|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Texas law prohibits domestic abusers with protective orders from having guns. What happens after? Not much.
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s up to the person who’s ordered the surrender to admit how many guns and rounds of ammo they own. A victim can testify to the number of weapons in the home. Prosecutors have told us that sometimes they use social media to get this information. The guns are stored by the sheriff’s offices. Some counties allow the sale of guns or transfer to a third party. The guns are returned upon the expiration of the protective order.
A judge in one county that has a process of surrender told KHOU 11 that while the county may have a program in place to follow up on the gun possession prohibition outlined in protective orders, not every judge orders the surrender. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/5/2021)
|
Don't be stoopid.
Drop this BS and arm and train the victims.
As usual, government is the problem, not the solution. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
