Louisa County Domestc Relations Court ordered not to carry

user said:

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?

Click to expand...

Nope

Bear7.62x25 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The court does not need to see a reason for you to have a gun on your person, but they should be able to give you a legal reason you shouldn't. Something a little more realistic than the judge simply saying, "I personally don't like it." The reason you may carry is 2A and your state-issued CHP. However, you may want to forgo O/C at those locations, in favor of your CHP, and during transport of the children to-and-from. Pax...

user said:

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?

Click to expand...

Under the law, yes.

user said:

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?

Click to expand...

It would probably cost a fortune in legal fees to get it to a high enough court to make it happen, but perhaps eventually. And boy would it make for some interesting news coverage!

TFred

user said:

SNIP 15.2-915 only applies to...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.

Click to expand...

Hey! :cuss: No fair using big words!

Dammit, now I gotta go find my dictionary!



ETA: Oh, for pete's sake! "interstitial: of or having to do with interstices."

ETA2: Now we're getting somewhere. "interstices: small or narrow spaces or intervals between things or parts."

riverrat10k said:

"Your honor, I would do ANYTHING to protect my children." "It's for the children." Repeat.

Click to expand...

This is right along the lines of something I was thinking. Lets assume for a moment that the OPers problem extends to the entire period of visitation and that he made no violence or threats.

I would say there is a lie hiding in the judge's order. It is not a real decision allowing visitation. It is a denial of visitation masquerading as authorization. Authorizing visitation in one breath, while in the next breath denying the fundamental human right to defend the children should the need arise is not really a granting of visitation. It is a pretended granting. It is basically saying, "you can knowingly bring the children into an environment where you must watch them die as you stand defenseless if you want."

You're darn tootin the gun is for the children. Presumably, so is the visitation in part. Assuming no violence or threats on the part of the father, there is no reason the gun and visitation should be separated by a costumed government lawyer.