A Temporary Restraining Order - Texas Attorney General: Fill & Download for Free

According to 17 States Urge Supreme Court to Review Texas Bid to Challenge Election in Battleground StatesTexas has not sued those four states. Texas has asked the Supreme Court’s permission to sue. The 17 states have have submitted friend-or-the-court briefs supporting the Texas motion to the court and potential lawsuit.The states supporting the Texas suit, all of which have Republican attorneys general, are Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.Texas is hoping to obtain a declaration from the Supreme Court that the four states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. It is also asking the court to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.Meanwhile, the state is also seeking a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

Do a web search for your jurisdiction, and/or consult with an attorney.In Texas, as in other states, protective orders are intended to protect individuals from abusive partners or others who may try to cause harm. Texas protective orders laws allow for both temporary (20 days maximum) and general (up to two years) protective orders, also referred to as "restraining orders.".Texas Protective Orders Laws - FindLawI need a protective order | TexasLawHelp.org - Providing ...https://TexasLawHelp.org - Providing Free and Reliable Legal Information & Forms for Civil Legal Issues in Texas/toolkit/i-need-protective-orderThis order is called a “Temporary Ex Parte Protective Order”. Please note: if you do not receive a court document entitled “Temporary Ex Parte Protective Order” that is signed by the judge after you apply, you do NOT have a protective order yet. You must go to a hearing and ask the judge for a Protective Order.Get Ready for Court · Emergency Protective Orders

