[WOBBLY BOB]

Under Minnesota law, a person who is convicted of violating an order of protection may not possess a pistol for three years from the date of conviction. However, if the court finds the person "used" a firearm in any way during the commission of the violation, the court may prohibit the person from possessing any firearm for ANY period longer than three years or for the remainder of the person’s life. In the latter case, the court shall also order that the firearm be summarily forfeited. Because this bill would allow a court to order the respondent to have no contact with the pet or companion animal, such an order could be violated merely by inadvertent contact with a "protected" pet. Thus, depending on the circumstances of the contact, a person could be subject to these firearms prohibitions for contacting the pet or companion animal, whether or not the contact resulted in injury or trauma to the animal.

Any number of relatively innocent or unintentional scenarios could easily be imagined for such contact. Even intentional contact with a pet that is the subject of a protective order is clearly too low a threshold for a person to lose the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. The same considerations simply do not apply to contact with animals as apply to contact with people. While this bill was originally designed to protect animals, it would also provide unintended and unjustified deprivation of people’s Second Amendment Rights.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

“....it would also provide unintended and unjustified deprivation of people’s Second Amendment Rights.”

Camel...nose...tent.

[Pit1]

Do the Crips and Bloods give a sh&$ about this law??

[trapped_in_LA]

Protection orders for a pet?!? WTF? This country has literally gone to the dogs! I wish I knew at least one western country that hasn’t gone B@tsh!t crazy, but there are none or I’d have moved there already.