TexasCHLforum.com

Perhaps a pre-emptive strike is in order - why don't you file a restraining order to keep her & her family from coming anywhere near you? (Needless to say, YOU AND YOUR WIFE need to stay away from them - no phone calls, no letters, don't initiate any contact at all.)

Of course, IANAL, so these are just the idle thoughts of another layman . . . you may want to consult with an actual lawyer.

Get protective orders out of your head...they only come in to play when someone has been arrested for assault family violence.

From my (albeit limited) experience, the chances of someone threatening to get a restraining order versus actually getting one are about 10 to 1.

I know it's a pretty serious "freak-out" moment, and the uncertainty gnaws at you until it gets resolved, but I wouldn't be too worried about it. Usually it's all talk and they don't have the will to go through the motions to get it done.

Stay cool, don't lose sleep over it. Either way, worrying won't help.

Best of luck with your situation from someone who's been in something similar.

Is this what you want?

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473 ... m-4473.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Cain

[peripherally on topic]
I'm a little confused about restraining orders. If someone files one against me, and I am sitting in a restaurant already in the middle of eating and the aggrieved party enters and sees me, do I have to leave; or am I in violation if I stay to finish my meal? Conversely, are they required to leave? If I got there first, do I have some rights in the matter?

The reason I ask is that I can see how a person could file a restraining order against you, and then harras you by hounding you all over the place, forcing you to drop whatever you're doing at the moment and leave. You could spend your life running away from a crazy person who has filed a restraining order against you. And if they are nutty enough and you have to actually use deadly force to protect yourself against that person at some point, it would not look good that you just shot the person who had a restraining order against you.

I don't have this particular problem, but it would be handy to know what my rights are in the event that someone actually files one against me.
[/peripherally on topic]

The Annoyed Man wrote:[peripherally on topic]
I'm a little confused about restraining orders. If someone files one against me, and I am sitting in a restaurant already in the middle of eating and the aggrieved party enters and sees me, do I have to leave; or am I in violation if I stay to finish my meal? Conversely, are they required to leave? If I got there first, do I have some rights in the matter?

The reason I ask is that I can see how a person could file a restraining order against you, and then harras you by hounding you all over the place, forcing you to drop whatever you're doing at the moment and leave. You could spend your life running away from a crazy person who has filed a restraining order against you. And if they are nutty enough and you have to actually use deadly force to protect yourself against that person at some point, it would not look good that you just shot the person who had a restraining order against you.

I don't have this particular problem, but it would be handy to know what my rights are in the event that someone actually files one against me.
[/peripherally on topic]

If you have a restraining or protective order filed against you which prohibits you from coming within a certain distance of the person
1) You were not contacted in advance of it being ordered but is temporary and will not last longer than about 14 days at which time it will expire; OR
2) It is temporary and you were contacted and were given your day in court in which you could present evidence why a restraining or protective order was not necessary and the judge found that it was necessary for some period of time; OR
3) It is permanent (meaning 2 years) and you were contacted and were given your day in court in which you could present evidence why a restraining or protective order was not necessary and the judge found that it was an enduring problem that did require long-term protection.

In each case, someone had to present enough evidence to the courts to prove why you were an aggressor, stalker, attacker, harasser, thief, etc or that given the opportunity you would imminently be and the judge had to decide that you were acting inappropriately and that it rose to the level of infringing on your free movement to protect person or property. The longer and larger the infringement, the greater the burden of proof. The lowest threshold that I've seen for this is in divorce court with property. Judges will pretty routinely say that neither spouse may use or dispose of community property outside of specific guidelines until the division of property is complete and they can freeze those assets with a restraining order tailored to that purpose. That keeps an angry wife from selling her husband's sports car for $1 or an angry husband from throwing all of his wife's prized possessions out on the curb.

But let's take your tangential scenario. You said restraining order. Restraining orders typically don't restrict you from coming within a certain distance of a particular person so your whole scenario wouldn't happen. But if you had someone file for a protective order against you, you had your day in court, the judge decided that you were such an overwhelming threat to the person's safety and well-being that it was appropriate to attach criminal penalties to you coming near the person, and then your scenario played out that you're eating some place and in walks the person you've abused, stalked, harassed, etc... yeah, you have to leave.

If the other person was equally aggressive, you could also have a protective order against him/her in which case the second party to arrive would need to be the one to leave--all things equal, then the one who arrived first gets to stay. But if the situation is not equal, it is one of an aggressor and a victim, then you aren't treated equally before the law.

Think about it. You're a stalker who has made believable death threats against someone. You go to court and after hearing all the evidence from both of you and from the police and whatever character witnesses you produced, the judge grants her a protective order. You're separately being tried for several criminal charges related to it, but you're out on bond. She's terrified that every moment might be her last because of what you're actively doing to her. She manages to get out of the house and goes to her favorite diner and there you are eating.

Whose side should the law err on? Should the terrorized victim have the obligation to always flee? Or should you have to find a new place to hang out where she isn't likely to be?

Moral of the story: don't do illegal things like stalk, harass, abuse, rape, attempt to murder, etc someone so that you can eat wherever you want without concern for where your victim might be.

