Gun rights revoked for no reason in Marion Co.

[MrsGungho]

i said more than not. that doesnt mean 100%, and i didnt say all men, so obviously your situation was the not. I can put my own foot in my mouth just fine, i dont need people creating words i didnt even use and doing it for me thank you very much. i do use broad strokes because sometimes thats what needs to be used, too many people use a pencil. i carry a big stick when i walk into sh*t. hmmm you sound like a broken record or a plagerized one. where have i heard "broad strokes" before???? hmmmm seems like it was just yesterday and used wrongly in that post also.

she sure could have a say in anywhere that child visits if she wanted too including church. these judges know no bounds, nor do a lot of them care if they violate the constitution because who is gonna challenge them in most cases? Plus Im sure she knows every financial record of this dad, and so she probly knows he couldnt afford to fight her ruling, or so she thinks. i hope he sticks it to this judge.

I used the term a day or so ago. No clue what you are talking about though since I wasn't talking to you when I said it. Care to elaborate?
I don't feel it was used wrongly here, you hear one case where the judge sides with "mom" and suddenly "more than not" are screwed. Show me some statistics to back that up if it so true.

BOR has it right, try to sit and talk to her. Help her with her lack of knowledge.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

I know a guy that had to give up all of his firearms while going through a divorce case and kids were involved. His wife did almost the same thing as yours and said he was mentally unstable etc. and the judge made him give them up. However, he did get them back a while later but not right away if I remember correctly.

His story was just a little different. He was right in the middle of the divorce and was quite upset. I was there (legally and mentally) and at that time I had a buddy hold onto my guns. This is a little different. His divorce is long done and he's moved on and has a new gf and all. This is just a crazy f-ed up ex trying to screw with him and a judgment that imho is open to re-evaluation in the proper legal venue.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Agreed. Now, we all need to start being a little nicer to the ACLU. When I told the posters here that I was a member of the ACLU, wow, did they go nuts.

Probably because most of the ACLU affiliates seem to stand in opposition to our rights. As a member, however, perhaps you can influence them to follow the example set by another that seems to much better protect ALL of our rights.

Second Amendment | ACLU of Nevada

I looked on the ACLU-in.org site and found no comment on the RKBA whatsoever. Perhaps people would be nicer to them if they came out in clear, unmitigated support of our rights as well.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[smoking357]

I would consider two things:
1) Move out of Marion County (if you can't get another judge to overrule this one)
2) Whether you move or not, whether you get the order overturned or not, when you have no case in front of her, contact the judge and make an appointment to see her. While there, tell her you were thinking about her comments in court and it struck you that she basically said that she had an area of knowledge in which she could use some help, and it happened to be an area in which you could provide that help. Make it clear that your goal is not to influence your own case, though you would not mind if she reversed her order, but rather to prevent a lack of knowledge from affecting the cases of others. In short: Offer to take her to the range and teach her about firearm safety as well as the fact that shooting is fun.

I am not a lawyer. Regardless, the boldfaced comment above is probably the most important part of this. You need to be very clear that you have no intention of influencing your own case before her. You are only offering education in an area she identified she was lacking.

Knowledge is power, and it may be in this case that knowledge is also the cure for this problem. If it also affects your case, consider that a nice, unexpected benefit.

Good luck. Keep us informed how it goes.

Blessings,
Bill

It's still an ex parte communication, so she probably won't take the meeting. Moberly has been well educated on guns. Like a typical Republican, she doesn't like them.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I used the term a day or so ago. No clue what you are talking about though since I wasn't talking to you when I said it. Care to elaborate?
I don't feel it was used wrongly here, you hear one case where the judge sides with "mom" and suddenly "more than not" are screwed. Show me some statistics to back that up if it so true.

BOR has it right, try to sit and talk to her. Help her with her lack of knowledge.

sorry, it wasnt "broad strokes" yesterday it was a different word, but same meaning. not by you.

i dont do the research game. but its pretty common knowledge that a lot of men get boned by the family court system even if they are the ones who are trying to do the right thing. more so than women. the courts seem to still have the false idea that a child should be with their mother even if the mother is a crack whore for example. old victorian principles that are still shoved down our throats in a modern world.

i dont wanna argue anymore about this. I will just agree to disagree.

i just wish the best for the father here. i would ignore that judges order. just keep your mouth shut about whats in your private home. good luck, it will be up hill from here.

 

[irishfan]

i dont do the research game. but its pretty common knowledge that a lot of men get boned by the family court system even if they are the ones who are trying to do the right thing. more so than women. the courts seem to still have the false idea that a child should be with their mother even if the mother is a crack whore for example. old victorian principles that are still shoved down our throats in a modern world.

I can give two cases from distant family members where a mom was on drugs and the judge still gave her the kids. One of the "special women" has been in and out of jail and rehab multiple times before and after the judge awarded/took away/reawarded the kids. The system is very flawed and is very one sided toward the mother/woman.

