I sure hope that a 2A group starts a law suit against this type of tyranny from the bench. I've got to agree with one of the commenters below. Get an amicable divorce, retrieve her firearms and case closed. Sad state of affairs in our once free country.
Interest Balancing Activism is a sure sign of a liberal leftist judge. The reasoning from the text is ambiguous and leaves us with only speculation as to his motivations for such sentencing. I will give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say that he acted upon the basis of an unsound mind combined with drug addiction by the defendant, that he believes will access weapons no matter the security measures of the wife and son. This reasoning doesn't legally give him the right to take away constitutional protection of the natural right to keep and bear arms by the wife or anyone else who might live in that dwelling. But on the other hand for instance, I'm fairly sure the neighbor who had their establishment shot-up is sleeping better due to this ruling. That said I would love to see this ruling litigated by a higher court.
One can only hope. Judgement such as this one must be challenged in order to set an accurate precedent for future cases, of which I'm sure there will be many. It takes years for case law to begin to make a difference. And as you expressed Lee, I fear there is not enough time on the calendar of American Life.
Convicted Felons are prohibited from "having" firearms. Convicted Felons who want to go straight then avoid firearms, while convicted felons who remain criminal keep their firearms (and usually commit subsequent crimes involving firearms).
A conundrum that could be avoided with more intelligent laws, for example After a successful probation/parole is completed then 2nd Amendment Rights are restored.
Knowing there are No Perfect Solutions or Laws to govern those who wish to commit crimes, especially those criminals that infest government itself.
THEY HAVE FUKED ME 4 2 YRS NOW IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY,BULL SHIT NO CONTACT ORDERS,AND CLEARLY SAID MY WIFE CANT HAVE GUNS EITHER,THEY SAID I CANT HAVE ANY THING WITH THE WORD GUN IN IT ,INCLUDING PEPER BALL GUN OR AIR GUN,I HAVE BEEN ASAULTED 9 TIMES 4 FREE SPEECH AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF
So, when you marry someone, you give up your rights? Historically true, usually benefitting the man, not the woman. So couldn't they just get a divorce or separation and the judges order would be 'completed', and she would get to keep her guns even if they still lived under one roof. Not a great solution but a possible one. Depends if the judge stipulated 'under one roof' or not.
This judge encapsulates all that is wrong with American jurisprudence. He should be removed from the bench.
It wouldn't be hard to make the case that he violated Ms. Marok's civil rights.
I sure hope that a 2A group starts a law suit against this type of tyranny from the bench. I've got to agree with one of the commenters below. Get an amicable divorce, retrieve her firearms and case closed. Sad state of affairs in our once free country.
It appears that our judicial system at every level has been infiltrated and gestapo-rized by
subversives whose goal is to destroy this country by destroying our constitution. We are
reaching a point of no return; thus, we need to put an end to this crap ASAP. Unfortunately,
the odds of taking back our government/country via the ballot box are slim to none.
10 years ago I would have laughed at this. Nowadays, it damn near makes me cry. It's too true.
Interest Balancing Activism is a sure sign of a liberal leftist judge. The reasoning from the text is ambiguous and leaves us with only speculation as to his motivations for such sentencing. I will give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say that he acted upon the basis of an unsound mind combined with drug addiction by the defendant, that he believes will access weapons no matter the security measures of the wife and son. This reasoning doesn't legally give him the right to take away constitutional protection of the natural right to keep and bear arms by the wife or anyone else who might live in that dwelling. But on the other hand for instance, I'm fairly sure the neighbor who had their establishment shot-up is sleeping better due to this ruling. That said I would love to see this ruling litigated by a higher court.
I'm hearing rumblings there is a group that may want to get involved in the case.
One can only hope. Judgement such as this one must be challenged in order to set an accurate precedent for future cases, of which I'm sure there will be many. It takes years for case law to begin to make a difference. And as you expressed Lee, I fear there is not enough time on the calendar of American Life.
Very well said, brother.
Convicted Felons are prohibited from "having" firearms. Convicted Felons who want to go straight then avoid firearms, while convicted felons who remain criminal keep their firearms (and usually commit subsequent crimes involving firearms).
A conundrum that could be avoided with more intelligent laws, for example After a successful probation/parole is completed then 2nd Amendment Rights are restored.
Knowing there are No Perfect Solutions or Laws to govern those who wish to commit crimes, especially those criminals that infest government itself.
THEY HAVE FUKED ME 4 2 YRS NOW IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY,BULL SHIT NO CONTACT ORDERS,AND CLEARLY SAID MY WIFE CANT HAVE GUNS EITHER,THEY SAID I CANT HAVE ANY THING WITH THE WORD GUN IN IT ,INCLUDING PEPER BALL GUN OR AIR GUN,I HAVE BEEN ASAULTED 9 TIMES 4 FREE SPEECH AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF
So, when you marry someone, you give up your rights? Historically true, usually benefitting the man, not the woman. So couldn't they just get a divorce or separation and the judges order would be 'completed', and she would get to keep her guns even if they still lived under one roof. Not a great solution but a possible one. Depends if the judge stipulated 'under one roof' or not.