krayj

I agree with that...but that is not how it's currently implemented.

Some people will say yes and some people will say no. The same argument you made could be used to outlaw a LOT of human behavior, though.

For me personally, I universally don't think it's fair that I could be stripped of some of my rights without due process - that bit is important to me regardless of whether that is used for wrongdoing by others or not. A better solution would be to make due process happen faster, imo...or for the state to take a more proactive role in protecting the accuser until that due process runs its course.

Domestic abusers shouldn't have guns...this is true.

The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what's being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)...because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser...which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who've been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.

Unfortunately, in many states, no actual proof or evidence is required to get a domestic protection order issued against someone. Some individuals do actually weaponize the justice system just to take out their anger on another person, damage their reputation, and make their life hell for no other reason than to make their life hell.

This article title is bait and switch. The law still would prohibit convicted domestic abusers from possessing firearms. The subject of this current challenge is about whether it should continue to impact people who've merely been accused by someone or not.

This has happened to both my brother and a very good long-time friend. Both individuals were eventually completely vindicated but the current system allowed an accuser, without any evidence, the ability to have protection orders placed, their firearms confiscated, their concealed pistol licenses revoked, their reputations damaged, and it cost them thousands in attorneys fees to deal with. And at the end of it all, and after being completely vindicated, zero repercussions for the accuser of the false accusations.

I don't know what the right answer is here, but the discussion has merit before blindly accepting the title of this post at face value because there's a lot more to it than what the title implies.

I don't like driving faster than I can see in front of me. TIL: I'd be considered abnormal in New Orleans.

What's the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame "advice of counsel" on.

76 down, ten thousand more to go.

This is a step in the right direction.

China is investing 13.7 trillion in their power sector to achieve net-zero emissions. 3.5 billion is rookie numbers if we want to keep up and remain competitive. At least it's a start.

I hate office politics, am not female, and detest unnecessary meetings, so I guess that's why I have no interest in returning to office.

But for the people who do, I'd love to know if they did the math and think that losing 44 hours of free time a month plus a $176 deduction from their net monthly pay makes it worth it for whatever they think they are getting out of it by commuting into the office.