One might think that some 300 plus years down the line we might have evolved over such knee jerk
reactions and rushes to judgment but when it comes to gun owners that is often not the case.
In particular, a person can request a protective order in many states by simply saying they were
threatened. No proof is needed, no evidence required.
Yet for a falsely accused gun owner they are completely stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights,
as a condition of a protective order is that you must forfeit your firearms for the duration of
the order.
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty
until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first
place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it
may be difficult.
I bring this up because of a story in neighboring Connecticut where a Fire Lieutenant is facing
this type of baseless accusation and the repercussions it brings.
More Here at bulletsfirst.net
One
might think that some 300 plus years down the line we might have
evolved over such knee jerk reactions and rushes to judgment but when it
comes to gun owners that is often not the case. In particular, a
person can request a protective order in many states by simply saying
they were threatened. No proof is needed, no evidence required. Yet
for a falsely accused gun owner they are completely stripped of their
2nd Amendment rights, as a condition of a protective order is that you
must forfeit your firearms for the duration of the order.
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
I bring this up because of a story in neighboring Connecticut where a Fire Lieutenant is facing this type of baseless accusation and the repercussions it brings.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
I bring this up because of a story in neighboring Connecticut where a Fire Lieutenant is facing this type of baseless accusation and the repercussions it brings.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
Hartford
Fire Lt. Michael Patterson had a protective order issued against him on
Oct. 1st after his mother-in-law, Cynthia Chevannes, said that he
threatened him. That’s it, that was the extent of her proof. She said
so. The mother-in-law lives in the family home with Patterson, his wife
and their two children. As such the police came and confiscated all of
Patterson’s firearms and ammunition.
Finally, three weeks later Patterson took the stand in Superior court to challenge the protective order calling it baseless and asked simply that the protective order be lowered to a no contact order. Patterson has no interest in seeing his mother-in-law but takes issue on his 2nd Amendment Rights being violated. The no contact order would have returned his firearms yet kept him from interacting with his mother in law. The judge summarily ruled, based on nothing but Chevannes original statements, with audacity stating: “There is a clear indication in the state’s case that Cynthia Chevannes felt an imminent fear.”
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
Finally, three weeks later Patterson took the stand in Superior court to challenge the protective order calling it baseless and asked simply that the protective order be lowered to a no contact order. Patterson has no interest in seeing his mother-in-law but takes issue on his 2nd Amendment Rights being violated. The no contact order would have returned his firearms yet kept him from interacting with his mother in law. The judge summarily ruled, based on nothing but Chevannes original statements, with audacity stating: “There is a clear indication in the state’s case that Cynthia Chevannes felt an imminent fear.”
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
Hartford
Fire Lt. Michael Patterson had a protective order issued against him on
Oct. 1st after his mother-in-law, Cynthia Chevannes, said that he
threatened him. That’s it, that was the extent of her proof. She said
so. The mother-in-law lives in the family home with Patterson, his wife
and their two children. As such the police came and confiscated all of
Patterson’s firearms and ammunition.
Finally, three weeks later Patterson took the stand in Superior court to challenge the protective order calling it baseless and asked simply that the protective order be lowered to a no contact order. Patterson has no interest in seeing his mother-in-law but takes issue on his 2nd Amendment Rights being violated. The no contact order would have returned his firearms yet kept him from interacting with his mother in law. The judge summarily ruled, based on nothing but Chevannes original statements, with audacity stating: “There is a clear indication in the state’s case that Cynthia Chevannes felt an imminent fear.”
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
Finally, three weeks later Patterson took the stand in Superior court to challenge the protective order calling it baseless and asked simply that the protective order be lowered to a no contact order. Patterson has no interest in seeing his mother-in-law but takes issue on his 2nd Amendment Rights being violated. The no contact order would have returned his firearms yet kept him from interacting with his mother in law. The judge summarily ruled, based on nothing but Chevannes original statements, with audacity stating: “There is a clear indication in the state’s case that Cynthia Chevannes felt an imminent fear.”
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
One
might think that some 300 plus years down the line we might have
evolved over such knee jerk reactions and rushes to judgment but when it
comes to gun owners that is often not the case. In particular, a
person can request a protective order in many states by simply saying
they were threatened. No proof is needed, no evidence required. Yet
for a falsely accused gun owner they are completely stripped of their
2nd Amendment rights, as a condition of a protective order is that you
must forfeit your firearms for the duration of the order.
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
One
might think that some 300 plus years down the line we might have
evolved over such knee jerk reactions and rushes to judgment but when it
comes to gun owners that is often not the case. In particular, a
person can request a protective order in many states by simply saying
they were threatened. No proof is needed, no evidence required. Yet
for a falsely accused gun owner they are completely stripped of their
2nd Amendment rights, as a condition of a protective order is that you
must forfeit your firearms for the duration of the order.
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
That doesn’t seem like due process to me. That seems like you are going to be treated as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. Yet considering that you were condemned in the first place by someone who didn’t produce any evidence proving you did anything wrong, disproving it may be difficult.
Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2013/10/21/protective-orders-firearms-salem-witch-trials-today/#40IJVh61QPDxksTq.99
Posts
1 comment:
Good luck getting them back without legal help.
Post a Comment