Quoted: You are only proving my point. Thanks
|
No GENIUS, the point everyone is making is how incredibly simplistic it is for a (so-called) "victim" of DV to put into motion process to make it impossible for the "accused" to continue to own or possess guns.
Protections orders are ROUTINELY granted in divorce cases (and in some cases, as a matter of procedure without ANY showing of violence) and other DV cases. Moreover, a mere MISDEMEANOR for DV results in the loss of all 2nd Amendment rights. Thank Billy Bob Clinton for that one.
The point is that the context of DV is simply another way to rob gun owners of their rights where it was NEVER shown that any actual incident involving a weapon occurred, but merely based upon the liklihood that a weapon may be used in the future.
Hmmm, can you say denial of due process?
The law sucks. It's merely a "feel good" measure to remedy past wrongs and inaction by screwed-up police and prosecutors who either ignored or poo-pooed womens' legitimage claims that they were victims of abuse.
But guess who pays?