Restraining Order = no more 2nd amendment

I like Sheen. I have never seen the TV show but I like him.

Once he asked questions about 9/11 I knew they would come down on him.

I just found this artcle about how his ex got a restraning order against him.
I didn't know they would raid your house for your guns.

restraining order = no more 2nd amendment

Officers are looking for guns that might be in violation of a restraining order granted to his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller last week.

officers may be attempting to remove Sheen from the home in order to conduct an involuntary psychiatric evaluation because of his odd behavior over the past weeks.

How dare he not act like the rest of the drones. Must be crazy.

I don't know if this can be done everyplace or just a crazy California thing but I call BS on it.

The police need to not enforce this code or law. This is going to get them killed because a gun grabbing appointed judge allows it. I was under the impression that a restraining order was to keep you from going a certain distance from another person. Now, or has it always been another way for them to take our guns away.

Maybe that is the plan, Get Americans mad as hell so they fight back and then they can bring the jack boot down on you more.

Sheen, if he has guns or not, should have said get bent. But that would have got him locked up for sure. Then his fans wold have over run the station to get him out. I can see that happening.
Not for the poisons in the air, water or food but for Sheen's 2nd amendment. Hey whatever works.

I have not researched this yet but I am now, has this always been a part of a restraining order?

I can see them attaching this to every law. What do you think about this tactic?

He shot her or something didn't he? I think that's why they went looking for his guns, I'm not sure though.

reply to post by miconATSrender


It's only because he's a celebrity, and one they do not like either, therefore they will harass him any way possible. Let me tell from experience you can have the # knocked out of you barely alive and if it was not a celebrity that did it, or you're not a celb yourself, getting a restraining order is harder than nailing jello to a tree!

From the time the protection order is imposed until it is cleared from all databases it is a violation of
Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a.k.a. the Lautenberg Amendment, to purchase, acquire, or be in possession of firearms, ammunition, or other dangerous weapons, e.g., swords, grenades, explosives, etc. This is a federal felony with a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison if convicted. Collectors items are held to be in this category as well. “In possession” generally means in the same room as, or in close proximity to. If you are visiting a friend and they have a gun collection, you can be held to be in violation and could be sentenced to five years (minimum) in federal prison.

If you have a gun collection, swords, etc., the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (BATFE)
approved method of storage is with an attorney, with the police or sheriff, or with an approved firearms dealer.
Have a friend or relative collect them for you and remove them to an approved storage location until after you are
sure the protection order has been lifted and your name removed from the state and federal databases. That will
usually require a separate motion to the court or personally carrying or mailing a certified copy of the court order
of dismissal to a Colorado Bureau of Investigation office.

www.ejfi.org...

The 2nd is one of those pseudo-rights that can be revoked and infringed upon for farting in the wrong direction.

The best part is no restraining order has ever prevented a kidnapping, murder, rape or assault. So what's the point? Just fodder for custody and estate settlement suits I guess.

reply to post by miconATSrender


It really, really sucks when someone can just walk into a police station or worse - have a lawyer do the paperwork - and file a restraining order on you. There's nothing you can do about it, except get served the papers. And yes, say goodbye to your second amendment (for about a year).

I learned all this going through a nasty divorce a few years back and trust me, there was no need for a restraining order, but the new boyfriend seemed to think so

Murdering someone also negates the Second Amendment.

I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this. As someone that did file a necessary restraining order against an individual some years ago, I can say without a doubt that this is a necessary step in ensuring the safety of the complainant.

Yes, some people file restraining orders without merit. However, these cases are expedited for that very reason and if no evidence is provided to warrant issuing a restraining order, than 2nd amendment rights are reinstated. However, if a judge finds that a person's life is potentially in danger, I would think disarming that person is the best course of action.

The 2nd Amendment is designed to allow law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves if necessary. It is not designed to allow people to take the life or threaten another individual .

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Murdering someone also negates the Second Amendment.

I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this. As someone that did file a necessary restraining order against an individual some years ago, I can say without a doubt that this is a necessary step in ensuring the safety of the complainant.

Yes, some people file restraining orders without merit. However, these cases are expedited for that very reason and if no evidence is provided to warrant issuing a restraining order, than 2nd amendment rights are reinstated. However, if a judge finds that a person's life is potentially in danger, I would think disarming that person is the best course of action.

The 2nd Amendment is designed to allow law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves if necessary. It is not designed to allow people to take the life or threaten another individual .

