U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Jeremy Renner says the novel coronavirus has landed him in an unexpected financial tight spot—and as a result, he has asked a Los Angeles judge to lower his child support payments,” The Daily Beast reports. “According to court documents obtained by TMZ and Us Weekly, the Marvel actor has asked to lower payments to his ex-wife, Sonni Pacheco, for their daughter, Ava, from $30,000 per month to something that more closely matches her ‘reasonable needs'—which he estimates amount to $11,201 per month.”

To paraphrase Bill Clinton perjuring himself in order to deny a woman claiming job-related sexual harassment her day in court, that depends upon what the meaning of the term “reasonable needs” is. Most of us manage to reasonably raise whole families and pay all living expenses and taxes on considerably less than Renner’s low-end “estimate.” Then again, we’re talking about a guy whose reported net worth is $50 million – not bad for uttering scripted and directed lines with stuntmen and CGI taking over when things get really tough.

Then again, it’s hard not to wonder if the ex-wife, whose prior claim to fame includes bit parts in B-grade movies, including portraying a character called “Splendid Wet T-Shirt Girl,” might not be calculatedly milking things for all they are worth. But that’s not a very “progressive” attitude, is it?

No, the new demand is that we #BelieveWomen. Unless you’re Hillary Clinton, and you try to discredit and disparage accusers like Paula Jones or Juanita Broaddrick using blackmail tactics and terms like “bimbo eruptions.” Or unless you’re a Joe Biden supporter, and now instead of showing the same rabid furor demanding unquestioning support for Christine Blasey Ford, you want everyone to look the other way, or to try to discredit and destroy the woman now fingering Joe Biden.

It’s instructive how many so-called Women’s March supporters, without knowing anything about the accuser other than what they’ve read from the leftwing sources they frequent, are adamantly opposed to investigating her claims and furious that it’s even being brought up. That, of course, is because they’re hypocrites.

But let’s return to Renner’s former soulmate and assume she’s really the injured party – since he’s not someone who can give Democrats more political power, it’s what we’re supposed to do, right? Her other accusations certainly should raise some eyebrows among the “commonsense gun safety” crowd.

In addition to allegations that he bit his six-year-old daughter, accusations of life-threatening conduct – with a gun – have been made:

“[N]ew court documents revealed that the model and actress is accusing Renner of threatening to kill her and himself. As detailed in the docs, Pacheco maintains that after a night of hard partying last November, including drinking and cocaine use, Renner returned home where he allegedly threatened her with a gun and put the gun in his mouth. He reportedly said at the time that he ‘could not deal with her anymore, and he just wanted to be gone.’ In another instance, Pacheco says, a nanny overheard Renner say he planned to kill her and himself because ‘it was better that Ava had no parents than to have [Pacheco] as a mother.’”

According to TMZ:

“The nanny filed a declaration in Sonni's petition, saying Jeremy told her he fired a gun into the ceiling of their house ‘because of you [the nanny]. You're the reason I pulled the trigger. Do you think if my blood and brains are all over my bedroom floor, do you think you would be living this lifestyle in this mansion.’”

What’s left unsaid in media reports is if a restraining order has been issued demanding Renner surrender any guns he owns.

Fox News reported Pacheco “is asking the court to provide safe conditions for her and their nanny as they prepare to give depositions about the case [and] is asking the judge to set aside a room at a courthouse where she and her nanny’s deposition can take place under more secure circumstances. She notes that people can’t bring firearms or weapons into a courthouse.”

An article on “Divorce, Restraining Orders & California Gun Laws” from GunLaw.com notes:

“[R]estraining orders based on a claim of actual or threatened violence or harassment prohibit the subject individual from buying, possessing or receiving firearms. There are criminal penalties for disobeying such court orders which range up to a felony conviction with three years in state prison plus a $1,000 fine; even a misdemeanor conviction for violation of such an order can result in a ten-year prohibition against firearms ownership in California. Finally, under Federal law, if a qualified restraining order was obtained by an intimate partner, after the order is served, and while it remains in effect, the subject individual is prohibited from possessing, purchasing, or receiving firearms and ammunition. Violation of such an order is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in Federal prison and/or a $250,000 fine.”

Not that we can assume anything. Page Six reported after making her claims, Pacheco “never sought a restraining order or never withheld Mr. Renner’s 50% custody time.”

It’s not known at this writing (at least I couldn’t find anything) if such an order has been issued against Renner, but what is known is that such allegations would be more than enough for the State of California to enforce its Red Flag Law and against someone accused of doing a lot less — and not just by the spouse or partner.





So why make Renner an example? Isn’t the poor guy going through enough, particularly if it turns out the ex is not a delicate victim and brave feminist survivor of toxic masculinity, but a calculating gold-digger out to do him wrong?

Because he, with other privileged celebrities, came out in full support of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence/Bloomberg Mayors Against Illegal Guns agenda to “Demand a Plan.” That means he is enabling their efforts to disarm you, including their support for due process-denying, guilty until proven innocent Red Flag Laws. That’s what his overly racist Moms Demand Action and Women’s March allies want, so how could he object?

Because he's proud to “rock” with Snoop Dogg, another gun-grabber with a “gun criminal” past who settled out of court for luring underage girls with drugs and who partnered with a producer convicted of falsely imprisoning and assaulting women.

But mostly because it’s a lot more problematic for the average American to defend himself and his rights in court than it is for some virtue-signaling, anti-gun (except for the ones he owns) “lucky star” with a net worth of $50 million.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.