What would you do if u lost your 2A rights?


PDA






stlgunfan
August 29, 2006, 01:51 AM
People bring the topic up about nationwide guns bans, gun grabbers like Mayor NoGuns, but lets say you lost your individual 2A rights do to a stupid convection over something stupid like lets say the unconstitutional Lautenberg amendment.

Lets say your ex gf wants to get back at you and files for a restraining order. Judge as in most cases will grant a RO, regardless if shes telling the truth or not. There goes your 2A rights, all because of a RO that requires no jury trial.

I dont think people take the 2A for granted. Thanks to stupid gun control acts, Liberals, and commies it's so easy to lose your rights.

SO what would you do to get your gun rights back if you were convicted for something so stupid, or wrongfully convicted?

If something like that ever happend to me Id fight it all the way. I'd go to every appeals court possible, even the United States Supreme Court if I had to and fight my 2a case.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would you do if u lost your 2A rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Low-Sci
August 29, 2006, 01:54 AM
A law abiding citizen might not have much of a choice other than to fight it. You might get the 800-lb gorilla named "NRA" to help you out though. If you've got a good case and make your problem known, I'd be willing to bet they'd help you out.

I guess we could also not get girlfriends who get that kind of ridiculous on us, but the scenario does imply that we didn't have that kind of foresight, so I guess we're out of luck there.

stlgunfan
August 29, 2006, 02:10 AM
True you could get the NRA to help.

However there have been many people screwed over by the Lautenberg bill. I still cannot see how that peice of trash law got passed. No jury trial required. Pretty soon a speeding ticket will DQ you from buying a gun:uhoh:

Also I was reading about how a guy in LA Kali was arrested and charged with a FELONY because he had a M1 Garand and lived within a certain distance of a school and they consider it a destructive device within a school zone under Kali law.

Phantom Warrior
August 29, 2006, 02:18 AM
Be really bored...

Powderman
August 29, 2006, 03:08 AM
Lets say your ex gf wants to get back at you and files for a restraining order. Judge as in most cases will grant a RO, regardless if shes telling the truth or not. There goes your 2A rights, all because of a RO that requires no jury trial.



First, the complainant has to show cause why the restraining order should be granted; it's not just walking into a courtroom or up to the courthouse and demanding one.

If one is ordered, it is called an ex parte order. It is in effect for 14 days; at the end of that time, you (and the complainant) have to show up in court, and she has to show cause why the order should be carried longer. If she cannot, it is dropped on the spot.

Moral of the story--don't do anything to get a restraining order put on you, and you won't have anything to worry about.

NukemJim
August 29, 2006, 07:50 AM
First and foremost IANAL

Powderman, I am asking for clarification on First, the complainant has to show cause why the restraining order should be granted; it's not just walking into a courtroom or up to the courthouse and demanding one.


When she or her lawyer "show cause" what evidence is needed? Police records? Hospital bills? Photographs? Witnesses for actions that allegedly took place? Or is it all a "He said, she said" thing?

I honestly do not know and am attempting to find out.

Thank you.

NukemJim

progunner1957
August 29, 2006, 10:00 AM
I would fight tooth and nail. I would get an attorney, get help from the NRA, and I would sue the lying skank for every dime she would ever possibly hope to have.

In return for dropping my lawsuit, I would make her go before the judge who issued the RO, hand him a signed affadavit stating that she lied to the police and to the court, and now requests that the RO be rescinded and expunged from my record.

Maybe I'm wrong as IANAL, but my thought here is that if you raise a big enough "feces" storm, it would all work out in your favor.:evil:

Blackfork
August 29, 2006, 10:11 AM
I've never heard of a single instance where the NRA helped out any individual in this circumstance. I think it would be a waste of time to try and get them to help. They raise funds for politicians.

I doubt anyone would spend the fortune to appeal all the way up the line. I'm certain any lawyer you hired would advise against throwing your money away. The deck is stacked against you.

