Why Haven't Restraining Orders Been Challenged?

[bigandy1966]

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.'

Sure, but while the gears of the judicial system grind away to its conclusion, sometimes taking years for resolution, you think its Okay for an unhinged spouse, either male or female , to have access to firearms?

How about this, Don't stick your dick in crazy in the first place. Either side of a PFA can be avoided with a little modicum self control and observation. May I refer you to the Hot Vs. Crazy diagram everyone knows.
I know a piece of paper means little to the mentally disturbed, but short of outright incarceration, A restraining order or PFA is about the best the system can do. And if there are strings attached to it where a person has to surrender their firearms, thats how it works.
On the other side of it How many lives are saved because some impulsive bully without self control does not have access to a 9mm because of his PFA prevents him from shooting his wife and kids while in a full on rage?
I guess we will never know , much like the people who have a firearm and its used as a deterrent to prevent a crime, we cant measure the things that don't happen

[Photon Guy]

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.

Im having a hard time deciding whether to take you seriously or not.

[Photon Guy]

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

That's how it's supposed to be in the USA, but all too often it's the other way around where you're guilty until proven innocent. At least Mexico is honest about it.

[bigandy1966]

Im having a hard time deciding whether to take you seriously or not.

Thats fine. Welcome to the USA where one can freely voice their opinions.

[John_Wick]

Sure, but while the gears of the judicial system grind away to its conclusion, sometimes taking years for resolution, you think its Okay for an unhinged spouse, either male or female , to have access to firearms?

No matter how many times you repeat it, the entire premise of your argument is false. There is no need for the person to be "unhinged" or ever have done anything violent or abusive at all in order for a PFA to be issued. The PFA is a civil proceeding with a civil burden of proof.

How about this, Don't stick your dick in crazy in the first place. Either side of a PFA can be avoided with a little modicum self control and observation. May I refer you to the Hot Vs. Crazy diagram everyone knows.
I know a piece of paper means little to the mentally disturbed, but short of outright incarceration, A restraining order or PFA is about the best the system can do. And if there are strings attached to it where a person has to surrender their firearms, thats how it works.

First, a PFA only requires a domestic relationship, not an intimate one. A PFA can be filed against anyone living in the household - a spouse/lover, parent, other relative or simply a roommate. Second, in cases where the accused has not done what they are being accused of, how is it their fault if a PFA is issued against them? If Jim does nothing wrong and his spouse/roommate/whatever decides to pursue a PFA out of spite, it's Jim's fault for entering into a personal relationship with someone who has the potential for spite? That's tantamount to saying I deserved to be robbed for stopping for milk at Turkey Hill in a high crime neighborhood. Or my wife deserves to get raped because she walks to her car alone in a dark parking lot when leaving work.

On the other side of it How many lives are saved because some impulsive bully without self control does not have access to a 9mm because of his PFA prevents him from shooting his wife and kids while in a full on rage?
I guess we will never know , much like the people who have a firearm and its used as a deterrent to prevent a crime, we cant measure the things that don't happen

Essentially, this is the same argument the anti-gun activists are making to ban ARs, restrict mag capacity, etc. More laws don't mean less crimes. The law abiding citizen is going to surrender those guns, but the crazy guy intent on killing his spouse is going to hold at least one of those back. How many lives would be saved by the government going door to door and confiscating every gun? I don't know and I don't support doing it so we can find out.

[bigandy1966]

No matter how many times you repeat it, the entire premise of your argument is false. There is no need for the person to be "unhinged" or ever have done anything violent or abusive at all in order for a PFA to be issued. The PFA is a civil proceeding with a civil burden of proof.

Ok I'll play
How many of these PFAs are brought forward because of LEGITIMATE concerns of spousal or domestic abuse? I would venture a guess that OVERWHELMINGLY these are legitimate cases requiring these people to be separated from the people filing the PFA against them. If the requirement for Proof of abuse is added, How do you quantify mental abuse? I have seen this first hand, Not a finger was laid on the person, but they would sit in the basement and cycle the action on a shot gun under the bedroom where the person was trying to sleep ...for hours. Would you consider this a legitimate threat to any sane person? And yet you believe this individuals right to keep his guns should be sacrosanct despite these actions?

