this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)
News
51 readers
1 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Domestic violence is already seriously under-prosecuted and victims given little protection at all. It's seen somehow as less important than other forms of violence, while I would say that this should be the opposite.
No one with a history of violence should be allowed to own a gun, but especially someone with a history of domestic violence, as that tends to be a pattern and not a one-off incident.
The problem is that it's not "proven"; the only side presenting any evidence is the person seeking the protective order. If you make it an adversarial process so that the subject of the protective order can try to refute claims by the person seeking the order, then sure.
But right now it's strictly one-sided. Most places do require some form of evidence, but that evidence doesn't have to meet normal evidentiary standards, and the evidence isn't being questioned in an adversarial way.
Personally, I'm not comfortable removing rights when the person losing rights can't contest it.
It's a sticky situation but going off of you argument I'd have to agree.