Guns confiscated in Boston for restraining order

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

ksnecktieman

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
1,152
Location
Junction City, Kansas
State Sees Instant Results in Electronic Gun Checks
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

Published: December 25, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/25/national/25guns.html?th


WOBURN, Mass., Dec. 24 - When Massachusetts this month became the first state to install an electronic instant-check system complete with a fingerprint scanner for gun licenses and gun purchases, the impact was quickly apparent.

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.

The computer is part of the record-check system and allows the police and gun stores to learn right away if a person can legally own or buy a firearm. The system provides instant updates on arrest warrants, restraining orders and convictions, and it links fingerprint scanners and computers at gun stores and police departments with a central database.
 
Like most people here (I'm sure) that doesn't seem like a particularly "fair" way to do things. The guy already legally owned 13 guns. He went to buy another one and they used that as an excuse to seize his legal guns? He may not have even known that the restraining order had been executed so it is hard to say he "broke the law." If he wanted to shoot the ex-wife, why couldn't he have just used one of his existing 13 guns? It's like continuing to run waiting periods on people with many guns.

If the guy had been in court and convicted of a felony, that would be one thing. (Although, interestingly enough, the police wouldn't have gone to his house to "seize" his guns if that had happened.) This is one of those "guilty without a trial" situations. Hopefully he will get them back down the road but how much is it going to cost him in lawyer fees? And will the guns be all scratched up from being thrown in the back of a squad car?

Gregg
 
First of all, the feds have put a little blurb about gun possession being prohibited in the NCIC notice that a person was subject to an OOP for years. So I don't think the new Masachusetts system accomplished anything. The information had been available to the police department since the OOP was issued. In fact, if the court was doing it's job properly, the policie department was probably provided a copy of the OOP when it was issued.

Secondly, I don't know how it is out there on the East coast, but here, an OOP isn't valid until it's been served. No one is placed under an OOP secretly. It can't be enforced until the respondent is served with it and is aware the OOP is in effect.

Jeff
 
Wait, it doesn't say that he tried to buy a new gun. It says he was under an OOP and his guns were confiscated because of that.

That's one reason I'll never tell them what I've got.
 
Tulsamal? I do not think he went to buy another. As I read that article, when the restraining order was posted the police went to his house to pick up all firearms. A computer generated red flag about gun ownership?

A restraining order is not a hard thing to get. just go to your local pd, and tell them your neighbor has been walking his dog in your yard, and they will assist you in getting a restraining order against him entering your property.

Big Brother is watching
 
Sounds like they might have went a bit overboard there...

but then, their State law might be a bit different, too.

In WA State, there is a definite difference between a restraining order and an order of protection. The restraining order, in itself, does not preclude someone from owning or handling firearms, EXCEPT when a judge signing the order of restraint specifically calls for the surrender of firearms.

With an order of protection, however, firearms usually are surrendered.
 
remember..dont p.o anyone.if they really want to get under your skin and know you have and enjoy guns as a hobby or hunting,they can use it against you.

I thought gun registration didnt lead to confiscation :rolleyes: .how else would they have known he had those guns if they werent registered?
 
Here in the "great" state of NJ every time we make a domestic violence arrest or someone has a TRO (temp. restraining order) issued we are ordered to confiscate all firearms and any other "weapons" in the house. Really makes me sick, especially when it's a BS order. They are supposed to get the guns back when the TRO is lifted, but the prosecutor can determine that he just doesn't want to give them back and does in a lot of cases. It could take years and lots of lawyers fees to ever see your guns again and it's not likely they'll be in the same condition that you once had them in. :(
 
First thing any wife who thinks she can do better sucking alimony and child support from the hard working hubby while playing with her newest infatuation is to get a restraining order, like clockwork these days. Thank G-d I'll never have to worry about that BS again, got a keeper THIS time. :neener: :neener:
 
A restraining order is not a hard thing to get. just go to your local pd, and tell them your neighbor has been walking his dog in your yard, and they will assist you in getting a restraining order against him entering your property.
Click to expand...

That doesnt affect guns, only a DV restraining order does...

WildcorrectmeifimwronngAlaska
 
And people wonder why I'm worried about marriage.

If somebody confiscated my property, I'd want receipts noting condition. I keep notes on condition anyways. And then I'd sue them if they didn't return them in the same condition.

And I would happily do it in a way that would make it clear that my goal is that if they don't return them, and pay me for any damage, that I will cost them far more than what it's worth. I'll take them to the supreme court if necessary.
 
As a rezident in the PC re-education camp known as Massachusetts;YES restraining orders are VERY easy to get.NO they don't require an actual conviction to get.And until Ch150 to the Acts of 2004 were passed,under CH 180,Chiefs could "interpret" the LTC issuance law.Not just for issuance,but RENEWALS.With the lack of a clear "prospective" start date for the new disqualifiers,many (such as myself) found themselves retroactively declared "unsuitable" simply by the Chief of Police "interpreting" the new guidelines .These guidelines were not based onb whether or notthe past misdemeanor was one of violence(i.e A&B,domestic etc) but what the maximum POSSIBLE sentence(greater than 2 years?) COULD have been for the offense.
With regard to restraining orders,many men here had them filed against them,and without even had their court date were ordered to attend "batterer's groiups"(also used against you later.I HATE this @#$^ing place :cuss:
 
Do all firearms have to be registered in NJ?
Click to expand...

Technically no. Rifles are never registered. Pistols are automatically registered when they are bought with a permit....which is the only way you can buy them in the state of NJ *legally*. You can, however, possess an unregistered gun if it has been inherited or you bought it out of state.....some people have dual residency just for this purpose.
 
