The Louisa County Domestc Relations Court apparently sees no reason for me to have a gun on my person while picking up or dropping off my children for visitation. They have thusly court ordered me not to have a gun on my erson suring pick up, drop off or transport of my children. The exchange happens in a public location. I have never threatened a family member or given anyone cause to be concerned that I carry. I have a chp. I am certain that this violates virginias preemption clause. questions, comments, wise cracks?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare
My personal advice: Get thee to a lawyer. Tricky though, need to find one who specializes in both domestic and gun law.
Preemption won't apply, a court is not a locality. This is going to require more court time.
ETA: Could be a very interesting case though, would certainly make a lot of news, and may garner outside support.
Last edited by TFred; 09-18-2012 at 09:08 AM.
I've said this before. Don't try to get important legal guidance on the internet!!! No one listens to me but they usually figure out why I say it in the end.
IMO...right now you have two options. Talk to a good lawyer and yes, he will cost some money, or follow the court's orders. You do know that not everybody carries 24 hours a day...don't you?
I also expect there is a little more to the story. How does the Judge know you carry? How did the issue come up?
"Your Honor, my ex-husband is SO CRAZY, he carries GUNS when he is around MY CHILDREN! Can you put him in JAIL for that? NO!?!? Good Grief what is this world coming to!? Can you at LEAST make him NOT carry guns when he is around MY CHILDREN!?"
Of course, I could be wrong.
We learned many things.
Obama is a dirty *** of a *****
Grapeshot has a "Purty Gun".
She is from South Carolina or Mississippi...or Florida.
Scouser has a nice accent and she likes people from the UK.
Last edited by peter nap; 09-18-2012 at 10:03 AM.
It never fails to amaze me how little rule of objective written law matters in a family law courtroom. Can have someone on blatant, outright disregard for the court's written order, and nothing happens, but they make false allegations that have no proof (because they are untrue!) and we have to take those seriously and rights are suspended because children are involved - perhaps the most important time of all to protect those rights since we're teaching children that these rights are not inalienable if we don't.
The judge could say no red shirt on Friday or you cannot transport your children in a vehicle that you are driving - makes as much sense.
My guess is that it is a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court - I have personally heard hearsay evidence accepted in those.
It is still the King's Court when when decisions are made on other than law.
You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.
That's why I suspect that some of the heavy hitters may be willing to get involved here, once they find out about it and if all is as reported. This would seem to be a fairly open and shut case that could advance the cause quite a bit with an appellate victory on the record.
Low hanging fruit... so to speak.
J&DR Courts are "supposed" to focus on the best interests of the children when dealing with child custody matters. In practical terms that means that anybody who even whispers that something (action, object, thought) may be harmful the judge is going to be inclined to issue an order against it.
Opposing the order would most likely involve explanations of why you carry, and I'm going to guess the reasons go beyond being a poster child for the fact that Law Abiding Citizens are allowed to carry just because they are LACs. In other words, explanations of self protection will likely be met with questions of why you are exposing the children to settings/situations where you might need to defend yourself/your children and a sudden decision that your lifestyle and the places you frequent are too dangerous. That will result in an order either for supervised visitation at some government agency office or no visitation at all.
None of this should be read as endorsing/supporting the mindset that brings all this about. It's just years of experience with the system being offered for consideration.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
It might be that the judge is actually issuing a protective order, as a condition of visitation.
A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.
Member VCDL, NRA
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that J&DRC is a court not of record. Find a lawyer now. Do not diddle and lose your ability to file a timely appeal.
He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty
The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776
"Your honor, I would do ANYTHING to protect my children." "It's for the children." Repeat.
Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be humble. Be the best you can be.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!
carry a crossbow....if you legally can
My opinion is that a district court has the power to create remedies pursuant to statutes governing child support & custody, but lacks the power to make or enforce administrative regulations regarding firearms. A Circuit court, on the other hand, has inherent and statutory authority to create administrative regulations to enhance the security of the court systems in that circuit, as well as to fashion remedies. But because the statutes controlling custody don't mention firearms, and 15.2-915 requires an explicit reference to firearms, the court lacks the power to make orders relating to firearms absent specific statutory authority.
Did you note your appeal to the circuit court? I'd at least argue that the J&DR court lacked the authority to impose that regulation arbitrarily. I think this is one of those gray, interstitial areas in the code where the legislature didn't consider every possible situation in which one might think of applying a particular statute.
Practical application: can you imagine a world in which a Virginia Circuit Court is going to order a district judge to stop issuing orders governing firearm possession and providing a plaintiff with an award of attorneys' fees?
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.
Last edited by Gil223; 09-22-2012 at 07:01 PM. Reason: typo
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)
Last edited by Citizen; 09-23-2012 at 11:49 AM.
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.
If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?
There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.