When divorces happen, they can get nasty. It’s not uncommon for one or both sides to file for a restraining order, alleging all kinds of things, only for it all to go away when the divorce is final. Judges issue such orders as a matter of course; it seems, in part, because I don’t think any of them want to be held responsible if they get it wrong.
Because divorces can be so nasty, there’s always a degree of skepticism warranted when someone alleges their former partner is some kind of monster. When the government intervenes and takes their guns, though, we start stepping into the realm of “we have a problem.”
The guy or gal might actually be that horrible, but there’s a lot that needs to be verified first, and an attorney in Peoria, IL. is more than a little upset that he’s in those crosshairs at the moment because I’m not sure it was.
A federal judge has dismissed, without prejudice, an original complaint filed by Peoria attorney Luke A. Thomas against multiple West Central Illinois public officials and government entities, but the case is continuing after Thomas filed an amended complaint seeking to address the court’s jurisdictional concerns.
Thomas filed the lawsuit June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. His original complaint named multiple county judges, county officials, law enforcement officers and others, alleging violations of his constitutional gun rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal civil rights laws stemming from events surrounding his divorce and the seizure and sale of firearms and other property. He also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
On July 7, U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough recused herself from the case under federal law, and Chief U.S. District Judge Colin Bruce reassigned the matter to U.S. District Judge Colleen Lawless.Attorneys representing the defendants responded July 14 by asking the federal court to deny Thomas’ request for emergency relief and dismiss the case. Attorneys representing Cass County, Menard County, Brown County and several individual defendants argued the dispute arises from ongoing state domestic relations proceedings and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to intervene. They also argued Thomas failed to meet the legal standards for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, contending any remedy belongs in state court.
Now, what bothers me here is that Thomas is talking about the seizure and sale of his firearms. If this is a temporary restraining order, how is that justified? I get that Rahimi made it clear that subjects of restraining orders essentially lose their gun rights, at least while under the order, but if it’s temporary, then the possibility exists of it being lifted. Selling his guns, presumably without Thomas’s permission, seems to be in line with something you’d do with the subject of a permanent restraining order.
The problem for him, though, is that at least some of the people he’s trying to get hit with an injunction are state judges who say the feds cannot prevent them from doing their job via injunctive relief. Frankly, that makes sense to a degree, but it would seem that they can limit what they do, such as selling a man’s guns when he’s not a permanently prohibited person.
Obviously, we’re not getting the whole story here, and Thomas has a vested interest in presenting himself as the victim. I get that. I understand it. I’m not prepared to believe everything he alleges simply because he alleged it.
But we’re also talking about a man’s right to keep and bear arms, and the arms he purchased. That’s something that shouldn’t be overlooked or brushed off as not being important. It is, and if you’re going to take someone’s rights away, you’d damn well better have a good reason to do so, and if you’re selling that property against his will, you’d better have an even stronger reason to do so.
This needs to be answered, and anyone who overstepped on this needs to be slapped down and slapped down hard.
It’s Illinois, so I expect a certain amount of hostility toward gun ownership, but hostility cannot take the form of law simply because judges want it to. If that happens, heads should roll.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
