carry question ?

FreeInAZ said:

Yup, also remember it is not just a lying ex that can jam one up. All it takes is one nut job to file a false claim against you for (fill in the blank). We as open carriers are easy targets for liars. Without a video / audio of any interaction, who do you think the police , judge & jury will believe - the guy with the gun or the 98lb soccer mom who says you drew down on here over a parking spot at the store? When its your word against theirs every edge helps. Being able to bring up a video of the bat crap crazy lady nearly smashing into in the parking lot then screaming at you and calling police once she sees your gun all while your hands are on a shopping cart calmly walking towards the store.....$$$PRICELESS. Without it, you're going to jail if things go south.

Click to expand...

DrTodd said:

The problem isn't so much those who would levy unsubstantiated charges against another rather the essential problem is a system that allows them to do it. Every time I hear the media say that we need to enforce background checks for firearms, I think of what happened to me. I'm not so much against prohibiting those who have had a protection order entered against them from possessing a firearm as much as I am at how easy it is to get an order. A loss of any rights based upon groundless accusations is deplorable. Since this event happened, I've talked to numerous individuals who have had protection orders entered against them...so many that it appears to be a pretty standard occurrence in divorce cases. This is the problem with any law that purports to stem violence; there are always cases where it is applied in a way that goes far beyond its intended purpose.

Additionally, as I'm sure Glock214 discovered, judges, and to a large degree, attorneys in general, have a very dim view of gun owners. Trying to find a competent divorce attorney, let alone one who will fight for a person's right to possess a firearm, is very difficult...perhaps nearly impossible.

Click to expand...

DrTodd said:

Although you may think that is logically analogous, the court may not. The judge MAY have an issue. I know that I have mentioned the issue with you before, Glock214. In terms of "the best interest of the children" the judge could easily, and it may be likely, decide that loaded firearms and young children don't mix. In my case, I almost lost any contact with my children because I had firearms...and he was under the impression I only had a shotgun and a rifle. With the costly intervention of my attorney to the tune of approximately $5k, the judge maintained the then current arrangement if 1) I kept the firearms out of site and 2) I agreed to maintain them in a "broken down" condition, encased, with trigger locks. Additionally all ammunition needed to be stored out of site in a locked container. My ex didn't even know that I had a CPL at that time and my kids didn't know I had a pistol because, even though I OCd around them, they were too young to really explain that to their mother.

Later, of course they talked to their mom about it...positively, and I get a call from my attorney that my ex is planning to go to court over it. My attorney stated she received a call from my ex's attorney who, because he was sick of dealing with his client, instead called my attorney about the possible request to change parenting time and or custody. I decided then to only CC around them for a while. About 1.5 years ago I decided enough time had gone by and again OCd around my children. After doing so my daughter told me that she overheard my ex talking to an attorney on the phone saying that she wanted to take me to court over the loaded pistols to which my children were exposed... and her new husband was against going to court because they only had the statements from my children that I OCd and he didn't want them to have to testify "against" their dad. Knowing the MONTHS of grief, the expense, and the way I was grilled regarding my having a shotgun and a rifle on my premises despite them being secured to a level that far and above exceeds even the transportation requirements under state law, I now exclusively CC in her presence.

Click to expand...

Glock214 said:

You are correct DrTodd, going through my divorce it was very difficult to find a good attorney who was willing to fight for my rights. I did find one firm, however the judge was on the side of the mother even though my character was being attacked while I did nothing of the sort per my attorney's suggestion. In the end, I feel that I may as well had fought it alone at times. But never the less, I am glad I had attorneys who were willing to back me and did assist in getting me what at least most fathers get in divorce cases. I will never stop fighting for my children or my 2nd amendment right. Never thought I'd be having to fight for my gun rights in the manner I am now. Hoping for the best though, and thankful for the support and advice I have gotten from all on the forum.

Click to expand...

Glock214 said:

Well as of now, no further action has been taken to try and take away my sidearm. It's a long battle, but my Glock 23 is still right by my side ready at a moments notice to protect my loved ones. On another note, I'm testing for the reserve position now. And currently in the selection process! Things are finally looking up. And they didn't say reserves needed to be armed all the time, however stated be ready in the event we get the call. It's not a lock for me, but I have faith in myself and have a huge support system backing me up. Just wanted to update the forum. Carry on!!

Glock214

P.s. If selected, upon graduation we are then eligible for the pfz box endorsement to be checked on our Cpl.

Click to expand...