This means that while our legislatures pass one set of rules and regulations for citizens, family court judges are free to just make up their own rules that have nothing to do with law or reason.That's right, and it is completely opposite what 3 millennia of legal theory says judges are supposed to do.
That's what family court judges do. It doesn't have anything to do with guns per se. Could be religion or schooling or health care or parental dating or anything else you can think of. These are decisions in equity, and the judges frequently apply no particular set of principles beyond their own whims.
The case involved a dad who won sole custody of a child, but then was ordered to get rid of his guns until the kid is 18yo. The appeals knocked out the gun condition:
In its letter opinion, the trial court noted that extensive testimony was given regarding Kurt’s collection of guns. It acknowledged that Kurt, Andrea, and both of Andrea’s parents testified that the guns were kept in a locked safe in a closet located behind a locked door to Kurt’s bedroom. ... Nevertheless, the court went on to find that it was not in the child’s best interests to have multiple guns and ammunition in a home.Of course the family court judge could still retaliate by taking away his custody.
Based upon the evidence presented at trial, as well as the trial court’s own specific findings, it was not reasonable for the court to place such a restriction on Kurt’s lawful possession of ammunition or guns without any evidence of danger to the child. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on this issue …