In my experience the respondents of a protective order merit little sympathy for any inconvenience they shoulder as a result of their actions.

gigag04 wrote:Get protective orders out of your head...they only come in to play when someone has been arrested for assault family violence.

Almost, but not quite. You are correct that they are only for family violence, but a regular protective order can be issued based on a documented history of family violence, with or without any arrests. I think, but am not sure, that a believable threat of violence may be enough.

On the other hand, everyone here seems to be missing the point that a restraining order can be issued for almost anything to anyone. It may have nothing to do with violence but can be things like not posting certain signs or whatever. In the case of the OP, the question is if the girlfriend even meets the legal definition of family for it to affect his CHL/gun rights. Texas has laws on dating violence that might or might not be applicable and do not interfere with gun rights.

Also, just to be sure of the correct answer, I looked at the law. Government Code 411.172(a)(12) says that to affect eligibility for a CHL it must be a protective order (strict definition of family) or a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship.

gigag04 wrote:In my experience the respondents of a protective order merit little sympathy for any inconvenience they shoulder as a result of their actions.

The world is not as black and white as it seems many times. As a general rule, I tend to agree, but I had one case where the protective order should not have been granted and I was forced to arrest someone over it when it should have been thrown out. An older couple had their son still living with them. He was in his early 20s and had Tourette's Syndrome, among other mental issues. The Tourette's made the kid get violent sometimes (according to the parents) and the parents were afraid of him because of it. They got a protective order against him, but then let him live there anyway. I got a call that the son had been fighting with the dad and when I got to the house, he was there and the protective order was still active. He was not violent when I got there, but he was angry and it looked like there had been a fight. I booked him for the violation of a protective order (mandated arrest by law for the non-cops). I pointed out to the D.A. that the order barred him from the house but showed him living there still and asked if that was a problem. He said it was common when the order was first created and they would get it fixed.

A month later, I got the same call. This time, the son was asleep in his bedroom when I got there and there was no sign of a fight other than the parents report. The order was still valid and still showed him living at that house. His parents had paid the bail and the bail papers showed him living there also. Now he has a real problem. He can't be at the house because of the protective order and he can't live anywhere else because of the bail conditions. And I was forced to arrest him because he was still in violation of the protective order. I felt like the son had been caught in the system and the parents were the ones abusing it.

srothstein wrote:The order was still valid and still showed him living at that house. His parents had paid the bail and the bail papers showed him living there also. Now he has a real problem. He can't be at the house because of the protective order and he can't live anywhere else because of the bail conditions. And I was forced to arrest him because he was still in violation of the protective order. I felt like the son had been caught in the system and the parents were the ones abusing it.

That sounds like the basis for a dark comedy about the legal system.

Hoi Polloi,

I understand your points, and in most cases, you're correct. But as strothstein pointed out, people DO abuse the system. For example, my wife and I were reported to child protective services once by a person who it later turned out was literally crazy, but we still had to go through the interview process with a CPS investigator who had the power to leave our home with our son, and there wasn't squat we could do about it. You've met my son, and you've observed us together. You know that he is not an abused child. We do need to have a CPS. But the CPS system does get abused. That isn't right.

Years ago, back in California, my next door neighbor lady, who professed to be a Christian but was known to be a whack job, had a restraining order filed against her ex-husband. The reason for both the divorce and the order? Her ex had given their infant son a bath, and as part of that bath, he had been thorough in making sure his son was clean. She called that sexual abuse and reported him. Had him thrown out of the home. Divorced him. He lost everything. As to burden of proof, there were no witnesses. There was no medical evidence. We're talking about a child just a few weeks or months old, so the child isn't a witness either. It was her word against his.

Now, I know the guy. He's not like that at all. I don't know about Texas courts, but California courts tend to err on the side of the wife/mother - and in this case, it was a huge error because the wife was the nut-job. It was unjust, and it was bad for the kids (she was a terrible mother), but she got full custody, and the father's parental and civil rights were trampled on. He was also bordering on poor, and he did not have the legal resources to fight for his rights.

There's how the system is supposed to work, and then there's how the system gets gamed by either crazy or immoral people. So my question is quite legitimate. My friend back in California has to leave wherever he would otherwise legitimately be if his ex-wife shows up, even though he got there first. And she uses it as a bludgeon against him, and he doesn't have the funds to seek a legal recourse. It is a huge injustice. By the way, he is a Christian too. I question whether she really is. God-fearing people don't do one another that way. What has happened to her ex-husband isn't right either.

I agree that it is necessary for a person who fears someone else to be able to protect themselves through the justice system. Remember, "justice" means that both parties to the action get what they deserve. But when the default position of the courts is to favor the wife/mother, can a man without financial resources truly get justice? It is bad enough when a man loses his family and access to his kids, if that is not what he deserves, but it is downright evil when a man can't even finish a meal in a public eatery because his wife has entered the establishment and forces him to leave.

I despise injustice when it is practiced by evil-minded husbands and parents against undeserving wives and children. I equally despise injustice when it is practiced by vengeful spouses and biased courts against undeserving victims. I despise injustice in all its forms.

As srothstein pointed out, it's not the arresting officer's job to dispense justice. He/she can only follow the court's directions.