HB1840

"The stated purpose is that it “addresses the possession of firearms with regard to persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders.” In short, they want anyone who gets a restraining or protection order, or who is already subject to one, to surrender all firearms or have them confiscated. That sounds reasonable, right? The idea conjures up an image of the quintessential domestic violence situation, where a defenseless abused wife is at the mercy of her gun-owning abuser."

http://www.snocorlc.org/index.php/2013/ ... e-hb-1840/

I don't know how I feel about this new law.
I agree that reducing DV firearm assaults/homicides would be a good thing.

There also seems like there is the potential for abuse.
So my question is, how hard is it to get a restraining order? What if both parties have restraining orders on each other? Don't people have a right to defend themselves?

What happened to "don't give them an inch"?

The law doesn't mandate the firearms be turned over in all situations.
It also establishes strict standards that must be met before a judge orders it.

Protection orders are initially issued for a short period of time, usually 7 days or something like that. Then both parties return to court and argue whether it should be lifted or extended, so both parties DO get due process in order to determine whether a protection order is filed against them, just not the initial order.

I find it plausible that someone that has the initial short term order filed against them would not have to give up their guns because they wouldn't know they have an order against them. If the order is extended for a year, they would have had the opportunity to argue in court and present evidence against the issuance of a restraining order.

I don't think this bill amounts to much that any of us should really be afraid of or be worried about it's passage. There are bigger fish to fry so to speak.

I thought subjects of restraining orders already had to surrender their firearms? I heard from a friend that his buddy had to get rid of all his firearms within like 48hrs due to a restraining order, so I found it a bit surprising when this law passed as I thought it was already the case.

I agree it seems like a fairly specific set of circumstances. But it removes someone's firearm rights - for a period - when they have not committed a crime, and when they have not been involuntary committed. Isn't there a slippery slope here?

The lautengerg amendment...
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/military_justice/lautenberg-amendment.shtml

Very slippery. I personally am shocked that there isn't more opposition to this law. I also believe that the gun owners standing around saying things like "I've never had a protection order or restaining order against me..." are fooling themselves. There is very little legal obstacle for people to obtain these orders. There is zero evidence required. I say this law passing is a giant F U to not only the Second Amendment but also and even more so to the Forth Amendment!

Note: the Lautenberg Amendment only applies to convictions. Not orders.

Per the ATF 4473:

Section 11h instructions scroll through the full form to find them http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2401,d.cGU

11h: firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that (A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; AND (C)(i) includes a finding that such a person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use , attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

The order must be specific. Meaning that the initial restraining order does not remove a persons firearm rights because they don't get notice to appear. I am fairly sure that this bill closes that little portion of time between an initial ruling and a follow up.

Remember that the initial order is issued without participation of the respondent. Under existing laws they could go purchase a firearm. The initial time frame of an order is short. Chances are that there isn't even time for the person to relinquish their firearms after issuance because they wouldn't know there is an order against them. Police don't have copies of orders, they must be notified by a party to the case.

Upon a second hearing you can have a TRO lifted or reduced to the point where it doesn't limit firearms possession.

A HUGE point is that the standard wording in a restraining order found included as a section to a divorce decree does NOT meet the criteria to prohibit firearms ownership. My divorce decree contains standard restraining order verbiage and my attorney reviewed the language and it does NOT meet the criteria necessary to prohibit firearms ownership. The standard language basically says "leave each other alone. Don't be a dick"

I don't get the relevance of the 4473 reference to the state law changes? People can buy privately or may already own guns....

LMAO

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I consider it another "slip" on the slope.

It puts in place another step to remove an innocent person's means of self-defense.

You can argue all you like about how it's only a small, a very small sub-group of innocent people.

Look at the types of no-knock or "brief knock" (read as a yell "POLICE"doorcrashestothefloorandblackhoodedgovernmentservantsstorminenmasse) for non-violent SUSPICION of crimes.

Brethren, we've been sliding down that slippery slope for quite some time. The fact that this bill and others like it and no-knock warrants exist in the abundance that they do should be enough to demonstrate that.

But we read about the raid in the paper or see it on the news and think "That guy must have really broken a lot of serious laws. That would never happen to me."

Amen! I tired of my rights getting stomped on

When the bill was originally presented there was no provision for the judge to show a justifiable reason to remove gun rights from the person being accused. That version of the bill was much more dangerous, basically "He might hurt me," would have been enough reason for someone to lose their firearm rights.

This bill was held hostage as part of the SBR bill process, and that is why we got the hearing on 5956 in the house, and Jinkins actions on not allowing a vote on 5956 (after a back room agreement) when 1840 was passed through as amended (per the same back room agreement) is why 5956 got pulled to the floor for a vote.

I feel like I need to go wash my hands.

Get involved.

If a person has a previous history of DV, has made verifiable threats, and it gets to that point where somebody needs to file for a protection order, they need some support from the law. Granted, a piece of paper will not stop a determined person, but I can tell you from my time as a deputy, one of the most common calls we responded to was DV.

How is requiring the judge to show a credible threat exists for granting a temporary suspension of guns rights a bad thing?

From the bill as passed.

(A) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual
18 notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
19 (B) Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
20 an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or
21 person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate
22 partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;
23 and
24 (C)(I) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible
25 threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; and
26 (II) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or
27 threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child
28 that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;