TRO violates constitutionally protected rights, nobody notices

Demonspawn · 2011-03-11T19:19:07+00:00

I've talked about this one for years.

TROs are granted on "preponderance of evidence" except in one state (forgot which) where they use the legal standard of "clear and convincing evidence"

I'm sorry, but to remove a Constitutional right, the only standard of evidence which can apply is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" As such, TROs are unconstitutional.

Bobsutan · 2011-03-11T06:09:14+00:00

Posted this here since I suspect it's primarily men who suffer the effects of TROs. From the article:

"His Temporary Restraining Order states that: Restrained person cannot own, possess, have, buy, or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get guns, other firearms or ammunition."

They're literally denying constitutional rights without so much as a trial, nor allowed the person who's rights are being denied the fundamental right to face their accuser. I suppose if they're going to violate your rights then 1 more isn't that big a deal to them.

I'd LOVE to hear how that's even remotely legal. Furthermore, how does someone who already owns a firearm NOT violate this???

Title	TRO violates constitutionally protected rights, nobody notices
Author	Bobsutan
Upvotes	2
Comments	4
Date	March 11, 2011 6:07 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g1qss/tro_violates_constitutionally_protected_rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tro-violates-constitutionally-protected-rights.1042228 https://theredarchive.com/post/1042228

Comments