I cannot find the KNS link to an article posted this week about a woman who was shot and killed by her estranged husband that had a restraining order against him. He turned the gun on himself after killing her. This caught my attention because this same thing happened to a friend of mine in Seymour several years ago. She knew her husband was going to kill her and had managed to hide for quite a while, but he finally found her, leaving their son with no parents.

So my questions is this: If a restraining order is obtained against a person, does anything happen to his guns if he is indeed licensed to carry? If there have been documented threats and show of gun(s), does this warrant any look at whether the permit should be yanked and the guns confiscated? Or does this society feel that it would be more appropriate for the woman to get a gun to defend herself, permitted or not?

I think a restraining order = suspension of HCP at least, and maybe an order to get rid of guns (but not sure on that part).

had an order of protection against an ex- of mine...it is pretty much not worth the paper it is printed on. The police can do nothing until he breaks it...usually by attacking you. Restraining orders and orders of protection are pretty much worthless. And it's doubtful that a judge would remove a man's guns just because he has proven in the past that he is likely to be violent with you.

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Federal law prohibits a person subject to an order of protection from possessing a firearm, regardless of whether the person has a carry permit. The order of protection will start the process to revoke the carry permit, but the person risks years in a federal prison if he doesn't get rid of his guns.

As was pointed out, an order of protection is only works when the person respects or fears the court. Someone willing to risk a life (or even death) sentence for murder, is not likely to be deterred by being held in contempt of court.

Sorry, but that's reality.

This is all an interesting side debate on the death penalty, but back to the original point.

Handgun carry permit holder are committing gun crimes. The media is not reporting it. They aren't even sure they should.

After suffering through the last several months of the state legislature and the local media telling us we need more people with more guns in more places, shouldn't that be relevant?

Michael Silence on his blog today says that a popular local gun blogger brings needed "perspective" to the Tennessean article about creeps with HCPs committing gun crimes by pointing out that HCP holders are 99.99999% or something law abiding.

We've had two cases just in the last couple of weeks in East Tennesse where HCP holders didn't turn out to be so law abiding, but the local media was reluctant to report it and mostly didn't report it at all.

Where's the perspective in that?

P.S. On the death penalty issue, ask Paul House whether he would prefer living in prison or getting electrocuted or taking a lethal injection.

The side debate is actually more interesting. Thanks for reviving it and injecting a new strand of thought into it.

P.P.S. I never suggested that the system was not deeply flawed. Killing someone who's innocent is a terrible thing. I'm not going to pretend that there's some kind of excuse for it, because it's no more excusable than keeping an innocent person locked up in hell for more than two decades. Still. If you oppose capital punishment on the grounds that it is absolutely unjustifiable to take innocent life, and there's always the chance that an execution might do that, you can say so. That seems like a viable argument. Is that the one you're making? Fine. metulj is not.