That is the basis, History, and State case law is not on his side.This one is complicated.
If it goes our way it means no more taking your guns away before conviction.
If I’m understanding things correctly.
The Armed Attorneys channel (Texas based say a few words).
<>This one is complicated.
If it goes our way it means no more taking your guns away before conviction.
If I’m understanding things correctly.
<>There has been some pretty damn hinky cases where eminent domain has been used to steal real estate.
Op-ed gets it wrong (snark heard) in opinion on this case from The Kansas City Star paper.
Now the Supreme Court will decide which matters more: gun rights or women’s safety....Except that’s not what the case is about and the author knows it.
At the heart of the issue is whether or not a restraining order has sufficient due process to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms.... What the Supreme Court has to decide isn’t whether women’s safety matters but whether a restraining order actually meets the burdens necessary to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of people accused of domestic violence.
whether or not a restraining order has [B]sufficient due process[/B] to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms....
Op-ed gets it wrong (snark heard) in opinion on this case from The Kansas City Star paper.
Wrong Link?
That link is from Bearing Arms, and the writer is pro-2A.