background checks

[slickskin 11]

Why do restraining orders keep people from passing a nics background check, or at least something that they negatively consider?

I DON'T have a restraining order against me, so let me just clear that up right now lol. I just don't think it's fair that if someone does for any reason that it could prohibit them. Maybe there was no real harassment or threats or anything like that but someone took it out on a former boyfriend just to make sure they never have to see them again.

I also don't think it's fair that in NJ you have to get a background check for a handgun permit only to have to get a second background check when purchasing the weapon rather than it just happening once. But I guess that's what happens when democrats overrun the place.

[Lakota 342]

I wont argue the multiple background check thing is a crock of sh*t.   

But as far as a restraining order.... someone cant just "get one" put on someone because they dont like them.  There has to be a significant reason and some proof behind it.  And if there is enough cause for a restraining order to be granted... then yea that is  enough cause to keep someone from passing a background check and probably rightfully so.    

[slickskin 11]

Here's another question I have, again not applicable to me personally, just curious.

Let's say they do pass the background check but then after having bought the firearm they get a restraining order against them or are arrested. Does somebody come and make them surrender their firearms or is it hard to take away once they own them? 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

17 minutes ago, Lakota said:

But as far as a restraining order.... someone cant just "get one" put on someone because they dont like them.  There has to be a significant reason and some proof behind it.  And if there is enough cause for a restraining order to be granted... then yea that is  enough cause to keep someone from passing a background check and probably rightfully so.    

There may not be physical "proof" (bruises, tape recordings, etc.) - but yes, for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to be turned into something more lasting, there will be a hearing in front of a judge... where proof can be presented, testimony made, and, of course, the credibility of the evidence will be judged.

I have no issue in theory with restraining orders...in fact, I filed one at one point in my life. And I was so glad the option was available.

However, as a reasonable person, I also know that any legal process can - and will - be abused by some nefarious types if there are no checks and balances. That said, that's why I have some major problems with these orders that seize guns from people based merely on someone else's word... especially in a place like NJ which is increasingly openly hostile to gun owners - there's almost a "presumption of guilt" it seems in some of these laws. Therefore in general, I believe that any type of restraining order based solely on the word of an accuser should also include automatic and steep penalties for people who are found to have abused that system. If you file a false complaint just to punish an ex-? or a neighbor you hate? - you should get hit with at least a $5k fine AND should have to pick up the tab for the accused's legal fees.

I say that because I  know the kinds of relationships that end up with restraining orders being filed are often fraught with emotion and "spitefulness" can be a big part of that emotional cocktail. Laws should protect truly vulnerable persons, yet also minimize false accusations.   

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

Filing a temporary restraining order is a common tactic in divorce proceedings - usually the wife against the husband.

I know of a female divorcee who's attorney was annoyed that she wouldn't file one.

When I got mine the police came as soon as they were free - 01:30 Saturday morning - to serve me the TRO and part of it was an order to sieze all my guns and my FPIC.

Fortunately I has an idea it was coming so had 'sold' all my guns to FSS and they left with only my FPIC. A week later I had my chance to give my side of the story in court. I didn't in the end because we made an agreement and she dropped the complaint.

I took another 2 months to get my FPIC back which had to be approved by the county prosecutor and signed off by a judge.

If we'd battled it out in court it's possible that I would have wound up with a permanent restraining order which would have been reported to NICS and that would be the end to passing background checks.

As a side note, the NJSP troopers who served the TRO thanked me for getting rid of my guns - they didn't want to deal with them - and they apologized before they left. They knew the TRO was BS but couldn't say as much in uniform.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[slickskin 11]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Filing a temporary restraining order is a common tactic in divorce proceedings - usually the wife against the husband.

I know of a female divorcee who's attorney was annoyed that she wouldn't file one.

When I got mine the police came as soon as they were free - 01:30 Saturday morning - to serve me the TRO and part of it was an order to sieze all my guns and my FPIC.

