Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. Unless she has a criminal record or at least a disturbance-call record involving a weapon, and has outright threatened the OP - something he'd have to prove, he can't just say "She threatened me" and have the courts believe that outright, I mean please, they've heard every possible lie one partner will sling at another to exact revenge - the OP can't get a restraining order because she owns a gun and is sleeping with someone, LOL.
I don't get the "she has a boyfriend!!!" part of getting a restraining order. She has a boyfriend who does her in the house. The OP could certainly have the boyfriend banned from the house but not his wife. How is she a restraining order-level threat for having sex?
Restraining orders are rather serious business, this isn't a TV show, it's real life. The OP can't just burst into court making all sorts of unsupported claims and throw in "Plus she has A BOYFRIEND!" and the court responds, "Oh my GOD! Yes, this woman is no longer permitted within one hundred yards of her own house."
I mean WTF, people????
You want this person to be in even more trouble with cops/the courts here?
Then keep advising him to file frivolous claims and do outrageous things that strain the court's credulity and waste its time.
It happens quite a bit when the genders are reversed.
Exactly. Unless she has a criminal record or at least a disturbance-call record involving a weapon, and has outright threatened the OP - something he'd have to prove, he can't just say "She threatened me" and have the courts believe that outright, I mean please, they've heard every possible lie one partner will sling at another to exact revenge - the OP can't get a restraining order because she owns a gun and is sleeping with someone, LOL.
I don't get the "she has a boyfriend!!!" part of getting a restraining order. She has a boyfriend who does her in the house. The OP could certainly have the boyfriend banned from the house but not his wife. How is she a restraining order-level threat for having sex? Loads of people all around me have sex all the time, within our beyond the confines of their marriage; I know for a fact they are all required to come no closer than within 100 yards of me.
Restraining orders are rather serious business, this isn't a TV show, it's real life. The OP can't just burst into court making all sorts of unsupported claims and throw in "Plus she has A BOYFRIEND!" and the court responds, "Oh my GOD! Yes, this woman is no longer permitted within one hundred yards of her own house."
I mean WTF, people????
You want this person to be in even more trouble with cops/the courts here?
Then keep advising him to file frivolous claims and do outrageous things that strain the court's credulity and waste its time.
ANd you go on defending some random [bleep], who has cheated on her husband and is now trying to fleece him for everything he has ever worked for, like so many others before her. Good choice on your part, really tells us all we need to know.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 04-07-2016 at 02:52 PM..
Reason: Inappropriate language.
Exactly. Unless she has a criminal record or at least a disturbance-call record involving a weapon, and has outright threatened the OP - something he'd have to prove, he can't just say "She threatened me" and have the courts believe that outright, I mean please, they've heard every possible lie one partner will sling at another to exact revenge - the OP can't get a restraining order because she owns a gun and is sleeping with someone, LOL.
I don't get the "she has a boyfriend!!!" part of getting a restraining order. She has a boyfriend who does her in the house. The OP could certainly have the boyfriend banned from the house for certain reasons (they do have to be legal ones, sorry, OP) but not his wife. How is she a restraining order-level threat for having sex? Loads of people all around me have sex all the time, within our beyond the confines of their marriage; I know for a fact they are all required to come no closer than within 100 yards of me.
Restraining orders are rather serious business, this isn't a TV show, it's real life. The OP can't just burst into court making all sorts of unsupported claims and throw in "Plus she has A BOYFRIEND!" and the court responds, "Oh my GOD! Yes, this woman is no longer permitted within one hundred yards of her own house."
I mean WTF, people????
You want this person to be in even more trouble with cops/the courts here?
Then keep advising him to file frivolous claims and do outrageous things that strain the court's credulity and waste its time.
I thought they were suggesting a restraining order for the boyfriend? Either way the situation is messed up. Feel bad for all involved!
I'm inclined to think that it's because there's nothing else to say about it. And, if that is the case, the court won't do anything until the issue rises above "legal possession of a handgun".
Most judges would inquire as to why all of sudden a non gun owner up and buys one in the middle of some serious relationship issues.
Are you guys really this dense simply because it's a woman?
I'm really not sure, it's an interesting question.
OP needs to be careful with this druggy and get a lawyer immediately.
What's all this about drugs? The "prescription abuse problem"? Is it documented as abuse? Was she in therapy for drug abuse? Was she brought up on criminal charges for it? Has she been called in at work about it and told to stop taking drugs or she will be fired? Anything like that?
If so, that's information for the lawyers. If not, the OP's got nothing but his own assertion that she had a problem.
And I also think in that sane scenario, if getting a gun is out of character, a judge would rightly ask why all of a sudden it was purchased. It comes across as a thinly veiled threat.
A judge would be highly unlikely to ask about the lawful purchase and possession of a gun absent any other credible evidence that there was a "threat".
A judge would be highly unlikely to ask about the lawful purchase and possession of a gun absent any other credible evidence that there was a "threat".
Hahahaha.
Judges take everything into account. Legal or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