If you place more value on owning firearms and self-defense over where you live then just move.

Move well before you are placed into the above-described situation.

Find you a state where you can exercise your right to own and carry and **** of whatever liberal hellhole you are in now.

Places like CA/NJ/MA/NYC et al… are lost causes, let the liberals have the blues **** and run for the red states. Imagine when all the conservatives occupy the red states and the blue states all resemble DC.
 
In MA , if one is served with a restraining order , one must take their firearms to their police station and surrender them for the duration of the restraining order / until the situation is rectified . A person turning in their guns is given a receipt and so on . The basis for this IIRC is that when one receives a restraining order , one's LTC or FID becomes void and without that , gun possession is illegal . If a person is a gun owner and does not surrender their firearms willingly then the police may get a warrant to search for and confiscate them - and if they do find any , the person has now blown any chance they will ever be allowed to own a firearm in MA ever again . MA will not permit a person the transfer the guns to a private individual or FFL - they must be turned into the police . If the restraining order is not resolved in a year , the person had best have them transferred from the custody of the PD to a licensed individual or FFL as the police have the right to dispose of any guns and ammo after 1 year . This doesn't apply to LEO's who may still possess their duty gun because we all know that an abusive cop sure would never shoot his/her spouse or formerly significant other .


My feelings on the law are such that I do not have a problem with someone who has a restraining legitimately issued against them temporarily losing possession of their guns . A friend of mine had a severely alcoholic SO who in one of her fits had him arrested and a restraining order placed upon him . He lost his guns for approximately 2 weeks but since then has had no problem getting his Class A LTC renewed so it's hardly as draconian as it seems . The fingerprint scan means nothing to me other than I can just roll my thumb and get an instant OK for buying guns rather than pulling the card from my pocket and having them make a phone call . I'm not planning on having any restraining orders placed on myself so this issue is moot .
 
Find you a state where you can exercise your right to own and carry and **** of whatever liberal hellhole you are in now.
Click to expand...

Believe me I considered it, but I haven't found any police depts in red states that have top out pay around $80-90 grand a year like my dept does. I figure in 25-30 years when I retire in my low 50's then I can move out to a red state with my fat pension and live like a king. :D
 
I've been trying to move since 2002.One steback after another.You would not believe it.Hell, I have trouble sometimes.I must be living a Kafka novel.Ese es mi vida Kafka! :scrutiny:
 
Great idea, but how will you keep her lawyer's grubby little fingers out of your bank box, not to mention the authorities? I'm with you, this looks promising for my situation.
 
It seems to me that restraining orders are too easily obtained, often based upon nothing. Having one's second amendment rights abridged based upon nothing is intolerable. Methinks a lawsuit may be in order, based upon the inequity.
 
In MA , if one is served with a restraining order , one must take their firearms to their police station and surrender them for the duration of the restraining order / until the situation is rectified .
Click to expand...

I believe you're slightly off.

A person may no longer possess their firearms.

I am 99% certain that in such a situation another person with a LTC can take possession of firearms.

I do know that once the cops get the firearms, you can have a friend or your agent with an LTC take possession of the firearms. The law is actually written such that the cops can be required to deliver them to your designee.
 
Standing Wolf: I just read the contract to a bank box that my wife and I rent jointly. The bank makes it abundantly clear that they DO NOT have access to the contents of the box, but at the same time maintain that they are not responsible for losses resulting from legal action taken concerning the contents of the box ( I read that to mean divorce). It looks like banks can have their cake and eat it too. I wonder if it's a waste of time for me to pursue this, since the banks leave the contents open for any dirty lawyer's grubby little fingers. I'm concerned about protecting lawyers just as much as the next guy, but this isn't in my best interests.
 
A person may no longer possess their firearms.

I am 99% certain that in such a situation another person with a LTC can take possession of firearms.

I do know that once the cops get the firearms, you can have a friend or your agent with an LTC take possession of the firearms. The law is actually written such that the cops can be required to deliver them to your designee.
Click to expand...

This gives me an idea. Considering how heavily used and abused restraining orders are in divorce cases these days, and how attached gun owners are to their guns, that in areas (like Boston apparently) where a person surrendering their guns to the police might question whether or not he'll get them back or get them back in 100% condition, there might be a market for a gun safe rental that places your firearms in the custody of a temporary guardian for the duration of the restraining order. The big kicker on whether it could work or not I think would be if a gun club or shooting range could implement it on a profit making basis with some reasonable belief that it could be done with a reasonable amount of liability.

If there were two or three such repositories in each state, the NRA could even offer a year or so of gun storage as an enhanced version of their gun burglary insurance plan. I know if my marriage were looking bad I'd gladly pay an extra buck or two a month for the knowledge that I had a safe and legal holding spot for my firearms in the event of a restraining order.
 
It seems to me that restraining orders are too easily obtained, often based upon nothing. Having one's second amendment rights abridged based upon nothing is intolerable. Methinks a lawsuit may be in order, based upon the inequity.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the spouse has some kind of violent history, fine. But if he has no criminal history at all, how can you just "declare some of his rights suspended?"

If a woman could file a restraining order against a husband with no criminal record and get his freedom of speech suspended, we would hear an outcry. If the courts said he wasn't allowed to attend church, people would be marching in the streets. Maybe the 4th or 5th amendments don't apply to him either. They just get away with this ???? because "guns don't have a useful purpose and are dangerous in general." That's their attitude. The 2nd Amendment is just an "historical relic."

I would say taking away somebody's right to own or possess firearms for anything less than conviction of a felony is probably flat out wrong.

Gregg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top