Emerson, a doctor with considerable resources, fought this same fight and lost big. Emerson still doesn't have his 2nd Amendment rights.

txgho1911
August 29, 2006, 11:22 AM
The only remedy for such a situation would require some for-thought and planning. More than this would not be THR.
The law is illeagal. This law is so moronic a real people entity as I believe myself to be can only creat a migrain of the century as I try to wrap my mind around the idea. I would consider this a threat. I try to stay away from this subject. Gotta go find the Tylenol.

Soybomb
August 29, 2006, 12:41 PM
Much like blackfork I think its highly unlikely the NRA is going to be of any help to you at all.

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 01:42 PM
One cannot lose one's Second Amendment rights. The government can infringe them, but the rights are never lost.

The question is: would you allow your employees to infringe your rights? Would you bend over for your employees and grovel to them for permission to exercise your rights without infringement?

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 29, 2006, 01:49 PM
Lets say your ex gf wants to get back at you and files for a restraining order. Judge as in most cases will grant a RO, regardless if shes telling the truth or not.

Sounds like the more prudent course of action would involving being more selective in you choice of women.

Gordon Fink
August 29, 2006, 01:50 PM
The more the state treats one like a criminal, the more one will find oneself acting like a criminal.

~G. Fink

lionking
August 29, 2006, 01:52 PM
hmmm well I remember Clinton saying "get a better hobby like bowling"..YES he did say that on a interview I remember.

Bowling,well its kinda fun but I never was good at it,personally I find it more fun to shoot bowling pins!

HCfan
August 29, 2006, 02:45 PM
There is nothing that you can do. With the RO you just aren't allowed to have weapons or buy them during the time period of the RO.

Now with the domestic violence law, or a felony, there is no recourse that a person can take. The ATF side that handles this hasn't been funded and I doubt will ever be funded.

So, you have two opinions, either pay the price for whatever it was you did or didn't do or just ignore the law and risk losing 10+ years of your life in a federal prison and have to pay a hefty fine.

The only thing that I can say is that it's your life and you can live it how you see fit. Just remember that there can be consequences for any action you decide is best for you.

Bill St. Clair
August 29, 2006, 03:13 PM
War.

stlgunfan
August 29, 2006, 09:58 PM
I know that after the Lautenberg bill past, alot of people who had domestic arrest records requested to get their convictions expunged.

I read about that guy from Texas who went all the way to Supreme Court, lost his Doctor practice, spent time in prision over some false BS restraining order.

Lautenberg is a peice of trash. Just like Feinstein, Schumer, Blagos. It amazes me how these communist can get in power.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 10:06 PM
...removing the protections of the Second Amendment does not remove the right. It is still there.

Act accordingly.

I plan to.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

stlgunfan
August 29, 2006, 10:16 PM
Yes. But lets say you are in a communist state like Kali. You get caught with a super dangerous magazine that holds 15 rounds instead of 10. bam! Felony. If you get convicted in another state for some BS communist gun law it should not affect your gun rights in all 50 states like it currently does.

Gun control act MUST go.

Powderman
August 29, 2006, 11:22 PM
And it COULD go. Very easily, in fact.

The tricky part is to motivate enough gun owners to invest less than one hour of their time. That's the time it takes to go to the polls and VOTE.

If a referendum were started repealing GCA '68 and NFA '38, we could actually remove those laws from the books. But try convincing gun owners to go to the polls to vote for it!

Think about it.

I have heard that there are over 230 million firearms in circulation in the United States. Now, we know that the adults of voting age are the primary owners.

So, let us subtract 50% from that number.

Subtract another 15% for the closet gun owners who would never even admit to owning a gun.

If my math is correct, that still leaves 129,500,000 gun owners.

Folks, I think that that numbers exceed the TOTAL amount of people that have voted in ANY election in history!

Think about what could be done!

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 11:31 PM
Your RKBA is inalienable. The 2A has no exceptions in it allowing for any infringement. All infringing "gun control" laws must go. It isn't the FFLs job to enforce the unconstitutional law against felons owning firearms either, and they don't even get paid to do it!(Those felons who cant be trusted with arms belong in jail.) Congress took their responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of felons and placed it on the backs of civilians. That in itself must be unconstitutional as well.

