The Violence Against Women Act Still Doesn't Address This Dangerous Issue

[Bow To The Robots]

27. Fallacy. Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Please note I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

Back on topic, the 5th Amendment is unequivocal: No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. And again, reaffirmed in the 14th and codifying the states' obligations to adhere to this cornerstone of our legal system: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Now, let's address your straw man: The portion of the OP's argument to which I replied was the suggestion that criminal charges alone should be sufficient to invalidate an individual's constitutional rights: "people like Kira's ex could still be able to own firearms despite their domestic violence charges."

Charges are filed (theoretically) by prosecutors when they they think they have sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. Yet you argue "A judge determining, based on sworn testimony..."

Not remotely the same thing.

Hence, penalty imposed based merely on a charge =/= due process. And to anybody who thinks that should constitute due process, well... again, careful what you wish for.