"With judges handing restraining orders out like popcorn, a federal law that disarms soldiers and police who have such orders against them is playing major havoc with their careers and lives."
Glenn Sacks has a point.
It's not fair that someone's career should be ruined over mere accusations and legal kneejerk boilerplate.
Sacks goes on to tell us:
"[A]ccording to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out 'like candy' to 'virtually all who apply,' and that 'in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.'
"A study conducted by Massachusetts courts revealed that the majority of restraining orders did not even involve an allegation of violence."
That being the case, Mr. Sacks, why should someone's career be of more value than my life, and my ability to protect it? Why would that be fair?
How is liberty served by carving out special classes of super citizens, who enjoy privileges and immunites not available to all, in direct contradiction to the spirit and intent of equality under the law?
We don't need more elitist exceptions like "cops only" nationwide concealed carry. Show me where, once they have their place at the table, their unions or the FOP have lobbied to bring the rest of us in from the cold. More often than not, their mouthpieces are only too glad to get ink and camera time railing about the danger "guns on the street" pose to their constituents.
I can see the unintended consequences should Mr. Sacks get his wish: A cop who would have been denied a gun had he not been exempted arrests some poor slob who arms himself in spite of a restraining order.
Sorry, Mr. Sacks. If "the whole people" aren't invited, your government careerists can just share our pain. Maybe it will give them some incentive to work with us.