Column misses real issue

Re: “Ruling puts domestic abuse survivors at risk,” Another View, Thursday:

The author overlooks what I believe is the crux of the issue. How should we deal with a serious, although unproven and un-adjudicated allegation versus an individual’s right as stated in the U.S Constitution? My own understanding is the cessation of possession of firearms, as required by a protective order, often does not occur for the very reason stated above. Further, I am told restraining orders have become an often routine part of divorce filings, regardless of whether warranted. Those bent on doing further harm are likely unconcerned with a mere restraining order — gun or no gun.

This issue is similar to the outrage several years ago when anti-second Amendment politicians and media heatedly pointed out that an individual on an often-specious no-fly list could still own or buy a firearm.

The enactment of laws and regulations, whether they concern domestic abuse or border security, are meaningless unless effective implementation can be shown.

Dennis Treadwell, Pipe Creek