|
|
|
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:
More Gun Owners Disarmed on Word of Bitter Ex-Partners
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Lawful gun owners contend their First and Second Amendment rights have been stripped from them by lawless family court judges and disgruntled ex-partners."
"'I have never alluded to or committed violence against the children or her,' said Edward F. Taupier, a Connecticut father involved in a divorce battle with his estranged wife. 'I have been ordered not to possess a firearm and my pistol permit has been revoked.'"
"In September Mrs. Tanya Taupier filed a full protective order in Middlesex County Criminal Court stating she was in fear for her life without offering proof that her former partner of 12 years has a proclivity to violence, he said. 'The full protective order failed to cite a statute that was violated.'" ... |
| Comment by:
PDQ
(2/4/2015)
|
Wanna get really sick,
google the article "Hitting below the belt" by Cathy Young |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/4/2015)
|
| In divorce cases PFAs are routinely filed. And just as "routinely" approved by the courts. Defendants generally have no avenue for contest or appeal. IOW, its a commonly-employed form of "retribution" one partner can inflict upon the other without the necessity of proving any of the alleged "wrongs". One that can also bias the bench in determining the terms of dissolution of a marriage. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
