Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection. ...In some states, that is all it takes for a man to lose his gun rights.
In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.”
Minority Report was just a stupid movie. We do not have precogs who have the psychic ability to predict future crimes. I am all in favor of taking guns from convicted felons, but citizens are innocent until proven guilty in America. They are supposed to be, anyway.
The anti-man liberal Democrats want want judges to be precogs. The NY Times editorial says:
A man abuses and threatens his ex-wife. She tells a judge that she is frightened and that he is armed. The court orders him to stay away from her. Should it also order him to give up his guns?If the man is really committing crimes, he can be charged for those. But most restraining orders are not justified, and a ex-wife is harassing her ex-husband by trying to deprive him of his rights. The newspapers claims that there are studies showing that the order can prevent violence, but they do not consider all the harm that the orders do.
Of course it should. If a protective order is to mean anything, the court must do all that it reasonably can do to keep a vulnerable person from becoming a homicide statistic. ...
Representative Lois Capps, a California Democrat, recently introduced a bill to toughen the federal law to cover temporary protective orders and current or former “dating partners,” not just spouses. Congress should pass it, and states should reinforce it with their own laws, requiring judges to act when a person’s safety is at obvious risk from an ex-partner with a gun.