- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA. HB488
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:29 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:29 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Is not a protective order.
Yes it is. Protective order is the term used in the legal world, but both mean the same thing in the real world.
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 4:31 pm
2
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:36 pm to Buck_Rogers
A quick google search made it seem that restraining orders and protective orders are pretty different.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:39 pm to Buck_Rogers
I was hoping that in your mind you were confused about what it takes to have one issued.
Judges aren't quick to issue protective orders, not in my jurisdiction anyway. If more liberties are taken away with the issuance of one they will be even more diligent in making sure they are warranted.
Judges aren't quick to issue protective orders, not in my jurisdiction anyway. If more liberties are taken away with the issuance of one they will be even more diligent in making sure they are warranted.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:42 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
A quick google search made it seem that restraining orders and protective orders are pretty different.
I'm strictly speaking of Louisiana. Don't know about other states.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:47 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Judges aren't quick to issue protective orders, not in my jurisdiction anyway. If more liberties are taken away with the issuance of one they will be even more diligent in making sure they are warranted.
Maybe. Maybe not. If the judge thinks you should not have a firearm, then charges should have to be brought up against you for a crime first. A protective order is not a punishment for a crime. A crime is committed if the protective order is not followed. Then by all means, I think losing certain rights might be necessary.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 5:05 pm to Buck_Rogers
I understand your stance. I also think there are people out there than should not be allowed to posses a firearm even though they haven't commited a crime yet. It shouls only be in extreme circumstances but they do exist.
I could provide a real life example but it wouldn't change your mind.
I could provide a real life example but it wouldn't change your mind.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 5:40 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
If there's some evidence of domestic abuse and endangerment that necessitates a protective order, then I feel it'd be wise to strip them of firearm rights. Which is my understanding of this thing. I'm not opposed.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 6:24 pm to Boats n Hose
While I agree with you 100% that's not going to keep them from getting a gun if they want to...
Posted on 4/29/15 at 6:33 pm to jorconalx
No but when the person is pulled over a mile away from their estranged wife and they have a handgun in the vehicle something can be done. As opposed to having to let him go so he can ambush her the next day leaving work and kidnap and eventually murder her with that same gun
Posted on 4/29/15 at 7:19 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
If more liberties are taken away with the issuance of one they will be even more diligent in making sure they are warranted.
Because that's what government does... exercise restraint when we give them an opportunity to grab more power.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:04 pm to Clockwatcher68
quote:
Best post of the day IMO
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:08 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
If there's some evidence of domestic abuse and endangerment that necessitates a protective order, then I feel it'd be wise to strip them of firearm rights. Which is my understanding of this thing. I'm not opposed.
Again, domestic violence is already adressed with current federal and state laws. The new ammendment would extend this to any protective order which could be from a father "harassing" his ex through emails just to see his kids. A protective order could tell him to stop emailing her, but under the new ammendment, he would also have to surrender his guns.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:10 pm to Clockwatcher68
quote:
Because that's what government does... exercise restraint when we give them an opportunity to grab more power.
You hit the nail on the head!
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:24 pm to Buck_Rogers
Yes that is the case.
Say you're a guy and some bitch files a restraining order against you. You lose your right to possess a gun at that moment....forever. Now, you can contest it and will get your rights back if you win, but there is a 95% chance it sticks (if you're a guy) even if you didn't do anything. It also stays on your record forever. They can also come to where you are, call the cops, and have you arrested. It really is a fricked up situation.
I looked at it a while ago with my last ex and thought about filing one against her first so she would be too busy dealing with that to file one against me. Gotta CYA in those situations
Say you're a guy and some bitch files a restraining order against you. You lose your right to possess a gun at that moment....forever. Now, you can contest it and will get your rights back if you win, but there is a 95% chance it sticks (if you're a guy) even if you didn't do anything. It also stays on your record forever. They can also come to where you are, call the cops, and have you arrested. It really is a fricked up situation.