As far as the OP...I would try and talk to the judge or possibly get an advocate if you can to help talk to the judge in this case.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I used the term a day or so ago. No clue what you are talking about though since I wasn't talking to you when I said it. Care to elaborate?
I don't feel it was used wrongly here, you hear one case where the judge sides with "mom" and suddenly "more than not" are screwed. Show me some statistics to back that up if it so true.

BOR has it right, try to sit and talk to her. Help her with her lack of knowledge.

Thanks for the backup, Mrs G. I have to say that most of the cases (and there have been several) I've heard of or seen where the (ex) wife chooses to try to stick it to her (ex) husband, she succeeds. I don't know why that wasn't the case in your situation.

I won't go so far as to say it happens the majority of the time, but I will say that it seems to have happened in the majority of the cases of which I'm aware. They were not all the word of the man, either; the women with whom I'm acquainted who have gone after their exs have told similar stories, often with great glee.

That the OP got custody of his child is amazing to me. I don't know many men who've done that, and I can't think of any that have been awarded custody in the initial hearing. The courts just don't seem to get that being female does not make someone a good parent, any more than being male makes someone a bad parent.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MrsGungho]

sorry, it wasnt "broad strokes" yesterday it was a different word, but same meaning. not by you.

i dont do the research game. but its pretty common knowledge that a lot of men get boned by the family court system even if they are the ones who are trying to do the right thing. more so than women. the courts seem to still have the false idea that a child should be with their mother even if the mother is a crack whore for example. old victorian principles that are still shoved down our throats in a modern world.

i dont wanna argue anymore about this. I will just agree to disagree.

i just wish the best for the father here. i would ignore that judges order. just keep your mouth shut about whats in your private home. good luck, it will be up hill from here.

obviously not by me or you wouldn't have accused me of plagiarism.

I disagree with what this judge has done. I hope the father here does what needs to be done to protect his rights. Like I said in my first post, his ex is a woman who claims to be an adult acting like a child. she isn't getting her way so she tattles and connives and lies to make it rough on the father.

Thanks for the backup, Mrs G. I have to say that most of the cases (and there have been several) I've heard of or seen where the (ex) wife chooses to try to stick it to her (ex) husband, she succeeds. I don't know why that wasn't the case in your situation.

I won't go so far as to say it happens the majority of the time, but I will say that it seems to have happened in the majority of the cases of which I'm aware. They were not all the word of the man, either; the women with whom I'm acquainted who have gone after their exs have told similar stories, often with great glee.

That the OP got custody of his child is amazing to me. I don't know many men who've done that, and I can't think of any that have been awarded custody in the initial hearing. The courts just don't seem to get that being female does not make someone a good parent, any more than being male makes someone a bad parent.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't know why my case was different, I got the best man hating attorney in town and had plenty of evidence to use against him. In my situation though it was found he was not a threat to his girls, just me.
I have heard of many men who have lost in court when they should have won. Also heard the same the other way.
This judge does need an education, not that she will listen though.

 

[E5RANGER375]

obviously not by me or you wouldn't have accused me of plagiarism.

I don't know why my case was different, I got the best man hating attorney in town and had plenty of evidence to use against him. In my situation though it was found he was not a threat to his girls, just me.

plagerism was over the top for me to say (i appologize), but it was the fastest i could get my hamster to run at that moment

in regards to your specific court case because of the reason highlighted that you mentioned above, I WISH YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STICK IT TOO HIM TOO!! I have no tollerance for abusive behavior towards women or children. but also it does work the other way too. no one should threaten anyone with abuse.

 

[jboritzki]

I would consider two things:
1) Move out of Marion County (if you can't get another judge to overrule this one)
2) Whether you move or not, whether you get the order overturned or not, when you have no case in front of her, contact the judge and make an appointment to see her. While there, tell her you were thinking about her comments in court and it struck you that she basically said that she had an area of knowledge in which she could use some help, and it happened to be an area in which you could provide that help. Make it clear that your goal is not to influence your own case, though you would not mind if she reversed her order, but rather to prevent a lack of knowledge from affecting the cases of others. In short: Offer to take her to the range and teach her about firearm safety as well as the fact that shooting is fun.

I am not a lawyer. Regardless, the boldfaced comment above is probably the most important part of this. You need to be very clear that you have no intention of influencing your own case before her. You are only offering education in an area she identified she was lacking.

Knowledge is power, and it may be in this case that knowledge is also the cure for this problem. If it also affects your case, consider that a nice, unexpected benefit.

Good luck. Keep us informed how it goes.

Blessings,
Bill

I won't move 1 inch. I could move next door or across town or to another county. The fact will still remain that I live in America and am afforded the same rights here as anywhere else in Indiana. This judge KNOWS the law is on my side. She is not a moron and did not miss that part of law school. She has however lost her way. She has obviously gotten herself in the habit of ignoring the law when her opinion is contrary to that particular law or right. It seems that I am just some idiot that works with my hands and not with my mind. That makes me stupid and beneath her. My rights mean nothing to her superior intellect. After all, she has been in the trenches of the judicial system, not me. She has seen the horrors that come from people exercising rights. She has really just blurred the line that separates the honest citizen that is exercising his/her rights and those criminals a floor below that had no right to possess the firearm they behaved irresponsible with in the first place. Attempting to talk with her, especially to offer to educate her, would be counter productive and just **** her off. I am use to dealing with unreasonable people and can usually tell when I have hit a dead end with someone. Thanks, and I will keep everyone informed.

