In Captainpooby's thread, Troy said this:
I was under the impression that the 5th Circuit Court said that it was a reasonable restriction on the Second Ammendment to strip those under a restraining order of the right to own firearms, PROVIDED DUE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED!!. In Emerson's case there was a hearing in which he was present and provided no defense. In a case where a Judge routinely grants a spouse a restraining order (normally the wife) as part of the separation/divorce--WITHOUT A HEARING--wouldn't that go against the 5th Circuit Court decision? Emerson's case (the way I understand it) is based on the premise that even with due process, the Second Amendment right to KABA is not something that can be removed from an individual. So: In a case where a husband and wife separate, the wife gets a blanket restraining order (without a hearing) and they come and confiscate the husband's guns, wouldn't he have recourse under law to sue claiming violation of his Second Ammendment right WITHOUT due process? Even though the 5th Circuit reversed the decision and sent it back to a lower court, their premise was that the Emerson Case met the Due Process clause. AFARR
Note that restraining orders are COMMONLY given out to wives who are leaving their husbands, which will legally bar you from possessing guns. Then, one call to the cops that "my ex has a bunch of guns in the house, and he's under a restraining order" will be your doom.