National Ohio appellate court: Ban on firearms in restraining order may violate Second Amendment

[IronMonster]

Opinion | Ohio appellate court: Ban on firearms in restraining order may violate Second Amendment

Read More

 

[Provincial]

Paywall.

Owned by Jeff Bezos, the richest man. He wants us to pay to read his propaganda.

 

[Diamondback]

Too bad Volokh sold out... his blog used to be one of the good ones.

 

[Goosebrown]

He didn't sell out and apologized for the situation. It was the paper that went paid. He didn't have much say.

 

[Stomper]

Don't get drunk and beat up your domestic partner.... M'kay?

 

[nammac]

Well, just don't get drunk, at least that's what Dad says...

 

[WALawyer]

Federal law does not require that a protection order by its terms actually prohibit firearm possession. Rather, the existence of a protection order is what prohibits firearm possession by operation of law. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the prohibition on firearm possession by those restrained by a protection order. Thus, an Ohio court's decision on whether or not to include a prohibition on firearm possession in the order is entirely pointless.