The danger between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’

[SecularMotion]

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Connecticut an A-, its top grade, putting it alongside of New York and California as states with the tightest reins on guns. But advocates point to one major gap in the law — the lack of statutory language governing the early stages of cases of domestic abuse.

“It’s really about victim safety,’’ said Karen Jarmoc, CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “We’re simply trying to create strong measure of protection at a dangerous time.’’

Federal and state law already stipulates that anyone convicted of domestic violence or subject to a court-ordered permanent domestic-violence restraining order can neither purchase nor possess a gun.

But both state and federal law do not provide such protections for victims who have obtained a temporary restraining order.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/The-danger-between-temporary-and-6810824.php

[beevul]

1. Slanted.

But both state and federal law do not provide such protections for victims who have obtained a temporary restraining order.

That may have something to do with due process.

[SecularMotion]

2. Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process

They don't violate due process, as there is notice served on the party and an opportunity for the person against whom one is ordered to appear before a court to have the order lifted or to challenge the issuance. Further, TROs are issued upon a showing of a prima facie reason under the law to issue such an order, either to maintain the status quo during an impending legal matter, or as a protective order to prevent someone from coming to potential harm.

Here in WA, this matter was addressed in State v. Karas, 108 Wn.2d 692, 700, 32 P.3d. 1016 (2001):

"Considering the minor curtailment of [respondent’s] liberty imposed by the protection order and the significant public and governmental interest in reducing the potential for irreparable injury, the Act's provision of notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate satisfies the inherently flexible demands of procedural due process."

Due process is always a question of (1) whether process is due, and (2) if so, what amount of process is due. Whether or not process is due here is obvious, since there is a curtailment of liberty. The amount of process due has been deemed sufficiently met by notice-and-hearing provisions.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-temporary-restraining-orders-allowed-since-they-violate-a-persons-freedom-of-movement-without-due-process#!n=12

[Straw Man]

3. Picking cherries again?

From the same link you cited above:

In New York -- and this is generally true elsewhere, with superficial variations -- TRO's (here in NY, "temporary orders of protection" or TROs) are issued "ex parte". Different states have different standards for what constitutes enough danger to the applicant, but any court order issued by a judge ex parte is by definition based on one side only without any due process.

To obtain a Permanent Restraining Order, however, an applicant has to face the Respondent in court -- or, at least, prove that the Respondent knows about the hearing and decided not to go. This "notice" requirement is due process under the Constitution. The Respondent MUST be informed that a hearing is about to be held, or no Permanent Restraining Order will follow. That notice has to be served. Until then, even the TRO is NOT fully enforceable.

There are two important facts you may not be aware of.

First: The "ex parte" part of this TRO -- "T" for Temporary -- is crucial. The phrase ex parte means that the order was issued automatically as a matter of public policy, without hearing both sides. There's no proof it's legit. It's a Temporary legal protection for the Applicant. ... just in case.

Next: New York TRO's "are not a finding of wrongdoing" because they are issued ex parte. The "ex parte" automatic granting of a TRO means it is a procedural approval that has NOTHING to do with guilt. An employer. for instance, can't retaliate against an employee who was served with a TRO that was issued ex parte. This is a crucial legal distinction for any order issued ex parte.

[SecularMotion]

4. You accuse me of cherry picking?

From the same comment you cited above:

So all TROs are compromises based on public policy. Because the subject ex parte Temporary Restraining Order is really just a minor inconvenience, it is not a significant due process deprivation of Constitutional dimensions.

Repeat: These ARE deprivations of Constitutionally promised due process. However, because TROs serve the interests of society by protecting potentially innocent victims from potential violence, weighed against the civil rights of the individual, they are allowable deprivations. Remember, these are TEMPORARY.

[Straw Man]

5. Yes, I do.

You ignored an entire entry that contradicted your assertion that TROs are not violations of due process.

Also, you saw fit not to highlight this part:

So all TROs are compromises based on public policy. Because the subject ex parte Temporary Restraining Order is really just a minor inconvenience, it is not a significant due process deprivation of Constitutional dimensions.

TROs rise to the level of "Constitutional dimensions" when they go beyond mere restriction of personal contact to the removal of a Constitutionally protected right. That is obviously much more than a "minor inconvenience."