the law is aimed at people who are accused of being abusers, and removing their right to due process and compensation for confiscated property.

you can take their guns.

they tend to use more violent means. How far should we go with this? Random house searches?
I would agree with this if there were harsh penalties for making false claims.

Worst case scenario it takes two weeks to get a hearing get your precious gins back. Two fucking weeks.

Are you denying that a woman is killed with a gin by a domestic partner every 16 hours?

But of course gunz are more important even though Heller held that states can restrict gun rights.

Everyone can just suck eggs where due process is concerned huh, because nobody elses rights matter.

I think you've made that abundantly clear, many times.

This is spot on:

because you don't believe in liberal principles and should be consistently applied. Would you apply the exclusionary rule differently if the contraband was gun vs a brick of pot? You have left liberalism and became part of the regressive left.

A restraining order issued by a court IS due process.

And YOU don't get to judge me and my position on the political scale.

a restraining order constricts movement slightly. This is confiscation of property. You have expressed illiberal views.

is a batshit crazy teabagger rightwing position. Ask Trump or Cruz.

At least when it comes to guns you are firmly in the Bundy corner of the universe. Same goes for your concept of the Constitution.

or at least make be best effort possible to be.

Being consistent isn't a bad thing in itself but ignoring or denying all that conflict with it is. You ignore decades of case law and court decisions to shore up a consistently wrong interpretation of Constitutional law.

I'm done with this sub thread as no amount of reason can sway you.

It isn't like it is destroyed. It can always eventually be returned. Also, a judge ordered the taking. It's not like someone just made the decision to do it. No, someone we have put in a position of trust made a decision. Also, if you're against this then you're probably also against civil forfeiture.

to answer your question, just compensation. Another is that the decision is based on an accusation without evidence, in an area where misuse and false allegation are not unusual for leverage in divorce court.

I'm against the drug war period.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

should all of the knives, tire chains, and hammers also be confiscated? How about bare hands? Guns are used in the minority of DV murders.

I..e., the state THINKS you may commit a crime, so detain and restrict a persons rights.

If you support the 5th Amendment, then I would support expedited due process wherein the "pre-criminal" has his/her day in court. Otherwise, his seems to be another fast, cheap & dirty end-run by very conservative forces.

You seem to be like some other folks, that when it comes to your personal bigotries, due process can be ignored.

Y'know, like Donald Trump saying that we should restrict Muslims from coming into the country, even those that have not been convicted of any crime (they might, maybe, someday commit an act of terrorism, donchaknow). Or various Republicans saying that transgendered folks can't use the public restroom of their choice, because some of them, maybe, might have nefarious motives for using that restroom (even though they can't point out any examples of this actually being a problem).

This is exactly the sort of "logic" you are advocating -- it doesn't put you in very good company...

Bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's aimed at a group you don't happen to like.

So, yes, we wait until people commit a real crime before we punish them. That's actually how it's meant to work...

...but for requiring someone to, for instance, stay away from another person -- not for the confiscation of personal property.

Again, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and in quite a bit more detail than I have done (no need to cover the same ground others already have). I guess certain facts don't fit into your personal set of biases.

I just really wanted to point out that your stance is supported by the same "logic" that other bigots are using in their stances. I do hope you're comfortable with that...

Reason will convince me of just about anything that's even remotely true. Your problem is that you never seem to use any. When facts are pointed out to you, you simply declare them to be wrong and that you won't play any more.

Most folks grow out of that particular little tactic around third grade. Not everyone, obviously -- it seems to be a favorite of yours.

Have yourself a lovely day.

he was talking about freedom of movement, not confiscation of property and an enumerated constitutional right. It is also property that police tend not to return even when ordered to by courts and are sometimes stolen by individual cops.
Also, what level of evidence does the judge have to use? Are these judges elected?

but as a principle, there still should be stiff penalties for false accusations.

There's no reason to be an easy victim here in America.