Put another way, let's say a Police Chief, Mayor, Governor, etc., wanted to finally, absolutely, rid themselves of all those pesky 2nd Ammendment advocates. They take a writ to friendly Left-wing judge, request a "restraining order" claiming some threat against the government official by each and every gun owner. Then these gun owners have two options, i.e. turn in their guns voluntarily, or have them confiscated, and possibly, be prosecuted for illegal gun ownership (i.e. due to the restraining order).
Extreme thinking, a bit, perhaps, but if you follow the logic of the laws of Massacusetts, California, and other states, this logical progression of events can be possible. Possible, of course, because those gun owners have no defined rights to bear arms in those states, i.e. they are "priviledges" plain and simple. The state and local laws are written and enforced with that clear assumption in mind. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, and what you feel about it, you will lose either your guns or your liberty or both, whenever a government official gets around to your number.
The option of citizens in these states is to become an outlaw (again, losing their right to bear arms due to a gun-related felony, i.e. owning guns with a restaining order or other transparent legal device applied against them), meekly give up their rights under the U.S. Constitution, or raise $millions and spend years in court to fight the leftists, who have the power and purse of the state behind them.
Hopeless situation. I know. I live in California, have a registered "assault" weapon, and am undoubtly in violation of one of some 20,000 CA gun laws in one way or another.
SFS
Quite a bit of tin foil there!
Under most circumstances a person has to to have reasonable cause for a restraining order. If this dumb shmuk had been threatening this woman in some manor as to cause her to file for the writ in the first place, then maybe he was a menace to society. If he was inocent he should have had a lawyer. If he was an NRA member he could have gotten support.
Just because he owned guns doesn't mean he was of sound mind!
(understandable where women are concerned.)
There was no mention of her side of the story.
For her sake I hope she keeps a handgun under the pillow!
Under current "edicts", it only applies if the restraining order is issued to "protect" a domestic partener.
Chuckie Schumer and others are trying to change it to apply to ANY restraining order. You hypothetical situation is exactly what the gun grabbers have in mind.
What's needed, perhaps, is for the judiciary in some conservative pro-RKBA state to find that Daley, Feinstein, Boxer, et al. have by their actions threatened material harm to other people and issue an order against them.
The linguistic twisting necessary to justify that would be no worse than what people use to justify the Lautenberg Abomonation.