ST Alpha - "I don't know. It still seems backwards because the risk to a valid claimant of an OFP far outweighs the risks to the invalid victim of a wrongful OFP" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 169

I don't know. It still seems backwards because the risk to a valid claimant of an OFP far outweighs the risks to the invalid victim of a wrongful OFP

Posted by pmb (aka pmb) Mar 18 '13, 13:45

Let the person who has been subjected to an improper OFP prove his way back to the gun, or at least let there be a waiting period where the person can get the gun back if there are no incidents for 90 days. At least there would be a cooling off period.

Responses:

Let the wronged party prove they were wronged? - Stephen Mar 18, 13:48 4
- Isn't that what the judge issuing the Protective Order in the first place is supposed to do? -- nm - Will Hunting Mar 18, 13:57 2
  - In theory, yes. In practice though, far too often, that's not what happens. - Stephen Mar 18, 14:06 1
    - It is an inexact science to be sure, but the judge should be making a reasoned decision to issue the order in the first place. I've suggested the - pmb Mar 18, 14:11
- isn't that the point of getting the order of protection in the first place? -- nm - znufrii Mar 18, 13:54

Post a message top

I don't know. It still seems backwards because the risk to a valid claimant of an OFP far outweighs the risks to the invalid victim of a wrongful OFP

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.