You're off base and I've got to run so I'll be back to pick this up later, but with that being said:

I never broke the law. period. BUT my rights were taken away for a year because of govt bureaucracy and a lying ex-wife that was out for blood. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Besides, the cops never actually came to take my gun anyway...so, if i was violent, would the order have stopped me from being violent? I beg to differ; i still had my weapons....

Be back soon if you care to pick this back up. My personal end-all be-all point is that 'the more guns the better'. When we're unarmed only criminals and cops will be armed - no thanks, I'll defend and depend on myself.

Originally posted by SirClem

You're off base and I've got to run so I'll be back to pick this up later, but with that being said:

I never broke the law. period. BUT my rights were taken away for a year because of govt bureaucracy and a lying ex-wife that was out for blood. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Besides, the cops never actually came to take my gun anyway...so, if i was violent, would the order have stopped me from being violent? I beg to differ; i still had my weapons....

I'm not off base because laws are not created and enforced based solely on your experience. While there are those that file false police reports, false complaints, and simply exist to harass someone else -- exes are notorious for this type of behavior -- they are the exception and not the rule.

I fully support the 2nd Amendment. However, I think it would rather dangerous if a person, found in a court of law, deemed capable and willing to harm another were left fully armed to do so.

Again, I am not saying in your particular case this action, although you then go on to say they didn't remove your guns anyway so I'm missing your point, was warranted. What I am saying is that a person that breaks the law -- and harassing and threatening another individual is against the law -- should have their weapons removed if they are deemed to be potentially dangerous to another individual.

In Charlie Sheen's case, Mueller apparently provided sufficient evidence to a judge -- I believe in the form of written and oral messages - - to warrant the restraining order.

I also feel you are missing one MAJOR point to this story however:
Charlie Sheen is forbidden from possessing firearms and weapons while on probation.

So, no restraining order was even needed. If a source stated that Sheen was in possession of a firearm, and a judge/police felt that this source had enough evidence to be more likely true than untrue, they have the right to search his home and remove his firearms if found. Further, if weapons are found and are deemed a violation of his probation - not sure how his antique gun is going to be decided - he goes back to jail -- restraining order or not.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree - which is fine

I also see the point you made in bold - i'm not disagreeing with that.

My point though is this: We must err on the side of personal liberties when there's no PROOF involved.

In sheen's case with the probation and other threats, I see the case why his guns were taken away - it's the law...i get it.

I, am an avid gun owner and don't have a violent bone in my body. My ex presented zero evidence to her case and MY rights were taken away for a year just so she could make my life hell. Again, IMO we must err on the side of personal liberties; if we don't where does the buck stop?

What other liberties will they take away from you based on someone else's false statement? They don't put people to death or in jail without evidence, so why so freely take someone's second amendment right. Why give it up so freely?

I think we actually have more in common with this issue than you may think.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

My point though is this: We must err on the side of personal liberties when there's no PROOF involved.

You mean hysterical accusations and abstract sensations of fear arent enough to strip away personal liberties?

News to me.

reply to post by lpowell0627


If people were determined to cause harm to another, would a piece of paper stop them? Absolutely not.

Shall not be infringed is very clear, what part of it do you not understand?

Good feed back on this thanks.
The probation thing, I overlooked that.

But it automatically being on a restraining order is not cool with me.
Maybe the one who gets the order on another person should have to buy a gun, pay to take a class and take care of ones self. I have never understood why so many people are scared to protect themselves.

It being a federal thing, I wonder if a state could make the call and over ride it.
Even the issue of an ex-con not ever being able to own a gun is not ok with me really. Since they always say do the crime do the time and so and so has paid their debt to society. Well, not really if for the rest of their lives they have no 2nd amendment. Might be better on a case by case not a blanket coverage. The whole guilty until proven innocent thing is starting to make me sick.

If I am not mistaken, I think I read that any felony, which is almost everything now, restrict you from owning a gun.

Is this where they get the saying, Use it or loose it. hmm Oh that might be the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

I think we actually have more in common with this issue than you may think.

I agree. I believe our opinion is also greatly molded by our personal stories. In your case, you got screwed from the sounds of it and that I do not support at all. I also agree with another poster that a piece of paper will not stop someone intent on killing another either.

