ddeanjohnson
autodidact
- Aug 21, 2010
- 801
thank you for your response. although i dont really understand why this is targeting out of state protective orders. if someone is worried about their safety, wouldnt someone in-state be more of a "threat" if due to nothing else other than increased proximity?
i propose a hypothetical.
guy and girl date. are NOT married, or otherwise legally bound.
things go sour, and one of them decides they want a protective order against the other
does the targetted person then lose all of their firearms rights?
for reference, how does this scenario CURRENTLY (Before SB281) affect firearms rights?
Although posed as a hypothetical, this is getting too much into specific personal situations. The whole subject of protective orders is important and somebody should write an article on it, but it won't be me. Briefly, as I understand it, in Maryland various classes of family members or other close associates can get a temporary protective order ex parte (without advance notice to the targeted person), pretty much on request, and the judge can order removal of firearms if he wishes. If the order is extended, after a hearing at which the targeted person has a right to be represented ("non ex parte"), removal of firearms is automatic. There is also a federal disqualification based on non ex parte protective orders, but I cannot get into that now.