Why Haven't Restraining Orders Been Challenged?

[Photon Guy]

Because it's the victims word against the alleged abuser.
And if the courts that issue the PFA have decided that the perpetrator of the abuse is a danger to the victim, no guns for them.
I support this

So you support treating people with restraining orders against them to be treated like convicted felons?

Here's the thing, filing restraining orders is really easy to do. Some people deserve them but some people don't. As you said, it's the supposed victim's word against the supposed abuser's word with no due process. You're in support of that?

[Photon Guy]

For some reason I'm thinking that this was recently challenged and found unconstitutional. On one hand, I agree with bigandy but OTOH, I believe that those who maliciously file false complaints should do enough jail time that it would deter others from following suit.

See post #21

[Photon Guy]

There's no such thing as a "restraining order" in PA. The closest thing is a PFA (protection from abuse), and there must be some be some domestic connection between parties (family member, current or former sexual partner or current or former spouse). You can't get one against the neigbor you're fueding with.

Maybe not in PA, but you can get restraining orders filed against you in other states, and if you do to the best of my knowledge you lose your gun rights as a PA resident if you do.

[Photon Guy]

I don't know how anyone that purports to support the Second Amendment could be on board with this.

Yes and it makes me skeptical if even everybody on this forum truly supports the Second Amendment, such as bigandy1966.

[Photon Guy]

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

So an ex wife or ex girlfriend can tell a judge you hit her, even if you haven't, and then the judge will approve the restraining order and there go your gun rights, you're in support of that?

[Photon Guy]

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.

Exactly. And Nancy can lie for Diane. Something bigandy1966 needs to realize.

[bigandy1966]

So an ex wife or ex girlfriend can tell a judge you hit her, even if you haven't, and then the judge will approve the restraining order and there go your gun rights, you're in support of that?

Sure. In theory, In a working, logical court of law There has to be physical evidence and here say evidence should be thrown out.
However in a liberal leftist run kangaroo court run by a rainbow haired 450 pound land whale who identifies as a carrot, heh all bets are off.
I absolutely support it in a perfect logical world as dealing with severely abusive and mentally unstable family members that should never ..ever.. be allowed near any type of weapons.

The system already has laws against illegally filing charges and even perjury. If those laws are broken then you can counter sue creating even more of a headache.

[esh21167]

Sure. In theory, In a working, logical court of law There has to be physical evidence and here say evidence should be thrown out.
However in a liberal leftist run kangaroo court run by a rainbow haired 450 pound land whale who identifies as a carrot, heh all bets are off.
I absolutely support it in a perfect logical world as dealing with severely abusive and mentally unstable family members that should never ..ever.. be allowed near any type of weapons.

I could be wrong, but aren't there already processes in our legal system for what you describe, with a novel idea about something called due process?

I'm no legal expert, but I think I may have once heard about a phrase something like 'innocent until proven guilty.'

[ray h]

I could be wrong, but aren't there already processes in our legal system for what you describe, with a novel idea about something called due process?

I'm no legal expert, but I think I may have once heard about a phrase something like 'innocent until proven guilty.'

That was one of my points earlier, if someone has already been abusive or is mentally ill, they should've already been prohibited through that process, a PFA is really only useful with someone who is not in the system and has not had any prohibiting behaviors, it actually seems like a "work around" the whole court system.

[ray h]

I have a question, serious, when and how does a PFA end?
Is it permanent or can you just go to a judge and say "I'm not angry or dangerous anymore", or do you have to get counseling or be Oked by a doctor, or is it for a set time period?