The Beersheba District Court returned a hearing to the Magistrate's Court regarding a man's request to return his weapons license, which was confiscated from him several years ago after his divorce.
After the man's divorce proceedings, his ex-wife went to court and applied for a protection order against him. Among other things, she claimed that about a month before the application was submitted, he behaved towards her in a threatening and harassing manner, even though she learned that he was declaring on social networks his intention to harm her. When the application was submitted, the court held a hearing, in which she reiterated that her main concern about his harm to her and their children was the fact that he was carrying a weapon.
At the end of the hearing, she was given a protection order against him, as a result of which the man was banned from carrying weapons. A week later, a hearing was held on the status of the parties, at the end of which the protection order was extended for another 30 days, thus ending the proceedings. The next day, the deportee petitioned the court to cancel the prohibition on carrying weapons, and after receiving the respondent's response, it was determined that there was no reason to grant the request as long as the protection order was in force.
Years passed, and about a month and a half ago, after the fighting began, the deportee returned to court and petitioned for the return of his weapons license. His application claimed, among other things, that after the divorce he remarried, started a new family and relocated.
He also said that he never threatened his ex-wife, and that she never presented any evidence to suggest that he posed any danger to her; Also, in light of the prevailing situation in the country, and since he serves as a combat soldier in the reserves, the weapons license is necessary for him to protect his family and the public in general.
The divorced woman opposed his request, claiming that the fear for her safety had not yet been removed. The court rejected his petition and ruled: "Once the spouse fears for her life, and regardless of the other issues she raised, such as length of stay and payment of alimony, the request is rejected for the time being."
GPO
The divorced man did not accept the decision. He filed a request for leave to appeal, adding that his job involves travel, that his place of residence is dangerous, and that denying him the ability to carry weapons puts his life in danger and also prevents him from joining the alert squad in his hometown. He also claimed that for more than four years there has been no connection between him and her and their children, and that the places where the two live are very far apart. Judge Fanny Gilat-Cohen ruled that the Magistrate's Court's decision was null and void, and that the proceeding would be returned to the court for a hearing on the application in the presence of both parties.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us