I looked at it a while ago with my last ex and thought about filing one against her first so she would be too busy dealing with that to file one against me. Gotta CYA in those situations
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:56 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
The new ammendment would extend this to any protective order which could be from a father "harassing" his ex through emails just to see his kids
if she isn't letting him see the kids then he should file for custody. If custody arrangements have already been ruled on and she is not following court ordered visitation he should take her to court. Continuous emails harassing an ex could lead to stalking charges. If there is enough for a judge to sign a protective order there is enough for Stalking charges. 9/10 the charges come before the protective order.
quote:That can be done without a protective order.
A protective order could tell him to stop emailing her
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:03 pm to Clockwatcher68
quote:
Because that's what government does... exercise restraint when we give them an opportunity to grab more power.
Look, I don't have much faith in our federal government but on the local level where I work I'm holding onto to the hope. I took an oath That I take seriously and I know our judges well enough that I believe in them.
I know many here have the opinion that courta are very liberal with issuing protective orders. From my experiences this is not the case.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:20 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
It's really pretty simple in my understanding, and has been made easy to understand here by people arguing against this proposed legislation... You have to fight to remove a restraint, there is no implied innocence in that regard. Not doing anything is a no contest, and, under this legislation, would render you without your rights.
You shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to protect your rights without having been indicted and/or accused of a crime. Period.
This legislation is for politicians who want to chalk one up to having fought for good v bad, and virtually every right taken from citizens has been done so in similar fashion.
People too oft' forget that it is often times criminals who provide the precedents of protection of the rights the law abiding enjoy...
Maybe someone undeserving of the right to a firearm (speaking loosely) has his right protected by this not passing, but countless other law abiding citizens should not be presented with the unforeseen, unlikely, but probable *to some extent* nonetheless circumstances of having their rights stripped upon its passage
ETA: * "______" * for clarification
You shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to protect your rights without having been indicted and/or accused of a crime. Period.
This legislation is for politicians who want to chalk one up to having fought for good v bad, and virtually every right taken from citizens has been done so in similar fashion.
People too oft' forget that it is often times criminals who provide the precedents of protection of the rights the law abiding enjoy...
Maybe someone undeserving of the right to a firearm (speaking loosely) has his right protected by this not passing, but countless other law abiding citizens should not be presented with the unforeseen, unlikely, but probable *to some extent* nonetheless circumstances of having their rights stripped upon its passage
ETA: * "______" * for clarification
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:25 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
o but when the person is pulled over a mile away from their estranged wife and they have a handgun in the vehicle something can be done. As opposed to having to let him go so he can ambush her the next day leaving work and kidnap and eventually murder her with that same gun
Criminals break laws, we all know that... What we're actually talking about here is someone who will follow the laws not having to compromise their rights to exercise them from having followed them in the first place and navigate the snake pit of the justice system in order to protect them
ETA: sorry for the poor-reading run on sentence, but it makes sense if you follow along
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:55 pm to MisterSenator
No I completly understand what everyone here is saying. I understand their concern. I guess in this regard I'm an optimist and just feel that if the criminal justice system is working there should be no issues.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 11:07 pm to MisterSenator
LINK
Just to clear things up. A protective order is not a restraining order. Temporary restraining orders don't appear to be included in the text of the law from the OP.
It looks like one would have to get a temporary restraining order issued, then go to court on the hearing date some time after and if the court determines that the defendant poses a credible threat a protective order is issued.
It doesn't seem this is something that can just be dished out when a crazy ex decides to ask for it.
It looks like a permanent injuction works similarly.
I still don't have a problem with it.
Just to clear things up. A protective order is not a restraining order. Temporary restraining orders don't appear to be included in the text of the law from the OP.
It looks like one would have to get a temporary restraining order issued, then go to court on the hearing date some time after and if the court determines that the defendant poses a credible threat a protective order is issued.
It doesn't seem this is something that can just be dished out when a crazy ex decides to ask for it.
It looks like a permanent injuction works similarly.
I still don't have a problem with it.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News