 

[j706]

I won't move 1 inch. I could move next door or across town or to another county. The fact will still remain that I live in America and am afforded the same rights here as anywhere else in Indiana. This judge KNOWS the law is on my side. She is not a moron and did not miss that part of law school. She has however lost her way. She has obviously gotten herself in the habit of ignoring the law when her opinion is contrary to that particular law or right. It seems that I am just some idiot that works with my hands and not with my mind. That makes me stupid and beneath her. My rights mean nothing to her superior intellect. After all, she has been in the trenches of the judicial system, not me. She has seen the horrors that come from people exercising rights. She has really just blurred the line that separates the honest citizen that is exercising his/her rights and those criminals a floor below that had no right to possess the firearm they behaved irresponsible with in the first place. Attempting to talk with her, especially to offer to educate her, would be counter productive and just **** her off. I am use to dealing with unreasonable people and can usually tell when I have hit a dead end with someone. Thanks, and I will keep everyone informed.

I wonder if the NRA could/would help you out on this?

 

[jboritzki]

I wonder if the NRA could/would help you out on this?

It's probably too low ball for them.

 

[darrent]

It's still an ex parte communication, so she probably won't take the meeting. Moberly has been well educated on guns. Like a typical Republican, she doesn't like them.

Might as well include typical Democrat also...

 

[fpdcop]

You need to stay on top of this and make sure this gets out in the news so this insanity the judge has started can stop!

 

[jboritzki]

How do we know her admitted lack of firearm knowledge leads her to believe that firearms in the home the child lives in is reckless also? he is just visiting grandparents, therefore she has no say in what happens in their home.
Paint broad strokes much? Sure wish it would have went the way you claim it does when I was divorced 12 years ago. It was a fair split, 50/50. I sure would have loved to have put the screws to him though, like you say happens to all men.

Thanks for the comments and wishes for good luck from you and everyone else. I would like to point out that as far as the judge knows, there is no gun safe at my father's house. My father could be a nut case as far as the judge knows. So could every other member of my and the ex's family, who all own firearms. In fact, it is my gun safe at my father's house that is next door to where me and my son live. Somehow it is more secure there than in my home. Of course, my father does not always lock his house when he is not home and since it is right next door, my son could go there and break into the safe and no one would hear him doing it. He doesn't need a ride to grandpa's house because it's 40 feet away. My son would not do that, but the judge seems to think there is that possibility. This order does not stop me from locking my gun in my car, which is easy to break into and I cannot hear if it is being broken into from my house. I can keep my gun in my shed out back, but it would get stolen by the same punks that like to occasionally steal my tools. Then someone else's kid would have a gun.

Because this order is devoid of logic, I would have to say this particular judge just does not like me. Her ruling has nothing to do with the safety of my child. As far as I am concerned, this judge has no say in what happens in my home unless it is clearly dangerous or detrimental to the child and evidence has been presented that would support such a ruling. How a person can claim to be sane, yet find that a gun locked in a safe is more dangerous than the butcher knives in the kitchen drawer, or the gas can next to the lawnmower, is beyond me. I've often said that common sense has no place in a courtroom.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

What did your lawyer advise as your best course of action to either have this overturned or modified?

 

[AFA1CY]

Moberly? See my post about fingerprinting. She completely ignored the law in that case. As far as I'm concerned, Republicans are anti-gun scum.

What's she doing in Family Court? I thought she was in Civil Court? She loves to meddle and substitute her judgment for the law, so she'll be happy there.

Oh, Judge, if you're reading, this is an exercise of the First Amendment, that basic right we all have to criticize public officials, so give pause before indulging those retaliatory impulses.

I take personal offence at that remark!

 

[smoking357]

I take personal offence at that remark!

Good. Either dump your party, or fix it. Ballard, Brizzi, Moberly, Goldsmith, Lugar, Coats, and hundreds of others, are hostile to gun owners.

 

[ISP 5353]

Good attorney and a change of venue are needed.

 

[Lex Concord]

Probably because most of the ACLU affiliates seem to stand in opposition to our rights. As a member, however, perhaps you can influence them to follow the example set by another that seems to much better protect ALL of our rights.

Second Amendment | ACLU of Nevada

I looked on the ACLU-in.org site and found no comment on the RKBA whatsoever. Perhaps people would be nicer to them if they came out in clear, unmitigated support of our rights as well.



Blessings,
Bill

The ACLU believes that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right.

So, we've been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU's stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn't catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.​

As always, we welcome your comments.

Now, does that mean it's not worth reaching out? Of course not; one is often surprised from what ranks his allies (and enemies) come.

I pray for sanity to re-enter your life soon, jboritzki.