highdesert wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:21 am
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/0 ... w-00081053
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the problem with laws like the one the federal appeals court struck down is that they are too broad and don’t take into account the details of each case. He offered as an example a client of his whose neighbor filed a restraining order against them because they had pointed a security camera on their property. “They lost their gun rights,” he said. “When they do a blanket prohibition without considering individualized circumstances, they shoot the dogs with the wolves.”
That sounds like a bizarre, improbable, and not entirely credible application of a DV/TRO -- what fuckwit judge would sign off on that?! I'll bet Michel is paraphrasing and misrepresenting a much more complicated story-- or the judge who granted this was the complainant's uncle or something.
To me, the more serious problem is the 'race to the courthouse' scenario, particularly common in LGBTQ domestic terrorism, though it shows up in PLENTY of hetero IPV scenarios: The aggressor realizes the survivor is about to go for the RO, and goes to law enforcement first, gaslighting the judge into believing that the survivor is actually the aggressor, and the court takes away the survivor's firearms. It can really be challenging sometimes telling the aggressor and survivor apart. Experienced clinicians with a quarter century or more of experience still sometimes make mistakes. The most dangerous aggressors are often charming and likeable-- that's even part of a good assessment protocol. If the clinician finds they find the survivor witty, friendly, and likeable for no good reason? Get a second opinion. Maybe they're not the survivor at all.
Still, I think the solution is to do the DV/TRO right, and do the confiscation (and potential return) right. LGS's are set up to store guns, and they could play a role here: Surrender the weapon to an LGS, who would charge a fee and process paperwork from the court to return the weapon if/when needed, so law enforcement time is not used for more busywork.
As we were saying, this all takes trial and error and hard work. I have seen situations where this all got done without a lot of paperwork, too-- where cops showed up and said, "Hey, we have an allegation you made a threat, we'd like you to surrender your guns and knives to a relative temporarily for safekeeping," and my client said, "Sure." The allegation was total BS, client got his weapons back later. No judges involved, it was like a 1945 small-town police department intervention in a 2015 Los Angele suburb.
* * * * *
On a broader note, I think the court's Bruen strategy is stupid and short-sighted as well as kind of ridiculous, though that's only a hunch. If the Bruen precedent (or whatever) gets thrown out by a different Supreme Court later, expect the pendulum to swing the other way, and more onerous restrictions to follow. Hope I'm wrong about that.
High Desert, just saw your post. That's a valid point-- there's a lot of good research done by DV advocacy groups, but plenty of BS mixed in with it as well. The statistic I'd like to see, and that we'll probably never know: How many people get their firearms taken due to junk or gaslight ROs, and who can't recover them in a timely fashion? My guess is, not very many-- but I can't claim that I just know that's correct because I just know it. I don't.