Fortunately I has an idea it was coming so had 'sold' all my guns to FSS and they left with only my FPIC. A week later I had my chance to give my side of the story in court. I didn't in the end because we made an agreement and she dropped the complaint.

I took another 2 months to get my FPIC back which had to be approved by the county prosecutor and signed off by a judge.

If we'd battled it out in court it's possible that I would have wound up with a permanent restraining order which would have been reported to NICS and that would be the end to passing background checks.

As a side note, the NJSP troopers who served the TRO thanked me for getting rid of my guns - they didn't want to deal with them - and they apologized before they left. They knew the TRO was BS but couldn't say as much in uniform.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

So then it sounds like they do enforce taking guns away from people that have an order filed against them, and as you mention it's common practice in a divorce so wow totally unfair. 

I guess the only way around that would be if the guns weren't registered where they don't know about it, but I know handguns always are in this state, maybe not other states though.

If it were up to me the only thing that would bar you from owning firearms and passing the background check would be felonies you've been convicted of. Innocent until proven guilty. Restraining orders or the words of one person wouldn't mean squat.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

The theory is that it's an emergency so they have to come and get the guns before telling you that there has been a complaint otherwise you might hide them or worse, use them to retaliate against the accuser.

The theory then goes that because you get your day in court you still get your due process before it becomes permanent.

In practice, nobody is ever held to account for making false allegations because 'it might deter a real victim coming forward later.' That's the really unfair part.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Again, it's a matter of balance. Yes, you do see cases where women have played the TRO like a violin. On the other hand, look no further than cases like Carol Bowne to see the very real risks posed by SOME (thankfully few) men.

More than a third of women murdered in this country are murdered by their partners. Sad fact. It's a difficult balancing act for the law to make. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

Again, it's a matter of balance. Yes, you do see cases where women have played the TRO like a violin. On the other hand, look no further than cases like Carol Bowne to see the very real risks posed by SOME (thankfully few) men.
More than a third of women murdered in this country are murdered by their partners. Sad fact. It's a difficult balancing act for the law to make. 

I don't think restraining orders have no place, but it is a very one sided tool.

Making any other false report to the police is a crime and people do get prosecuted. How come that doesn't deter other real victims but for a TRO it does?

The lesson we learn from Carol Bowne is not that taking guns away from the bad guy works. It's keeping guns from the victim didn't work. IIRC she was stabbed, not shot.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Just now, Mr.Stu said:

I don't think restraining orders have no place, but it is a very one sided tool. I don't know that we disagree... I'm saying if there were mandatory penalties for demonstrably false accusations, it wouldn't be one-sided.

Making any other false report to the police is a crime and people do get prosecuted. How come that doesn't deter other real victims but for a TRO it does?  I don't disagree on this either. If that's the argument that's given - that is will dissuade real victims - I think it's a weak one. If you know your claim is good, you wouldn't be dissuaded.

The lesson we learn from Carol Bowne is not that taking guns away from the bad guy works. It's keeping guns from the victim didn't work. IIRC she was stabbed, not shot. My point was that some partners and ex-partners DO in fact pose a serious threat - regardless of tool used - that's why I called up her name. Frankly, if her request had happened in a different state, a kindly local sheriff might have said, "Oh, honey... you don't just need a gun, you need to carry a gun... let me take you to the range and give you some lessons," and if that had happened, she'd probably be alive today.

So, I don't think we really disagree on all that much... but I also know the topic is a sore one for a lot of people... particularly if you feel you were unfairly manipulated by the system. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

So, I don't think we really disagree on all that much... but I also know the topic is a sore one for a lot of people... particularly if you feel you were unfairly manipulated by the system. 

I think we do agree, but from different perspectives.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[slickskin 11]

I just don't think private property should be the governments business because so and so who you dated but then things went sour got a restraining order against you. Do they also confiscate kitchen knives, tools in your shed, or anything else that you could potentially threaten your ex girlfriend or boyfriend with? 

