Today's Poll: Should a person with an order of protection be allowed to have a gun?

Absolutely NOT!

How insane is it to allow a person who has threatened bodily harm to another being to keep a firearm?!? Sure, that person could harm someone else with a car, or a knife, or a 2x4, but to allow them to keep a machine which has a sole purpose of easily harming another is ridiculous.

People have the right to own firearms, but that right is not unrestricted. As soon as somebody with a firearm threatens somebody else with it in a non-defensive manner (such as, say, the guy who 'said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.”'), that right has been cast away.

Proper checks need to be put in place to make sure person A does not simply try to harass person B by claiming B threatened A with a gun when B has not done so... but once the threat has been verified, that firearms owner has chosen to throw away their right to own a gun.

A poll with the word "gun" in it....I predict 47 comments.

Here's #6, Jerry, only 41 more to go

I say if, you are unstable enough to have an Order of Protection set against you. Then heck no to owning a gun.

As difficult as it is to separate emotion from an area as potentially explosive as this, it is imperative that the Constitutional Liberty be protected and enforced. Until a citizen uses a gun to harm another, there is no grounds for denying that individual's 2nd Amendment Right - "shall NOT be infringed". Admittedly, the term "harm" is a broad criteria. If a gun is in play while showing hostility could be considered "harm". But simply being hostile toward someone and also being a gun owner is not sufficient for incurring "harm", and having your 2nd Amendment violated.

As far as the aspect of pre-empting a possible illegal act, as much as it sounds like a good thing to try and do, again we need to remember it's "innocent until guilty", not the opposite. Until a person commits the illegal act there should be no grounds to treat them as if they already did it.

What if a person deemed or suspected of being inclined to possibly harm another, yet has never done so, was disarmed and then that person themselves became a victim of a deadly force attack and their ability to protect their life had been greatly compromised [infringed] by the authorities that decided this individual was not allowed to own or bear a firearm? The police can't protect everyone all the time, nor even most of the time. This is why the 2nd Amendment is so crucial, because an individual's personal protection can be guaranteed by no better means than their being armed to fend off any attacks on their life or liberty. Therefore the Constitution provides NO grounds for denying that right to anyone.

Let's not forget the wisdom that our Constitution was founded upon...

- I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); - 1791

- No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.
William Rawle (1759-1836); - 1829

- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.
Georgia Court Decision Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 - 1846

- To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional right.
Arkansas Court Decision; Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878

I agree to a point Howard but most judges dont hand out an order of protection unless the judge and the officer involved feel there is a credible threat there. Plus reasonable people (as I am sure Don was) understand the circumstances and they will get said guns back it's not permanent its just for the duration of the order. I do want to clarify too that this is for regular orders. A temorary order should only be able to remove guns if the reason for the order was bodily harm or bodily harm with intent to use the firearm. I sold my handguns and never renewed my carry permit when I began working as go between for my boss and her tenants as I was constantly put in situations that might have ended up in tradgedy. In a house next door to one of ours a landlord who did carry had a student take his weapon out of holster when he was breaking up a party. He ended up punching the kid and getting sued. Cops were present with him but he reacted faster than they did, he broke the kid's jaw. You never know what can happen and I gave mine up cause I felt safer making sure they werent part of the mix in that job.

Reasonable people can figure this out and might not like it but see the wisdom. Now if it started resulting in permanent removal thats a different story.

"most judges dont hand out an order of protection unless the judge and the officer involved feel there is a credible threat there"

That is part of the problem Kyle, The person that the order is issued against most often is just served the order, they do not appear before the said judge until way later.

My whole point in the first post was that if an allegation of a threat is made, The person it is against should be afforded the right to appear and state his/her case. I am sure based on what I read about the guy in Washington he probably would have gotten his firearms removed albeit temporarily, and vice versa, I am also certain that many who have orders placed against them here in NY State might not have had their fire arms removed had the Judge been able to weight both sides of the issue.