Earlier this month, Massachusetts implemented an instant fingerprint check computer system so that the state would be able to track all of their law abiding gun owners. It's already yielding gun confiscations.

On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them.

And this is supposed to be a good thing.

Now, I'm not one to stick up for wife beaters, but Salon.com definitely gives us food for thought.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 1990 that a simple claim of fear was not a sufficient basis for a restraining order -- and set a threshold of "reasonable" fear of "imminent serious physical harm" -- courts routinely ignore this standard.

Once a temporary order is granted, a hearing must be held within 10 days to determine whether it should be vacated or extended for a year. That's when the defendant gets a chance to defend himself -- in theory. The hearing, however, is usually limited to a he said/she said exchange in which, many lawyers say, the defendant is given little credit. . . The normal rules of evidence do not apply; hearsay is commonly allowed, while exculpatory evidence can be kept out.

A defendant who insists on a full evidentiary hearing can be forced to wait for months. In one case, the transcript shows, the judge denied an attorney's request to call witnesses who would dispute the complainant's story, saying, "I don't need a full-scale hearing ... I don't care about that." The judge also declared that the issue was not even "who's telling the truth," only whether he felt the woman was genuinely fearful.

I cannot help but cringe at the thought that all that stands between me and gun confiscation is the parade of psychotic women that I've dated throughout the years.