Again, I think most of us support checking for felony convictions on a nics background check but a lot of this gun control stuff is absurd and unreasonable.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

I just don't think private property should be the governments business because so and so who you dated but then things went sour got a restraining order against you. Do they also confiscate kitchen knives, tools in your shed, or anything else that you could potentially threaten your ex girlfriend or boyfriend with? 
Again, I think most of us support checking for felony convictions on a nics background check but a lot of this gun control stuff is absurd and unreasonable.

I think you are still thinking that getting a Final Restraining Order is just a matter of filling in a form. It's not. A TRO is very simple, but that requires a court hearing within 2 weeks, no ifs or buts.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[slickskin 11]

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

I think you are still thinking that getting a Final Restraining Order is just a matter of filling in a form. It's not. A TRO is very simple, but that requires a court hearing within 2 weeks, no ifs or buts.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

I don't know. Someone here mentioned divorce and that sounded familiar because a friend told me not that long ago he was getting one and he and the wife both took out restraining orders on each other and said they were only talking through lawyers. I don't see why that should have anything to do with firearms. 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

I don't know. Someone here mentioned divorce and that sounded familiar because a friend told me not that long ago he was getting one and he and the wife both took out restraining orders on each other and said they were only talking through lawyers. I don't see why that should have anything to do with firearms. 

If their relationship had deteriorated to the level that they only communicated via lawyers there is obviously a lot of bad feeling and strong emotions. It is conceivable that somebody that upset might try to cause harm to the other, therefore the restraining order and the judge can order seizure of firearms.

Did they get TEMPORARY restraining orders or FINAL restraining orders? There is a huge difference to how your rights are restricted.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[slickskin 11]

16 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

If their relationship had deteriorated to the level that they only communicated via lawyers there is obviously a lot of bad feeling and strong emotions. It is conceivable that somebody that upset might try to cause harm to the other, therefore the restraining order and the judge can order seizure of firearms.

Did they get TEMPORARY restraining orders or FINAL restraining orders? There is a huge difference to how your rights are restricted.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

It's conceivable that anyone on this forum could snap at any time so maybe nobody here should own guns. A lot of events happen in life that cause strong emotions, not just something involving restraining orders. It's just part of being a responsible gun owner to understand you can't use your guns to address those issues.

I believe in the case I mentioned it was temporary but if it was final one could also argue that one of them might try to harm the other one just because they're mad that rights were taken away over an order they can't change lol.

[mustang69 505]

5 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

... she dropped the complaint.

I took another 2 months to get my FPIC back which had to be approved by the county prosecutor and signed off by a judge.
 

This to me is the problem.  If the TRO is lifted there is absolutely no justification for the prosecutor or judge to have any say.  

[slickskin 11]

1 hour ago, mustang69 said:

This to me is the problem.  If the TRO is lifted there is absolutely no justification for the prosecutor or judge to have any say.  

Even with it, I don't see how we should lose our rights to own something because someone says I don't want this person near me anymore. The judge or prosecutor doesn't know you and people shouldn't be punished for what they might do or could do, only what they actually have done.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

4 minutes ago, slickskin said:

Even with it, I don't see how we should lose our rights to own something because someone says I don't want this person near me anymore. The judge or prosecutor doesn't know you and people shouldn't be punished for what they might do or could do, only what they actually have done.

I don't know how old you are... but I think you're fairly young, correct? Believe me when I say that some day, if your future daughter's ex-boyfriend is threatening to blow her head off.... and unexpectedly showing up at her office... her new apartment, etc., etc., and getting unhinged each time... you just might see things differently. There are two (or more) perspectives to every situation. 

The older you get the more you realize that life is (I should say, people are) very messy... and our justice system, imperfect as it is, is generally inadequate to deal with most situations particularly well. The advice? Choose your partners (and your friends) wisely. Stay out of the jail/court system! 