However, if my particular situation, the restraining order was necessary and weapon removal was appreciated. Obviously, if this person was going to harm me at all costs, it could have been done and illegal weapons could have been acquired. But this, at the very least, would have made it more difficult. Further, it was a means to prevent this person from snapping and reacting. I also should mention that after the first 24 - 48 hours i believe it makes no difference whether weapons are taken or not. Past that point I believe a person has either cooled off and gained perspective or simply devised a better plan.

So I guess I really only support a 48-hour weapon hold.

Our justice system, while arguably the best around, is still greatly flawed in my opinion. I do agree with you that restraining orders are sometimes applied too liberally with little or no evidence and that consistently erring on the side of caution leaves a lot of innocent people suddenly void of their full rights. I don't support that either.

In summary, you can take a win for this debate. It would be rather hypocritical of me to somehow argue that my necessary restraining order situation somehow were more important than your seemingly unnecessary one. I was responding based solely on personal experience given my connection to this topic.

A tricky issue, to be sure.
We've all heard about people violating restraining orders to harm or kill the person who took out the order in the first place, and making sure that guns are taken out of the equation would be a pretty common sense step to take in such a case. It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would be helpful for the threatened party.

At the same time, I know a few people who have had restraining orders taken out against them by someone just looking to whip up "evidence" to use in upcoming divorce/court cases. Although this is just abusing the system, that won't stop the authorities from taking their guns, which they may or may not ever get back.

It's a "rock and a hard place" scenario I think. I can see both sides of the issue, and can't come up with a reasonable solution.

Yep, a tricky issue.

reply to post by subject x


Erring on the side of freedom is always the best choice.

TPO's can be obtained by simply filling out a form. They are usually good for 30 days and then both parties must appear in a court to determine if it should be extended.

Violating someones 2nd Amendment rights simply because a pissed off ex chose to file out a few forms is never a good idea.

reply to post by HaveAnotherOne

In general, I agree. Erring towards the side of freedom is always a good choice.
We do, however, have to take into consideration that protecting someone's freedom from being killed by an angry spouse is a little more pressing than protecting the freedom of said spouse to have his/her guns.

As I said, a tricky issue.

If a friend had gotten a restraining order against her ex, it is my opinion, that although he had been disarmed, he would probably have killed her in another way, instead of shooting her in the stomach. But you can not see into the future. The police can not always.
So even though, they had been involved, there is no guarantee, that they'd had enough tools to intervene earlier. Innocent until proven guilty.

You might get the impression, that getting a restraining order against an ex or another person, is nothing but a small, simple formality. But does that not depend on the laws of that state / country ?

It seems sometimes, as though the police have reservations, to issue restraining orders. It can make things worse. And because it can be difficult to prove, that/if some events are violations of restraining orders, or not.
But ultimately, it must be up to the police and justice system, to sort out, who's who ? And what's what ?
It's not the victim or perpetrator. Of course...depends on what side of the fence you are

It is purely just my opinion, from my own experience.
I'll guess, I'm just one of those hysterical women. And so be it. If that's what it takes, to regulate the law, so that Denmark will also have a law, which handle stalking. Almost there

In any case. No one knows exactly, how many people request a restraining order against a person, and how many actually, get the request fulfilled?

It is standard practice in most states to remove guns from a person's home and possession when a Restraining order is filed and it states that the person who field is concerned for their own safety.

But, he is also on tape stating that he uses drugs regularly. Any person who has purchased a firearm legally in the US knows that one of the questions on the application is "Are you a drug user".

What is the problem with this?

reply to post by subject x


Given that personal security if the responsibility of the individual, restricting freedoms due to an uncontested TPO violates the Constitutional rights of the subject of said TPO.

The government has no obligation to protect anyone who is not in their custody.

Shall not be infringed is very clear. Removal of firearms is basically punishing someone for something they have never been convicted of.

I think that's why they went looking for his guns.

No they were using the Restraining Order as a reason to search for drugs or anything else they could bust him on.

Where i live we had a lawyer that would file for a Restraining Order in all cases where a couple was getting a divorce.

He just was not serving it unless needed,
In one case the couples kids were grown and they decided they no longer needed or wanted to be married.
So they went to this lawyer to get a friendly divorce.
A month or two later the husband decided to get his wife a handgun because he would no longer be around.
That was when he found out about the restraining order and was denied the right to buy the handgun. his wife knew nothing about it and did not ask for the restraining order.

The lawyer got sued for malpractice, violation of the husband"s constitutional rights,
Plus was censured by the bar association