============
some good and interesting ideas there...

Whose budget does this come out from?

If our lawmakers were serious about DV, then the states annual budget.  But we all know they're not serious about DV as they voted to disarm the victims with sensitive places law.  And donations/resources from MDA/ET/Brady, etc...

If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses.  I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.

...

The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from  them without due process.  But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary.  But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel?  This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.
[/quote

As progressives, those groups believe the gun is at fault.  The person is innocent because it wasn't their fault.  Systematic inequality, patriarch, racism, etc caused them to do it.  You never see progressives blame the criminal unless they're white male with money.  They also don't want people incarcerated or committed.  This is why they don't talk about mental health.

As far as leaving the home, it's almost always the man even if the woman doesn't own the home.  There's a government safehouse for domestic violence victims, but they have to be willing to testify against the abuser and live under the rules of the safehouse.  So a lot of victims decline to stay there.

I think it's pretty obvious (except for the bleeding heart liberals with a death hold on the state) that an overhaul on the justice system is needed.

...
soft judges make hard criminals

The end game is so they can have reasons to take the 2A away.  This is their plan.

==========
I was looking at the news reports about this particular murder.
I did not see any people complaining about too many guns and how anybody can go to walmart and buy a 357 magnum.
Did I miss something?

I just hope the gun used wasn't registered to someone else (maybe a friend)....hmmm

"I'm surprised too that they're not blaming the gun. Maybe it's because HPD missed 1 when confiscating all guns he was supposedly to have."

Per HPD he ONLY had Five Firearms registered to him.  Thus SSD (SWAT) collected and Confirmed they got what was registered to him.

I just hope the gun used wasn't registered to someone else (maybe a friend)....hmmm

It would be illegal to lend a handgun to someone else. You can only lend a rifle or shotgun to someone for X days.

If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses.  I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.

Maybe what should be done is a new law:

Someone who makes an accusation gets an almost instant CCW, HPD provided firearm training, and they can bypass the PTA 2 week wait.  Also added in is the other party is ordered to stay away and if they do come in contact, if they get shot by the filer, then it's on them.  Also immunity from civil liability.  If they need something from the petitioner, then send a friend or family member to pick it up or call HPD to assist.  This way there's no confusion or excuse like they needed to get something from the home they both live in.  At the same time, provide a hotel for the respondent or the petitioner. 1 should stay in a hotel.

The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from  them without due process.  But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary.  But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel?  This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.

I don't think you understand our justice system very well.

Even if the wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband, due process requires an arraignment, specified charges based on sufficient probable cause and evidence, and more than likely he'll be released with or without bail to await trial for who knows how long?

In the meantime, a TRO is the only immediate protection (and I say that knowing it's not really protection) that's available from the system.

So, even if they arrested him and tried to hold him, the system crawls at a snail's pace.  The system also must be concerned with the rights of the accused -- including the right to be free on bail if the court decides he needs to maintain his employment, etc.

Often the court (judge) will issue the TRO as an immediate remedy until the trial (it's called Temporary Restraining Order for a reason).  If, after the case is tried, the court decides he's still a threat, they can issue a Permanent Restraining Order.  From my experience and readings, restraining orders are civil decrees from the court even though they are often issued as a result of criminal behavior.  It's only when an RO is violated that it becomes a criminal issue (criminal contempt of court -- ask me how i know ).

Restraining orders are nothing more than trip wires that signal to the police they can now arrest him if/when he violates it.  It's like a condition of release -- stay away from her, or we will lock you up.

Basically they are giving him the opportunity to continue his attack/harassment with the hope that the threat of being jailed for violating the TRO is enough to stop him.

==========
I was looking at the news reports about this particular murder.
I did not see any people complaining about too many guns and how anybody can go to walmart and buy a 357 magnum.
Did I miss something?