First, a PFA only requires a domestic relationship, not an intimate one. A PFA can be filed against anyone living in the household - a spouse/lover, parent, other relative or simply a roommate. Second, in cases where the accused has not done what they are being accused of, how is it their fault if a PFA is issued against them?

This is where you get a good lawyer and counter sue for falsely making allegations, perjury and defamation of character.

If Jim does nothing wrong and his spouse/roommate/whatever decides to pursue a PFA out of spite, it's Jim's fault for entering into a personal relationship with someone who has the potential for spite?

Jim needs to use better judgement next time Jim needs to Lawyer up and counter lodge a PFA against the original accuser. Im sure during the ensuing court proceedings the mental attitude of the original plaintiff will become self evident and exonerate Jim. Yes it sucks but this is where the system is broken and needs repair.

That's tantamount to saying I deserved to be robbed for stopping for milk at Turkey Hill in a high crime neighborhood. Or my wife deserves to get raped because she walks to her car alone in a dark parking lot when leaving work.

This Straw man argument is not relevant to the discussion

Essentially, this is the same argument the anti-gun activists are making to ban ARs, restrict mag capacity, etc.

No its not, not even close. The analogy is the same used contextually as the one in the argument in favor of the concealed carrying of firearms.
This is a law that is in place because over time it has been demonstrated that there is a need for some people who do not have any self control or piss poor judgement to have their right to keep and bear arms deleted because they have allegations lodged against them in the judicial system that they have deficiencies in character that supports these actions. This is not a unique situation, after a DUI someone is prohibited from driving until a verdict is found, or am I incorrect in this assumption?
Yes this process does leave it open to abuses by evil vindictive people, maybe even some whom do it for political reasons, what needs to change is the processes for restoration and redress of these wrongs. I believe that if the PFA can be shown to be a false accusation then the accuser should be held accountable. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The system is in place and it works, it just needs to be equalized.

More laws don't mean less crimes. The law abiding citizen is going to surrender those guns, but the crazy guy intent on killing his spouse is going to hold at least one of those back.

Or a gun is not even needed as shown in NJ where the husband used kitchen knives to murder the wife. Using a gun makes it easier Why would you want to make killing someone easier? Maybe the solution is to get the plaintiff some training and get them a gun, hell at least then they can shoot back if the person gets ahold of another gun. knife. rope. piece of wire. baseball bat. fists , feet etc.

How many lives would be saved by the government going door to door and confiscating every gun? I don't know and I don't support doing it so we can find out.

We are not talking about mass confiscation, just taking the guns of a person who has allegedly demonstrated their propensity for violence.
The guns do not necessarily need to be handed over to the law enforcement officials, they can be given over to a trusted friend or relative who cannot give them back until the entire issue has been resolved and a judge issues a writ releasing them back. If this means a permanent ban from owning guns then theyre at least not accessible to the individual.
You dont like this law then vote to change it, as it stands I think it works just fine, except for the penalties for falsely accusing someone of actions that result in the PFA, there must be more equality in the execution of the system and there should be a system for the restoration process..

[wew3]

This is not a unique situation, after a DUI someone is prohibited from driving until a verdict is found, or am I incorrect in this assumption?

Not always.


License Suspensions
Suspensions will be imposed as follows:

BAC below .10% and incapable of safe driving: No suspension for first offense if the driver meets certain criteria; 12 month license suspension for second or subsequent offense.
BAC greater than or equal to .10% and less than .16%: 12 month license suspension for first and second offense. 18 month suspension for third or subsequent offense.
BAC greater than or equal to .16%: 12 month license suspension for first offense. 18 month suspension for second or subsequent offense.
Out-of-state DUI convictions: No suspension for first offense; 12 month license suspension for second or subsequent offense.
-Effective February 1, 2004

https://www.dmv.pa.gov/Information-C...uent%20offense.

Also, this is not a good example to bolster your argument. The license suspension is based on hard evidence - the blood test. Not cop said/driver said testimony.

[bigandy1966]

good point, its also a bad example since driving is a "Privilege" and not a "Right" and may be rescinded at any time.