[slickskin 11]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't know how old you are... but I think you're fairly young, correct? Believe me when I say that some day, if your future daughter's ex-boyfriend is threatening to blow her head off.... and unexpectedly showing up at her office... her new apartment, etc., etc., and getting unhinged each time... you just might see things differently. There are two (or more) perspectives to every situation. 

The older you get the more you realize that life is (I should say, people are) very messy... and our justice system, imperfect as it is, is generally inadequate to deal with most situations particularly well. The advice? Choose your partners (and your friends) wisely. Stay out of the jail/court system! 

By all means, in that situation she has every right to take out a restraining order. If he made a terroristic threat then he can be arrested and charged, but other than that I don't think taking away possessions is appropriate. Again, innocent until proven guilty.

[fishnut 2,358]

When my dad got divorced from wife #2 ( who was bat shit crazy) she got a TRO, his lawyer knew it was coming because he threw a bottle of Windex at her hitting her on the calf ( no marks or bruses) he "sold" he's his 2 .22 rifles to me but I dident have any pistol permits at the time for his gen 1 g19, Walter pp22 and a single shot .22. The cops showed up and took the handguns then showed up at my place and made sure I really had the rifles. The cop was cool and told me to get some permits and they would release the handguns to me. Which I did and they did. However they were dickheads to my dad and pressured him into giving up his FID because he admitted to throwing the Windex bottle and a FRO was going to be issued by a judge which it was. Now wife #3 is an anti so he won't even fight to get his 2a rights back. 

 I can't complain I got a sweet Walter eagle N PP .22 as well as a 1970 marlin 39a and a Sears .22 bolt gun and I sold the glock to help fund a 1911!

[slickskin 11]

5 minutes ago, fishnut said:

When my dad got divorced from wife #2 ( who was bat shit crazy) she got a TRO, his lawyer knew it was coming because he threw a bottle of Windex at her hitting her on the calf ( no marks or bruses) he "sold" he's his 2 .22 rifles to me but I dident have any pistol permits at the time for his gen 1 g19, Walter pp22 and a single shot .22. The cops showed up and took the handguns then showed up at my place and made sure I really had the rifles. The cop was cool and told me to get some permits and they would release the handguns to me. Which I did and they did. However they were dickheads to my dad and pressured him into giving up his FID because he admitted to throwing the Windex bottle and a FRO was going to be issued by a judge which it was. Now wife #3 is an anti so he won't even fight to get his 2a rights back. 

 I can't complain I got a sweet Walter eagle N PP .22 as well as a 1970 marlin 39a and a Sears .22 bolt gun and I sold the glock to help fund a 1911!

Does this kind of crap happen in other states too or just New Jersey. I assume the nics check is the same but in other states where there is no firearms permit and guns aren't registered I don't see how they'd even know you have one. If they ask you could just say no since when you know you're not a threat and it's a stupid TRO you shouldn't have to surrender your rights or property to these liberals who want to take them away anyway and will come up with any possible reason.

[NickySantoro 211]

On 6/5/2018 at 0:57 PM, Lakota said:

I wont argue the multiple background check thing is a crock of sh*t.   

But as far as a restraining order.... someone cant just "get one" put on someone because they dont like them.  There has to be a significant reason and some proof behind it.  And if there is enough cause for a restraining order to be granted... then yea that is  enough cause to keep someone from passing a background check and probably rightfully so.    

I will dispute this. I know someone whose wife sought a divorce and a substantial settlement. Her shyster had her file for a restraining order. This guy never threatened her or caused any situation that would prompt that. I've know him for years. That wouldn't be his way. It was a legal tactic. She said that she "felt" threatened. She got the order. He could only see his kids under supervision.

[RichP 115]

I might get flamed here, oh well.

I have absolutely no problems with guns being removed, FID forfeited, etc. due to a restraining order. If they are being granted frivolously, then that is something that should be addressed and corrected.

