Why Haven't Restraining Orders Been Challenged?

[Photon Guy]

I do know in the state of PA that if somebody files a restraining order against you, you lose your gun rights. That is a blatant violation of the 2A so why hasn't it been challenged and struck down?

[bigandy1966]

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

[Walleye Hunter]

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.

[father-of-five]

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.

Yes. It's the deceitful ones that are a problem. A bit of a different subject, but I still remember a married couple back in the 90s who spent way too much time trying to 302 each other and the county office didn't give much direction on that problem.

[EFK]

I do know in the state of PA that if somebody files a restraining order against you, you lose your gun rights. That is a blatant violation of the 2A so why hasn't it been challenged and struck down?

The real bottom line is because it costs an obscene amount of money to challenge something like this.

[rkrcpa]

I believe the most recent challenge was in the form of a challenge to New York's red flag law that was recently held to be unconstitutional. Similar but different law but the same legal theory in play.

[gnbrotz]

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.

[esh21167]

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.

I guess that's all at a judge's discretion though, right? Several years ago, a friend met a woman. They met and spoke a few times, even at each others' homes. No sexual relationship. He had some patio furniture that he didn't want and she said she would take it. We drop it off at her house and just set it on her porch (she wasn't home at the time).

The next day he gets notice that she filed a PFA against him for stalking...

[gnbrotz]

I guess that's all at a judge's discretion though, right? Several years ago, a friend met a woman. They met and spoke a few times, even at each others' homes. No sexual relationship. He had some patio furniture that he didn't want and she said she would take it. We drop it off at her house and just set it on her porch (she wasn't home at the time).

The next day he gets notice that she filed a PFA against him for stalking...

Taken directly from the applicable statute, the definition of the connections eligible for PFA protection:

"Family or household members." Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses, parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.

Some attorney sites note that "intimate partners" can include situations where no sexual contact/activity has occurred, so that likely extends to the situation you are aware of.

My assumption is that if a court can make the definition fit, a temporary PFA is NEVER denied, and the best one can hope for if caught up in one is for a dismissal, rather than the entry of a "final" order. And of course, there is no recourse for abuse of process, because that might deter/discourage folks from using the process.

[ray h]

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.