Gun control (or attempts to perform the same, through coercion and violence of the State) already has had a major backlash.Most Californians (where there are more gun control laws than anywhere else in the country) are unaware of the facts, namely:that California is second in gun ownership only to Texas — in other words, more Californians as a percentage of the population own more guns than those in almost any other state. (As one commenter has correctly pointed out, it is possible this assessment is off [my assumptions are based on numbers from a few years ago], and it is difficult to get precise estimates of ownership. We can agree, however, that ownership is far higher in California than CBS has previously estimated.)Californian gun owners are interested in the protection of their own families and communities and in putting food on the table with the tools available to them. Unlike extremist Democrats in the Bay Area, who voted recently for San Francisco's Prop C to allow the illegitimate and criminal government of San Francisco to tax even greater sums from companies that will now be forced to fund the lifestyle of meth addicts roaming the streets of SF, most gun owners and business owners in California have zero support for politicians who spend their time coddling stateside criminals (think Prop 47 and other “get out of jail free” laws in California that allow kidnappers, serial child abusers, hard drug sellers, and others to walk free) and transnational criminal enterprises (the extremely violent gangs and transnational drug trade that Democrats are protecting and coddling with their Cali Sanctuary State law). As a consequence, the backlash against extremist Democrats and their insane ideology will involve a profound and marked increase in businesses leaving San Francisco (and who may also leave the State entirely), while at the same time many of those businesses and gun-owning individuals who manage to remain in California, are actively contemplating preemptive legal action against the State of California — a State whose legislative body has already gone to war against both businesses and gun owners.that most California gun control laws passed during or after 2016 have been challenged in court. Those that have not been challenged (mostly, this means laws which won't become effective until 2019) are likely to be challenged at some point during 2019. The incoming “reign of Newsom” will only give owners more opportunities to sue the State, since Newsom has already promised us that he will sign more unconstitutional bills into law than Brown did.that many Californians have grown more than tired of being treated as criminals by their own government, and of having “crime creation” being used to target and prosecute gun owners who have never committed a crime. Thus, more Californians are resorting to the court system to strike back against the oppressive State of California, which has divorced itself from reality by regularly attacking people's ability to exercise the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights as well as due process rights. As examples, see Defending Constitutional Rights or the Legal Action page of Firearms Policy Coalition, or the lawsuits page shown at Firearms Policy Foundation's Work. I haven't even mentioned here lawsuits from other organizations like the CRPA, the GOA, the NRA, or the countless private individuals who have launched or are about to launch their own legal war against California. Do the members of the State Legislature honestly think they can imprison us all before some of us overturn their laws in court? If so, they are sorely mistaken.that the U.S. Supreme Court is now (with the Court dominated by Justices who are willing to uphold the U.S. Constitution instead of repeatedly assault and prohibit our ability to exercise it) the primary reason there is still peace in the United States of America. If the current composition of the Court were to support bans and confiscation, instead of the 2nd Amendment as a right for every American in the home as they have currently interpreted and upheld through their decisions, California would be the first to require sweeping bans and confiscation as they have already tried to do through some of their prior State laws which are as yet unenforced. Were it not for the availability of the U.S. Supreme Court as a final bulwark against the oppressive Hitlerian regime of the modern Democratic Socialists, there likely would have already been a hot war caused by Californian gun confiscation. Keep in mind that (well before 1776, but still relevant considerations today) home invasions, taxation without representation, generally brutal treatment by government, and attempts at civilian disarmament led ultimately to the establishment of the United States of America and the defeat of a King. As gun owners, we consider use of the courts an appropriate and desireable alternative to open war, since we know that Democrats in California, and indeed in Congress as well, have evolved since 2010 to become a party of criminals who will use violence to disarm us if they are allowed to. So we as gun owners use the courts as a weapon to counter the Democrats' efforts, and thus, we protect future generations of Americans from the violent future that the Democratic party of slavery (which is now acting as the protector of criminal enterprise), has attempted to create.It should be known that California gun owners are a peaceful and law abiding group, but that we will use all options available to us to protect our interests against violent and coercive state actors. In point of fact, gun owners in California and concealed carriers generally, are even more law abiding than the police population, as general (non-police) gun owners have a lower frequency of crimes of any kind than the frequency and general quantity of crimes committed by police. Our battle is not merely to defend our families and to put food on the table by hunting, it is to continue to exercise a right which was put there to keep us free from the King Gavins and King Georges of the world. We battle against the State of California's violence, coercion, and assaults on our people every day merely by being free and by committing to challenge any lunatic in court who would dare interfere with the rights we exercise. Each day we are alive and not imprisoned for exercising our rights in this State is another victory against organized State sponsored violence in America as well as being a victory for peace. In short, we keep California as safe and free as it can be by using the legal system to slow or in some cases stop violent and coercive actors like Newsom, who have no interest other than attacking innocent Californians. So the next time you hear someone claim that “Gun owners are the problem,” stop and remind them that they should say thank you to the next gun owner they meet — because we keep you safe and free.We are not stopping there. Rothery v. Blanas (which the U.S. Supreme Court expressed an interest in considering even before the Kavanaugh confirmation had begun), and similar cases, will ultimately result in you being able to carry a weapon as a right and to be exercised as shall-issue — not just in California, but in every U.S. State and territory. Do not be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court decides at some point over the next few years that open carry will be considered to be a right in California (where open carry is currently prohibited). We consider the right to extend beyond the walls of our home. It is just a matter of time until a successful court outcome is realized to accomplish this.References for further reading:a. The U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why do so many people have so much confusion about how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court?b. The U.S. Supreme Court’s request on Rothery v. Blanas, with references to Nichols v. Brown and Young v. Hawaii: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why is the Rothery v. Blanas case (where the petitioners have asked for U.S. Supreme Court review) particularly significant?c. On Unconstitutional Age-Based Prohibitions of Ownership Currently Existing as California State Laws: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why did California Dems just sign into law SB 1100 (2018), which would force a 20 year old man or woman to wait weeks (until she or he can secure a hunting license, unrelated to self defense) before buying a weapon, despite clearing background?d. How Many Gun Laws Have Been Passed and Signed into Law in California over the past few years? Colin Gallagher's answer to How many California state gun control bills were passed and signed into law from January 2000 through September 2017, and how many more have been passed by the end of September 2018?e. Regarding TROs, anti-harassment orders, and the Equal Protection Clause: Colin Gallagher's answer to Can the Lieutenant Governor's recent threats against gun owners in California (or California legislators' threats and actions against gun owners) be used to secure temporary restraining orders or anti-harassment orders against the same officials?f. How to contend with officials (such as those in California) who openly flaunt and violate the law and who ignore or clearly violate U.S. court decisions: Colin Gallagher's answer to What will happen if you will not follow the instruction given by the Supreme Court?Note: I am not a lawyer. This answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It is for educational purposes only. Thank you for reading and answering on Quora.