Where bad choices make good stories
I gather possession of a firearm was a violation of the terms of the protective order. If so, that is messed up. Stay away from the wife, okay. But to act to prohibit an individual right is itself a crime, or should be.A ruling which prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm (because they might use it for nefarious purpose) is tantamount to banning certain thoughts (because a person might act upon them). Oh, instead of leaving it to the people to provide for their own defense, we should allow the government to act in our place? Well, this was an agent of the government. And that no person, regardless of capacity, is perfect, it is more evidence that the burden of defense falls upon the individual. A group of individuals ('agency') is no more perfect than an individual. The woman had filed the protective order exactly because the government forbade her providing her own defense. If the detective here had been less emotion-drive, i.e., more smart, he could had easily evaded being found out. But what exactly was his crime? Again, mere possession of a firearm should not be prohibited in any form.
I moderate my comments due to spam and trolls. No need to post the same comment multiple times if yours doesn't show right away..