Pro's breif in U.S. v Emerson filed this week

Brett..
IIRC, no. Apparently Mr. Emerson had gotten a bit verbally hot in the past during the divorce but had never actually done anything. As well, I seem to remember that he was unaware of the particular law and that he had been unaware that the protection order had been instituted.

All of this subject matter has been discussed in depth here on TFL....but of course, having a functional search capability is asking the unreasonable from the pinhead software developers at UUB. Jerkoffs!

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
BTW, "The Lautenberg Amendment" isn't law yet ... however, in some states teh forms for filing for divorce include checkboxes that, once filed, issue restraining orders against BOTH parties ... things like can't remove the child from the state, etc. But in this case, I think, an additional one was filed because of reasons posted earlier.

My understanding is that in Texas the law reads that if you have a restraining order against you, it is illegal to posses firearms.
 
TR: The LATEST "Lautenberg amendment" isn't law yet; The one making firearms ownership a felony if you've ever been convicted of a "domestic violence" misdemeanor, or are the subject of a "domestic violence" protection order, has been law for years now; It was about the first gun control law the Republicans passed after getting control of Congress!
 
Back
Top