Many civil protection orders, especially in domestic violence cases, ban the target from possessing guns. Courts generally uphold these as permissible restrictions, at least when the order is based on a finding that the target had committed a violent act or had threatened violence; see, e.g., U.S. v. Bena (8th Cir. 2011). But the matter is not entirely clear, especially since such orders can often be entered on just a finding of preponderance of the evidence, following relatively truncated procedures where the defendant doesn’t have a lawyer. (This makes them different from felony convictions or even violent misdemeanor convictions, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and in which the defendant generally has been represented by a lawyer.)

The linked article isn’t very long (and the parts where exceptions have been found is in the unlinked part, but there wasn’t any neat way to copypasta them), but what I want to point out is the may. I mean, just what part of Shall Not Be Infringed do these unstable freaks in black robes fail to grasp here?

Comments are closed.