But otherwise, if someones wife/daughter/sister/mother feels that their only protection against harassment (or worse) is a restaining order, then it should be taken seriously and every precaution made until a hearing is had.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

2 hours ago, NickySantoro said:

I will dispute this. I know someone whose wife sought a divorce and a substantial settlement. Her shyster had her file for a restraining order. This guy never threatened her or caused any situation that would prompt that. I've know him for years. That wouldn't be his way. It was a legal tactic. She said that she "felt" threatened. She got the order. He could only see his kids under supervision.

I'm not disputing that what you're saying may be true. But, I'll also say that you never really know someone until you've lived with them... and you've seen them in good times and bad. The fact that he can only see his kids under supervision? That's a real red flag. There may be something there you don't know about - or - he had the WORST imaginable attorney on the face of the planet. 

1 hour ago, RichP said:

I might get flamed here, oh well.

I have absolutely no problems with guns being removed, FID forfeited, etc. due to a restraining order. If they are being granted frivolously, then that is something that should be addressed and corrected.

But otherwise, if someones wife/daughter/sister/mother feels that their only protection against harassment (or worse) is a restaining order, then it should be taken seriously and every precaution made until a hearing is had.

I, for one, appreciate your comment. There's an awful lot of women getting killed by their partners. That shouldn't be ignored in a civilized society. 

The problem is that these orders do get wielded unfairly in some cases, where someone (usually the woman) files a TRO to leverage power in a divorce or child custody hearing. Then what? I really do think there should be built-in penalties if it can be shown that a complainant knowingly, maliciously abused the system. As a woman, I would have no problem with that - because the (excuuuse my French) "bitch" that files a false complaint just makes it harder for the woman with a genuine reason to fear her ex-. (I feel the same disdain as I do for a woman who falsely cries rape - it just makes it so much harder on real victims).

[slickskin 11]

2 hours ago, NickySantoro said:

I will dispute this. I know someone whose wife sought a divorce and a substantial settlement. Her shyster had her file for a restraining order. This guy never threatened her or caused any situation that would prompt that. I've know him for years. That wouldn't be his way. It was a legal tactic. She said that she "felt" threatened. She got the order. He could only see his kids under supervision.

And the people I talked to were able to get the restraining order just by telling the judge they can't stand each other. I really don't feel that something like that is enough on its own to say no you can't buy or own guns but they chip away at the right to bare arms however they can. It will probably only get worse not better.

[Greenday 323]

3 hours ago, RichP said:

I might get flamed here, oh well.

I have absolutely no problems with guns being removed, FID forfeited, etc. due to a restraining order. If they are being granted frivolously, then that is something that should be addressed and corrected.

But otherwise, if someones wife/daughter/sister/mother feels that their only protection against harassment (or worse) is a restaining order, then it should be taken seriously and every precaution made until a hearing is had.

I agree with you on these points. There just needs to be a process to apply for a repeal after a certain amount of time.

[NickySantoro 211]

2 hours ago, slickskin said:

And the people I talked to were able to get the restraining order just by telling the judge they can't stand each other. I really don't feel that something like that is enough on its own to say no you can't buy or own guns but they chip away at the right to bare arms however they can. It will probably only get worse not better.

Agreed. Restraining orders, while valuable in some situations, are abused in many others by shysters looking for a leg up.

[slickskin 11]

21 minutes ago, Greenday said:

I agree with you on these points. There just needs to be a process to apply for a repeal after a certain amount of time.

If it were up to me what you own would be your business and they wouldn't even be allowed to ask if you own them. Maybe all the people that disagree will one day have a bogus restraining order filed against them or something similar and then should forfeit their own rights without complaining.

[slickskin 11]

2 hours ago, NickySantoro said:

Agreed. Restraining orders, while valuable in some situations, are abused in many others by shysters looking for a leg up.

I think you should be allowed to take out a restraining order to keep someone away from you or your place of residence for any reason. That's fine but than that person shouldn't have their gun rights or any other rights removed just because you have a problem with them.