[USMC3531]

Ok I'll play
How many of these PFAs are brought forward because of LEGITIMATE concerns of spousal or domestic abuse? I would venture a guess that OVERWHELMINGLY these are legitimate cases requiring these people to be separated from the people filing the PFA against them. If the requirement for Proof of abuse is added, How do you quantify mental abuse? I have seen this first hand, Not a finger was laid on the person, but they would sit in the basement and cycle the action on a shot gun under the bedroom where the person was trying to sleep ...for hours. Would you consider this a legitimate threat to any sane person? And yet you believe this individuals right to keep his guns should be sacrosanct despite these actions?

This is where you get a good lawyer and counter sue for falsely making allegations, perjury and defamation of character.


Jim needs to use better judgement next time Jim needs to Lawyer up and counter lodge a PFA against the original accuser. Im sure during the ensuing court proceedings the mental attitude of the original plaintiff will become self evident and exonerate Jim. Yes it sucks but this is where the system is broken and needs repair.



This Straw man argument is not relevant to the discussion



No its not, not even close. The analogy is the same used contextually as the one in the argument in favor of the concealed carrying of firearms.
This is a law that is in place because over time it has been demonstrated that there is a need for some people who do not have any self control or piss poor judgement to have their right to keep and bear arms deleted because they have allegations lodged against them in the judicial system that they have deficiencies in character that supports these actions. This is not a unique situation, after a DUI someone is prohibited from driving until a verdict is found, or am I incorrect in this assumption?
Yes this process does leave it open to abuses by evil vindictive people, maybe even some whom do it for political reasons, what needs to change is the processes for restoration and redress of these wrongs. I believe that if the PFA can be shown to be a false accusation then the accuser should be held accountable. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The system is in place and it works, it just needs to be equalized.


Or a gun is not even needed as shown in NJ where the husband used kitchen knives to murder the wife. Using a gun makes it easier Why would you want to make killing someone easier? Maybe the solution is to get the plaintiff some training and get them a gun, hell at least then they can shoot back if the person gets ahold of another gun. knife. rope. piece of wire. baseball bat. fists , feet etc.


We are not talking about mass confiscation, just taking the guns of a person who has allegedly demonstrated their propensity for violence.
The guns do not necessarily need to be handed over to the law enforcement officials, they can be given over to a trusted friend or relative who cannot give them back until the entire issue has been resolved and a judge issues a writ releasing them back. If this means a permanent ban from owning guns then theyre at least not accessible to the individual.
You dont like this law then vote to change it, as it stands I think it works just fine, except for the penalties for falsely accusing someone of actions that result in the PFA, there must be more equality in the execution of the system and there should be a system for the restoration process..

As someone who has had a pfa put on them for vindictive reasons, and told I can't go into MY house that I alone own and told there is no way to have her removed from my house in a timely manner. Yea there needs to be a way to punish the false accusers.

[giant_g2]

The main problem with these laws is that they fall under civil law. You have no right to an attorney. You have no right to face your accuser (ex parte hearings are the norm). The burden of proof is simply a preponderance and not beyond a reasonable doubt, even then it's abused such as the comment about judges wanting to err on the side of caution. You can try to add penalties for false reporting, but stuff like perjury and unsworn falsification already exist. The problem here is that these have a higher burden of proof given they are criminal infractions. This create a uneven power dynamic. Even for something like defamation, you'd have to prove the other person knew that what they were saying was false, which is easier said than done. The judges are too smart to admit they're erring on the side of caution, otherwise you could file a civil rights claim. They have virtually no oversight and complaints against them are considered so secret that you can't request the contents even if it contains exculpatory evidence, all in the name to protect the integrity of the system.

This type of law will only increase in use as a way to bypass the legal protection in the criminal side. This is already common practice for PFAs in divorce. Red flag laws are expanding. Civil asset forfeiture follows a similar tactic. CA is/was modeling a gun law after the TX abortion law which allows individuals to sue other individuals without actual damages having occurred (believe these were struck down, but shows their thinking).

This isn't about protection - PFAs are really redundant. It's about being lazy. If people had actual proof, then charges would be filed under things like terroristic threats, harassment, or conspiracy to commit some other crime. Instead they want the burden of proof to be low. Even with all the protections on the criminal side of things it's estimated that 2-10% of the incarcerated population is innocent. I can guarantee the false positive rate on PFAs are multiple times higher. This is a well known tactic in divorce cases as any divorce lawyer will tell you.

I'm pretty sure that other guy is a troll, but here is a resource to help educate them. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fi...tic-abuse-6008