Illegal Firearms confiscated? Updated, Reversed!
Please see http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326601
Update: http://quartzsitearizona.blogspot.com/2011/08/roth-restraining-order-reversed.html
Mr. Roth wrote: "Judge Karen Slaughter reversed herself on the gun confiscation. I challenged it and she (not immediately, but after I hired an attorney) dismissed the injunction against me."
Anonymous said...
As someone who has been through an unlawful Injunction, fought an unlawful Brady gun restriction and won, a few points: JP Judge Slaughter failed to uphold the law in the Michael Roth Injunction and should be impeached.
First, she is not allowed to make up her own law, but did. Specifically, Arizona law requires a "series of acts" before issuing an Injunction. See A.R.S. § 12-1809. A series of acts is defined as "two" in the Arizona Supreme Court's Rules of Protective Order Procedure. JP Slaughter acknowledged this fact while simultaneously acknowledging that Winslow had listed only one act. Yet she issued an Injunction anyway. She did not uphold the law. Hence, a misconduct complaint and impeachment are in order.
Second is the question of "soundness of mind" for an Injunction. A.R.S. § 12-2202 says “Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify shall not be witnesses in a civil action.” Mr. Winslow admitted to JP Slaughter that he is suffering from PTSD and seeing a psychiatrist. Therefore, he is not of sound mind and the Injunction should never have been issued. (How did he legally buy a shotgun with a mental disorder?) Again, JP Slaughter failed to uphold the law.
Third, JP Slaughter’s prohibition against firearms is unconstitutional. Specifically, an Injunction against Harassment is a civil matter. It is not a criminal matter like an Order of Protection. The courts (and people) often lump these together, but they are NOT the same.
Firearms can only be prohibited under an OOP, per Brady and the Violence Against
Women Act. See A.R.S. §13-3602 G(4).
In contrast, Injunction law does NOT give a judge the right to prohibit firearms because Brady does not apply in an Injunction. The Legislature does not speak to firearms in Injunction law. (No mention of firearms in A.R.S. § 12-1809.) It is only an internal handbook of the AZ Supreme Court—which is not law—which claims a judge can prohibit firearm possession in a civil injunction. (See AZ Rules of Protective Order Procedure Rule 6, E e 2, on page 20 at www.law.arizona.edu/clinics/child_and_family_law_clinic/ Materials/ARPOP.pdf) But the handbook is wrong. In fact, it does not cite any lawful basis for its Rule (as it does for every other Rule) because there is no lawful basis for their Rule! This makes a prohibition against firearms a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Arizona’s Constitution. JP Slaughter deprived Mr. Roth a Constitutional right.
Note: A petition was filed last year in the Arizona Supreme Court’s public forum to correct this error in the ARPOP. But the State Bar fought it and the Activist Liberals on the Court denied the petition. A Federal Civil Right lawsuit suing the Justices and JP Slaughter is the only way to make the court obey the law and uphold the 2nd Amendment.
Please see http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326601
Update: http://quartzsitearizona.blogspot.com/2011/08/roth-restraining-order-reversed.html
Mr. Roth wrote: "Judge Karen Slaughter reversed herself on the gun confiscation. I challenged it and she (not immediately, but after I hired an attorney) dismissed the injunction against me."
Anonymous said...
As someone who has been through an unlawful Injunction, fought an unlawful Brady gun restriction and won, a few points: JP Judge Slaughter failed to uphold the law in the Michael Roth Injunction and should be impeached.
First, she is not allowed to make up her own law, but did. Specifically, Arizona law requires a "series of acts" before issuing an Injunction. See A.R.S. § 12-1809. A series of acts is defined as "two" in the Arizona Supreme Court's Rules of Protective Order Procedure. JP Slaughter acknowledged this fact while simultaneously acknowledging that Winslow had listed only one act. Yet she issued an Injunction anyway. She did not uphold the law. Hence, a misconduct complaint and impeachment are in order.
Second is the question of "soundness of mind" for an Injunction. A.R.S. § 12-2202 says “Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify shall not be witnesses in a civil action.” Mr. Winslow admitted to JP Slaughter that he is suffering from PTSD and seeing a psychiatrist. Therefore, he is not of sound mind and the Injunction should never have been issued. (How did he legally buy a shotgun with a mental disorder?) Again, JP Slaughter failed to uphold the law.
Third, JP Slaughter’s prohibition against firearms is unconstitutional. Specifically, an Injunction against Harassment is a civil matter. It is not a criminal matter like an Order of Protection. The courts (and people) often lump these together, but they are NOT the same.
Firearms can only be prohibited under an OOP, per Brady and the Violence Against
Women Act. See A.R.S. §13-3602 G(4).
In contrast, Injunction law does NOT give a judge the right to prohibit firearms because Brady does not apply in an Injunction. The Legislature does not speak to firearms in Injunction law. (No mention of firearms in A.R.S. § 12-1809.) It is only an internal handbook of the AZ Supreme Court—which is not law—which claims a judge can prohibit firearm possession in a civil injunction. (See AZ Rules of Protective Order Procedure Rule 6, E e 2, on page 20 at www.law.arizona.edu/clinics/child_and_family_law_clinic/ Materials/ARPOP.pdf) But the handbook is wrong. In fact, it does not cite any lawful basis for its Rule (as it does for every other Rule) because there is no lawful basis for their Rule! This makes a prohibition against firearms a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Arizona’s Constitution. JP Slaughter deprived Mr. Roth a Constitutional right.
Note: A petition was filed last year in the Arizona Supreme Court’s public forum to correct this error in the ARPOP. But the State Bar fought it and the Activist Liberals on the Court denied the petition. A Federal Civil Right lawsuit suing the Justices and JP Slaughter is the only way to make the court obey the law and uphold the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited:
