The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution reads;<\/p>\n
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Basically, it says that you have the right to due process before the government can take your stuff. Well, that phony Vietnam veteran, the Senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal has introduced a bill in the Senate which will abrogate that right for gun owners simply because they’re accused of violent behavior whether it’s true or not. Especially in restraining order matters<\/a>;<\/p>\n
Temporary restraining orders generally are given for a two-week period to allow time to set up a court date for the accused to defend himself or herself before a judge.<\/p>\n
Under these proposals, firearms could be taken during that period — as opposed to current law which only allows for that to happen when someone is convicted of domestic violence or subject to a final restraining order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yeah, if I was intending to do harm to my neighbor, but I knew that he had a gun, all I’d have to do is go down to the local courthouse, swear out a restraining order, and then, voila, he’s disarmed. <\/p>\n
In fact, it’s happened to me twice in the last year in retaliation for stolen valor busts here at TAH. I suspect that one restraining order was filed just so I would lose my guns so a particular mentally deficient fellow could confront me at my home. The other douche nozzle did it just to harass me. Which is easy to do, actually – you just go the courthouse, tell a tear-filled story and swear to it, whether you’re lying or not, and the order gets issued. In fact, you’re subject to the order without knowing about it.<\/p>\n
But, yeah, who would have thought that a Valor thief would think that it’s perfectly cool to suspend Constitutional protections. The gun grabbers think it’s a great idea.<\/p>\n
[DC Council Woman Mary] Cheh said in an interview that the high degree of danger that a domestic partner faces right after seeking help “weighs in favor of getting the gun first — for a short period of time — and then sorting it out later.” She said that, “It’s not right to say they don’t have due process. They don’t have it right away. Under a temporary restraining order, they will have to give up their guns for 14 days.”<\/p>\n
The Democrat said her bill is “perfectly consistent with due process” because it allows for the accused to defend themselves in court, even if that defense is delayed. Cheh, who is a constitutional law professor, said she has “complete confidence” that her bill would be upheld by the courts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I have complete confidence that, if the same method was applied to abortion rights or environmental regulations, Cheh would be opposed. Only when it’s applied to gun owners does it seem reasonable. I’d be interested in seeing the statistics which would point to a need for this law. I suspect that it’s just another attempt at making people feel safer without actually doing something. And as long as it’s only those evil lawful gun owners who are sacrificing their Constitutional rights, what’s the big deal? Right? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"