. Punishment is inconsistent with the absence of any finding of wrongdoing.

[mjfletcher]

Hmm didn't know that was in there, cool. Is there a time frame that it must be completed in?

Nothing in the statute that dictates a timeframe so I would assume anytime the order is valid the licence can be applied for.

[LittleRedToyota]

And I've never heard of a woman in Pennsylvania being sanctioned for applying for a PFA without good cause. Have you?

nope. i have, however, seen a judge royally ream a woman for getting one granted without due cause.

of course, by then, the man had already:

1. been arrested for coming home (she did not bother to actually give him the PFA or tell him about it. then, when he came home, she immediately called the police who watched her give him the PFA--meaning they knew she had not given it to him before--and arrested him for violating it anyway...they said they had no choice as he was technically in violation of the PFA even though he did not know about it).

2. spent a night in jail

3. been threatened with being held in that jail indefinitely if he did not allow them to draw blood (for their DNA database, i guess...he repeatedly told them to f' off, and they finally let him go without the blood).

4. could not enter his own house (that he paid for, not her, not them) for 10 days...which meant he could not get into his office--which is at his home--for 10 days which, of course, royally screwed up his consulting business

5. had to ask me to take a day off work to come be a witness at the PFA hearing (didn't actually end up testifying...wish i could have though. i witnessed her physically assault him and threaten to kill him on several occassions and never witnessed him touch her in anger or threaten her in any way).

she admitted lying to the judge. she basically admitted she was really just mad that the man in question did not pamper her the way she "deserved" to be pampered. the judge yelled at her for it and vacated the PFA. but that's all that happened. she faced no real ramifications at all--and that is a serious problem.

they ended up getting divorced...where her argument was again that he did not provide her with the lifestyle she "deserved" (just for being born, i guess).

[mjfletcher]

These things are abused far more often than they are used for their intended purpose. They DO get granted by judges who are afraid of denying one and then having an incident hit the papers; judges will issue 1000 baseless ones instead of risking one attack on a woman who was denied the Order, even though a PFA is no deterrent to someone who's willing to kill without the possibility of gain (seriously, what sort of thought process allows a man to kill the woman who he can't live without?) The liberal newspapers would crucify a judge who denied the victim's PFA application, even though killers would ignore the PFA, so they save no lives. It's like putting up a sign on the bank door, "NO ROBBERIES".

Judges allowing a law to be abused doesn't make it a bad law though, just makes them a bad judge. And the same could be said of any other method of defense. A gun's only good if the person tries to beat/strangle/stab you, if they cut part of the way through your brake lines while you're sleeping a guns useless. Making sure you're always with someone only works if they're not willing to run anyone else over to get you. A PFA is only one tool, and should never be the only tool.

I have never personally been the subject of a PFA, a divorce, or had my personal relationships resolved by the courts or the police, so I have no particular ax to grind here. I don't even handle these types of cases, I just see the paperwork when it relates to my practice in firearms law. But I'll tell you, men traditionally get the shaft in domestic matters. Sure, you can find examples the other way, but I've heard "success stories" for Amway salespeople, too, and they don't reflect reality, either. The usual rule is that misbehaving women are coddled, men are used by the courts as sources of funding who have no enforceable rights. The operating assumption is that women are whores who are entitled to payment for sexual service rendered, and that's the view of the FEMINISTS (how often have you heard the bitter NOW hags argue that years of child support are justified even if the woman lied about being on the pill or even about the identity of the father, because ultimately, the man has to "pay for his fun"?)

Thats changing, as the number of single fathers increases domestic agencies are realizing that its not automatically a case of good woman/bad man. How many generations were taught that women were the "weaker sex" automatically making them the "helpless" sex that needed protecting? Our legal system followed the socially accepted standards, those standards are changing and the legal system is following.

PFA's are routinely granted against men because the woman has done something immoral and vile, and she expects him to react like a betrayed human being; so he gets punished for her misdeeds. Being a gun owner will count against you. And I've never heard of a woman in Pennsylvania being sanctioned for applying for a PFA without good cause. Have you?

I've never seen an instance of someone who had a PFA filed against them and won at the hearing actually following up to have anything done. They take the win, go home, done.

What I'd like to see is a voluntary, mutual agreement that the parties will steer clear of each other, without the baggage of loss of firearms and other punitive sanctions. Punishment is inconsistent with the absence of any finding of wrongdoing.

Sadly, there are too many instances of one party refusing to let go, maybe someday everyone will just accept "its over" and be done with it.

[mjfletcher]

nope. i have, however, seen a judge royally ream a woman for getting one granted without due cause.

of course, by then, the man had already:

1. been arrested for coming home (she did not bother to actually give him the PFA or tell him about it. then, when he came home, she immediately called the police who watched her give him the PFA--meaning they knew she had not given it to him before--and arrested him for violating it anyway...they said they had no choice as he was technically in violation of the PFA even though he did not know about it).

2. spent a night in jail

3. been threatened with being held in that jail indefinitely if he did not allow them to draw blood (for their DNA database, i guess...he repeatedly told them to f' off, and they finally let him go without the blood).

4. could not enter his own house (that he paid for, not her, not them) for 10 days...which meant he could not get into his office--which is at his home--for 10 days which, of course, royally screwed up his consulting business

5. had to ask me to take a day off work to come be a witness at the PFA hearing (didn't actually end up testifying...wish i could have though. i witnessed her physically assault him and threaten to kill him on several occassions and never witnessed him touch her in anger or threaten her in any way).

she admitted lying to the judge. she basically admitted she was really just mad that the man in question did not pamper her the way she "deserved" to be pampered. the judge yelled at her for it and vacated the PFA. but that's all that happened. she faced no real ramifications at all--and that is a serious problem.

they ended up getting divorced...where her argument was again that he did not provide her with the lifestyle she "deserved" (just for being born, i guess).

He definitely should have followed up on that. She may have ended up having to find herself a rich husband to pay off her fines and the judgement from a civil suit for moneys lost with his business.

[LittleRedToyota]

He definitely should have followed up on that. She may have ended up having to find herself a rich husband to pay off her fines and the judgement from a civil suit for moneys lost with his business.

i agree he should have...he just wanted to get divorced and get it all over with and move on, i guess.

but, he should not have had to follow-up.

the judge should have declared her in contempt of court and had her arse thrown in jail. she should have been arrested for filing a false report (or whatever the actual statute calls it)...again, without my buddy having to do anything to initiate it.

it just pisses me off that our government has no problem arresting people for victimless "crimes" without some citizen having to initiate the process, but when someone does something illegal that actually causes another person harm, the government won't do anything about it unless the harmed person takes it on himself to initiate the process. it's abusrd and disgusting. but, i digress...