Should people going through divorce be denied...

[RoeBear]

..the right to purchase guns? As we all know it is a very traumatic time for some people and we all have heard stories about men (usually) killing there wives at that time. It would save lives right?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Probably not.

and please show me a report stating your "fact" as opposed to "we've all heard the stories".

[Lefty48197]

2. This was such a brilliant post

I thought I'd bump it right back to the top. Let's keep the intellectual exchange flowing!

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Brilliant post?

Not bloody likely.

[lcordero]

3. Nope

It's better that both sides be able to buy guns. It makes everyday life a little more civil and polite since both sides will have to fear that the other might be psycho.

[idadem]

5. or how about...

...denying gun purchases by individuals who;

are seeking financial counseling,

are going through bankruptcy,

had a spouse, friend, relative or pet die recently,

just lost a job or was reprimanded,

was seen buying stresstabs in aisle four,

...???

[yankeeinlouisiana]

6. She may have a point.

The only time I had a gun pointed at me was from a soon to be ex-husband. It wasn't fun.

[DoNotRefill]

7. Ummmm....denial of a civil right without a court proceeding....

is a textbook example of the denial of due process....

[BullDozer]

8. Actually...

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm

"On August 28, 1998, Emerson’s wife, Sacha, filed a petition for divorce and application for a temporary
restraining order in the 119th District Court of Tom Green County, Texas. The petition stated no factual basis for
relief other than the necessary recitals required under the Texas Family Code regarding domicile, service of
process, dates of marriage and separation, and the "insupportability" of the marriage. The application for a
temporary restraining order—essentially a form order frequently used in Texas divorce procedure—sought to
enjoin Emerson from engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from
making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.

On September 4, 1998, the Honorable John E. Sutton held a hearing on Mrs. Emerson’s application for a temporary
restraining order. Mrs. Emerson was represented by an attorney at that hearing, and Mr. Emerson appeared pro se.
Mrs. Emerson testified about her economic situation, her needs in the way of temporary spousal support and child
support, and her desires regarding temporary conservatorship of their minor child.

During the hearing, Mrs. Emerson alleged that her husband threatened over the telephone to kill the man with whom
Mrs. Emerson had been having an adulterous affair. However, no evidence was adduced concerning any acts of
violence or threatened violence by Mr. Emerson against any member of his family, and the district court made no
findings to that effect. Furthermore, the court did not admonish Mr. Emerson that if he granted the temporary
restraining order, Mr. Emerson would be subject to federal criminal prosecution merely for possessing a firearm
while being subject to the order.

[MrBenchley]

9. There's the RKBA crowd's poster boy...

Emerson got nabbed threatening to shoot his ex-wife.

[Romulus]

11. based on

"she said he did."

I don't remember her calling the cops on him after it happened; she didn't bring this story up until the restraining order hearing. Maybe I'm wrong.:shrug:


Emerson got nabbed threatening to shoot his ex-wife.

[a2birdcage]

12. What a bunch of hooey!

[CO Liberal]

10. Not In All Cases

If the divorce is amicable and there is no threat of violence, no. But if one spouse has threatened to blow the other's head off (or other similar phrasings), yes.

It should be handled on a case-by-case basis.