alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote
3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!
i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.
tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!
Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?
then you state...isolated testimony...?
this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.
this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!
remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...
as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...
bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...
Ex parte is not due process. If you don't have a chance to respond BEFORE you lose life, liberty or property then you have no way to show the court that the evidence against you is false.
How would you like it if I told a court that you were a drug dealer so they, based solely on my uncorroborated testimony, seized your bank account and then two weeks later you had a hearing to prove you aren't a criminal?
This is "guilty until proven innocent." Show me the strict evidence thresholds that prevent these rulings from being based purely on one person's testimony, because I don't see it anywhere in the initiative.