No one has ever filed a restraining order or a protective order against me, thank God. But during my divorce, I could see my wife moving towards that direction with the help of a scummy lawyer. It never came up, but I strongly sympathize with the men here who've had to deal with false accusations and subsequent strained relations with their kids. There is little doubt that such orders are routinely abused.

Anyway, I ran into this article. It's about the legal debate over gun rights. Should a restraining order automatically strip a man of his Second Amendment rights?

From the article, these sentences caught my attention: (emphasis mine)

As Judge James Ho notes in an opinion concurring with the 5th Circuit's decision, "Family court judges may face enormous pressure to grant civil protective orders—and no incentive to deny them." Even when there is little evidence that someone is apt to assault a spouse or other "intimate partner," that possibility, combined with the negative publicity and career consequences it might entail, tends to loom much larger than the risk of approving an unnecessary order.

It is therefore not surprising that restraining orders "are granted to virtually all who apply," as Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, noted in 1993. And "because they are incredibly easy to obtain," family and matrimonial attorney Liz Mandarano observed in 2011, "orders of protection are misused."