And they say that gun owners are "intractable"!

We see Gun Control Advocates changing directions like an IPSC competitor changes magazines ... if this load of BS isn't working, let's try another load.

Gun control goes on the ballot | TheHill:

This year’s measure to limit access to firearms for people under protective orders, Initiative 1491, is modeled on legislation that has passed in states like California, Connecticut and Indiana. If it is successful, it too will be exported to other states.

Protective Orders have their own special place in hell for a male partner who has been targetted by his female partner.

When a partnership disintegrates, accusations run wild and courts have neither the resources nor the inclination to investigate the claims and counterclaims.  If a woman states that she fears for her physical safety, courts will first look for records of police visitations to the home, searching for evidence of abuse.  However, if those events are not evident, the court will still almost invariably accept the woman's statement as sufficient to issue a Protective Order.

Usually, the conditions of that order include that the male partner must vacate the family home, maintain a physical distance from the spouse (and often the children, depending on what arrangements Family Services can establish), and continue to provide maintenance.

This is proper; a relationship which has been established with the expectation that the man will provide sustenance and the woman will care for home and children is a common arrangement, and should not be broken merely because the partners are engaged in a contretemps ... one hopes that they are jointly seeking third-party counselling.

However, in any disagreement between the 'stories' told by both parties in those counselling sessions, the story told by the supposed 'abused' female partner will always be believed.

Unfortunately, minor squables become court actions, and a female partner who feels vindictive can rely on the courts to impose crippling conditions on the ousted male partner.

When the condition of separation changes to include unilateral imposition on the partner's Second Amendment Rights (perhaps to the point where his personal firearms must be surrendered, or his legal ability to purchase a firearm is infringed), then a court hearing should be a part of the process.   It should not be sufficient that in a "She Said/He Said" disputation, the female partner's testimony should automatically be held to be true.

Constitutional Rights.

Although the Constition should be considered (and it rarely becomes in issue in lower courts), the possibility that one partner is vindictively painting her former partner in the worst possible light should be examined carefully.   Courts generally take the Second Amendment seriously .. except for when they do not.

When a domestic ruling against a partner (former partner) includes the suggestion that his constititional rights be infringed, that is NOT an issue which should be handled in a lower court.

Stephanie Ervin, who is running the pro-1491 campaign, said she expected a similar measure to appear on the ballot in Oregon. “It feels like we’re at a real tipping point, and folks are really engaging in the dialogue around gun responsibility issues,” Ervin said.

Well, yes, it's a true Tipping Point, and one which should be approached carefully, with respect to the rights of both parties in even (relatively minor) domestic disputes.

It's not easy for Domestic Partners to testify against each other.  Except for when it is. 

And it is very easy, when grudges have been allowed to fester in a relationship, and one (or both) partners have decided that "All Is Fair In Love And War!" for a partner to decide to "stick it to" the other partner.  This is no longer a matter of a fair distribution of wealth, and privacy, and support;  it may become a matter of much greater significanse.

Before a lower-court judge allows a judgement against a domestic partner which violates his or her Constitutional rights, it should be moved to a higher court.

The arbirary ruling which deprives a domestic partner of his or her rights should not be decided in family court.

Support by Gun Control Backers:

 Gun rights advocates, too, believe they are seeing the opening moves in a prolonged campaign by gun control backers. They say the proposals for expanded background checks are unenforceable and represent a slippery slope toward something more sinister, like gun registration. “This is the camel getting its nose under the tent. Before you know it, you’ve got a whole camel in your tent,” said Maine state Sen. Eric Brakey (R), one of the leading opponents of the ballot measure in his state.

The Gun Control folks never saw a Gun Control Law they didn't like.

 Expect a strong surge of support for this kind of ruling by Domestic Courts; one which takes away a constitutional right for domestic suits, without strong support by unbiased testimony.

This is not an issue which rightfully should be decided there.  It should be an issue worthy of advancing to a higher court, on at least a state level.

Yes, that would would overload the courts with a case-load of issues which the judges would consider 'minor'.

But the infringement of a Consititional right must never be considered to be a 'minor issue'.

Perhaps, by requiring a Higher Court to become involved in this kind of suit, it would have the effect (eventually) of stilling vindictive terms of separation by Lower courts.