Short of purging your state of the bogus misrepresentatives that are there, there isn't a whole lot anyone can do unless it hits the fan. Vote wisely.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

stlgunfan
August 29, 2006, 11:35 PM
Even if we had all republicans in control, it would still be very hard to get rid of GCA. Think about it. No more NICS checks, or barred people. There would be so many people fighting it.

I wish it would go away, but I just dont see how its possible. Best bet for people wrongly accused of stuff, or victim of Lautenberg is to go thru the process with lawyers and fight their cases tooth and nail, even if it means going to the highest courts in the land. Maybe if we could get more people to plea their cases to higher courts maybe it will grab more media attention

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
...and that is civil disobediance and flooding the courts with a few hundred cases in each state. What can't be accomplished with campaigning and voting is acting as if the unconstitutional law did not exist. That is civil disobediance and would flood the court with thousands of cases it couldn't possibly handle. But, that is what you get for infringing upon an inalienable right. After all, the supreme law of the land is on our side!

All Congress would need to do is repeal the unconstitutional law, or for the Court to do it in one fell swoop.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 29, 2006, 11:44 PM
If my math is correct, that still leaves 129,500,000 gun owners.

No comment on your math, but the starting number is wrong. The number of gun owners is estimated to be more between 75 and 90 million.

mp510
August 29, 2006, 11:48 PM
One cannot lose one's Second Amendment rights. The government can infringe them, but the rights are never lost.

Au contrer. The Fifth Ammendment, includes the following clause:"... Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...", which allows one's rights (which are liberties) to be cancelled through due process. That does not simply mean physical liberty, not being imprisoned, but also one's rights.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 29, 2006, 11:58 PM
Imprisonment does not remove anyones rights. In prison you still have your right to council, trial, or to be free from double jeopardy. While in prison, you may be denied access to your arms, but when you are released from prison, you should have access to your arms like anyone else. Being an ex-con does not remove your right to defend yourself, or your responsibility to be available for militia duty. If you can't be trusted with arms, you should be kept in jail. Period. It isn't the responsibility of people not in the government to assure an ex-con doesn't have any arms, either. It is the responsibility of the ex-con to behave himself.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
August 30, 2006, 12:11 AM
Being deprived of something does not mean loosing the right to it. Being deprived something means being locked up and denied access to it. After due process of law has run its course and you are out of jail, your access to whatever stuff you have left is no longer deprived. "Course, if you are deprived of your life, it is moot!

Woody

Derby FALs
August 30, 2006, 12:15 AM
What would you do if u lost your 2A rights?

I guess it would be time to bury me before I start to stink up the place.:neener:

leadcounsel
August 30, 2006, 12:46 AM
First, the complainant has to show cause why the restraining order should be granted; it's not just walking into a courtroom or up to the courthouse and demanding one.

If one is ordered, it is called an ex parte order. It is in effect for 14 days; at the end of that time, you (and the complainant) have to show up in court, and she has to show cause why the order should be carried longer. If she cannot, it is dropped on the spot.

Moral of the story--don't do anything to get a restraining order put on you, and you won't have anything to worry about.


Restraining Orders are an end-around by the anti gun groups to strip (mostly) men of gun rights. It's a dirty secret that needs to be exposed and fought head on.

YES, these are granted frequently by liberal femanist advocate biast judges based on little or no evidence and often on fraudulent charges, often by women who are looking for a legal way to get custody of kids, house, and other property. Often these are against men who have literally done NOTHING - yes NOTHING wrong. Don't think it can happen? Read the Equal Justice Foundation website from Colorado Springs Colorado for many case studies and examples.

stlgunfan
August 30, 2006, 01:18 AM
Agree!

Restraining orders are almost handed out like Candy in alot of courts.

It really has gotten out of hand, and is a very easy way for a woman to ruin a man, or to get back at them.

In most cases if a man went into a court room and requested a restraining order he will get laughed right out of court.

There are crazy women who stalk guys too btw. Maybe not as many, but women and be clingy as well.

In a courtroom the woman is always going to get the upper hand. All I can say is anyone involved in a big dispute with their ex should transfer their guns to someone else until everything gets worked out.

If you enjoyed reading about "What would you do if u lost your 2A rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!