https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

8-1 loss on this one with only Thomas dissenting. Of course, the media has to totally misrepresent what the case was actually about. You see headlines like "Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling". Who can possibly be pro "domestic abuser"?

I haven’t sent the headlines yet, but I was listening to some discussion on it.

The discussion did point out the connection to a “temporary” situation. Honestly I am kinda ok with a restriction when there is a protection order in place (temp or permanent).

The issue I have with most of these “red flag” laws is the restriction before due process, orders being issued where there has been no violence or threats of violence, and the frequently low bar that needs to be crossed to get an ex parte order issued restricting the rights for months before the person is afforded the opportunity to get their side of the story heard in court.

100%. This is about due process and is just as messed up as red flag laws. It's not about "abusers" having firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
…..the frequently low bar that needs to be crossed to get an ex parte order issued restricting the rights for months before the person is afforded the opportunity to get their side of the story heard in court.

I’m going to guess that “months” exist in states that already don’t care about Rights. Go figure.

Here, EPOs can only be good for 21 days. And that’s maximum. Usually court cases are heard within 10 days or less. If the case is dismissed, it’s like nothing ever happened. If the Court upholds the EPO, it can become a DVO with a maximum of 36 months. Most of what I’ve seen recently have been 12 month DVOs.

As an aside, a misdemeanor conviction of DV is only a prohibitor for five years. If there are no other DV convictions, it automatically goes away. DV convictions here can be expunged once the sentence has been completed. Expungements run a few hundred dollars or less.