Louisa County Domestc Relations Court ordered not to carry

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?

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. 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?

Click to expand...

What about the remainder of your time with your children?

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.

TFred

ETA: Could be a very interesting case though, would certainly make a lot of news, and may garner outside support.

TFred said:

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.

TFred

ETA: Could be a very interesting case though, would certainly make a lot of news, and may garner outside support.

Click to expand...

Amen!

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.:lol:

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?

peter nap said:

Amen!

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.:lol:

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?

Click to expand...

If I had to guess, it would be something like,

"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.

TFred

TFred said:

If I had to guess, it would be something like,

"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.

TFred

Click to expand...

Yep!
Aren't gun innuendo's great!
Like that drunk woman at a recent OC dinner asked me...."Are you Klan"

peter nap said:

Yep!
Aren't gun innuendo's great!
Like that drunk woman at a recent OC dinner asked me...."Are you Klan"

Click to expand...

That's bizarre! Perhaps she thought she'd found an ally?

2a4all said:

That's bizarre! Perhaps she thought she'd found an ally?

Click to expand...

That was an entertaining night. Toggle Switch recorded it. Her name was Annie Fanny or something like that, older woman, a nurse, drunk as a skunk.

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.

Many things:uhoh:

Re: court ordered not to carry

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.

TFred said:

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.

TFred

ETA: Could be a very interesting case though, would certainly make a lot of news, and may garner outside support.

Click to expand...

I really have trouble wrapping my head around this concept. I realize preemption does not apply and that there may be things of which we are not aware. Still unless this gentleman has a protective order against him, is a danger to himself or others or has committed a crime where is the legal justification to disarm him? It is legislating from the bench.

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. :banghead:

Grapeshot said:

I really have trouble wrapping my head around this concept. I realize preemption does not apply and that there may be things of which we are not aware. Still unless this gentleman has a protective order against him, is a danger to himself or others or has committed a crime where is the legal justification to disarm him? It is legislating from the bench.

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. :banghead:

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

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.

TFred

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.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

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.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Sounds like winning this one case could do an awful lot of "fixing", if it goes right. But perhaps at substantial risk.

TFred

It might be that the judge is actually issuing a protective order, as a condition of visitation.

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.

2a4all said:

It might be that the judge is actually issuing a protective order, as a condition of visitation.

Click to expand...

That was my thought as well. Sounds like it could be part of a protective order for the wife, but absent details it is hard to say.

The lawyer advise is the most sound.

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

carry a crossbow....if you legally can

davidmcbeth said:

carry a crossbow....if you legally can

Click to expand...

But don't post about it here

TFred said:

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.

TFred

ETA: Could be a very interesting case though, would certainly make a lot of news, and may garner outside support.

Click to expand...

15.2-915 only applies to "administrative" regulatory powers; moreover, the term, "locality", means "a county, city, or town as the context may require." (15.2-102), expanded in 15.2-915 to include local authorities, departments & governmental entities, except those that are controlled by the state government. The district courts are run administratively by a state department, but control themselves and are funded both by the local government and by the state. I think they function in a way that is analogous to the term, "authority".

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?