[TKDietz]

These no contact orders for people accused of domestic battery are issued right away, long before a trial. During this period there is still technically a presumption of innocence. These people are being deprived of their right to bear arms without due process of law. I can't imagine how this passes constitutional muster.

[btcusn]

As far as I know, the second amendment is UNCONDITIONAL, as long as a person is not in jail the right must not be infringed

[Bogey78O]

It's only legal because the gov't says so. If we don't get our way in these next four years in the courts then we have failed.

[neverdem]

I can't imagine how this passes constitutional muster.

Wasn't that the basis of Emerson case in Texas, but the US Supreme Court sent back to the Texas District court for clarification of some sort?

[tahiti]

"I can't imagine how this passes constitutional muster."

Massachusetts Constitution

PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him;...And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers,..."

Article XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practiced, the parties have a right to a trial by jury;

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

Since when can a "restraining order" and/or a law usurp, deny and disparage a constitutionally protected right?

In Massachusetts, a law against homo's being married was found to be an afront to their constitution. So, there is the precedent that no law or restraining order can afront the covenants of their constitution.

[Richard-SIA]

Political Correctness + Political Expediency = Rights Overturned!

I still remember when "experts" sagely advised me that such efforts on the part of Gov. Org. could never happen in America, they would require too much computer memory!
Tends to make you wonder occasionally if all our tech progress is actually benign in the absence of true conservative progress.