Do you think getting a restraining order is that easy? In King County I had to spend 6 months trying to get a restraining order against an ex who beat me enough to send me to the ER at Swedish and afterwards he made several life threats. After all of that it took the courts six fucking months get a restraining order in place.

Yeah...I'm sure this idea will solve all of our problems.

Yes, and restraining order word so well.

work

I don't understand how this will work.

The constitution and SCOTUS say that a gun (an arm) is the one thing that I may possess (bear) without any restrictions, ever.

How can a judge order that - or any - right away?

As SCOTUS interprets it, I'm not even sure how that right can be denied to prisoners.

file gun-owning restraining orders against every male in the entire country, regardless of age. problem solved.

It is UCSB, not UCSF.....

Restraining orders are hard enough to maintain and enforce as it is, without bringing the 2nd amendment into it. Going to be a hard fight.

Talk about applying a Band-Aid to a severed limb...

@5

You're going to freak out the gun nuts like Charles did the other day.

While it's certainly possible to deny someone a constitutional right, it can't be done without due process. This means you would. Have to serve them with a notice of a hearing and give them a chance to respond in court. It also means you would need to show good cause why the right should be revoked. They would also have the right to appeal any decision. This isn't the kind of thing that could be used willy-nilly against just anybody.

A restraining order issued by a judge would seem to be all the "good cause" required in situations like this.

Is this law disproportionately used against minorities and the poor in the States where it is extant by any chance?

@11: It's well-established that you can limit a Constitutionally-guaranteed right in the name of public safety. No restraining orders needed, only laws.

@14: What are you talking about? What waiver to the 14th Amendment do you think exists?

@15: Fires and moviehouses. I'm talking about the 1st Amendment here.

@11 It wouldn't be a 'limit' to the right. It would be the elimination of that right, at least for the period of the order.

A 'limit' might be something along the lines of not being able to possess an arm while within some reasonable goegraphic area (of petitioner).

Maybe the state's boundaries, or judge's jurisdiction, acts as such an area.

@16: That is well established Constitutional law (based on caselaw) that applies to everyone. We are talking about restricting a Constitutional right to an individual, which requires due process per the 14th Amendment. The most you are probably going to be able to get away with would be a temporary restraining order followed shortly by a formal due process hearing for a permanent restraining order.

If a person is so dangerous that you feel the need to deprive him of the tools for self defense, then are you also creating a "special relationship" with police/government that make the police responsible for his protection? If so, how many police officers need to be in his protection detail? Maybe the same number that protects a federal senator or the president?

(of course the "special relationship" comes from SCOTUS Castle Rock ruling)