NJ.com carried another story about a guy whose wife obtained a DV temporary restraining order against him in 2003 or 2004 and it was made final until their 2004 divorce..  Reading the opinion from the Appellate Division, it seems that over the next 8 years, the guy went on with his life peacfully, got remarried, had a few more kids when in late 2012, the Mercer County Sheriff's officers suddenly showed up at his door, served him with the 8 year old DV order and seized all of his firearms, including two 30 rnd. magazines he had apparently not disposed of years earlier.

 

The ex-wife, to her apparent credit, consented to the withdrawl of the final DV order.  Still, the prosecutor filed a petition to forfeit.  Amazingly, the Family Court judge denies the forfeiture request.  The prosecutor appeals and, lo and behold, the Appellate Divsion reverses with some language that shows their anti-gun bias, despite the absence of any evidence in the record to suggest he was doing anything other than going on with his life:  "Our nation's recent history is stained with the blood of far too many innocent victims who have died at the hands of people using these high capacity magazines."

 

Sure looks like this guy got a fair and impartial hearing.

Unfortunately those 30 rounders = a 4th degree indictable charge, making the guy a prohibited person for life.

 

Effin NJ.

The story also mentions pointing a gun at the wife's head. If he did that he shouldn't have any guns.

Yes, IF he did that. A DV TRO requires no sworn affidavit, just a pissed off wife/girlfriend to claim it was done and the order issues.

 

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the execution of an 8 year old order to jam up this guy. If that warrant/execution is suspect so is the seizure of the high capacity mags. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I'd like to read further about this - got any names of the involved?

Here you go.

 

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5051-12.pdf

Yes, IF he did that. A DV TRO requires no sworn affidavit, just a pissed off wife/girlfriend to claim it was done and the order issues.

 

I guess I'm the only one disturbed by the execution of an 8 year old order to jam up this guy. If that warrant/execution is suspect so is the seizure of the high capacity mags. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I'm not getting that either..Who was holding it, why was it on the shelf for so long and why was it acted on 8 yrs later? Not saying it wasnt needed back then but why now? And what exactly does "temporary" mean in the TRO? Strange.

So this guy will be banned for life for owning the 'high-capacity' magazines. Right?

if scotus would just get off their asses and do their job all of this can go away.  they don't even have to take all these 2ndA cases all they have to do is say that when it comes to law abiding citizens strict scrutiny must be used in regards to the 2nd Amendment, if they just did that in Heller or McDonald we wouldn't be in this mess, but they're so afraid of breaking away from the norm they refused to grant a constitutional right the scrutiny protection it deserves  

So this guy will be banned for life for owning the 'high-capacity' magazines. Right?

 

Even if he moves out of state, those 30 round mags put his life in the sh&tter and now he cannot legally own any guns/ammo ANYWHERE in the US...

 

Thank Florio and the rest

The story also mentions pointing a gun at the wife's head. If he did that he shouldn't have any guns.

 

 

So no court order, no due process, no warrant...just a phone call and they come in and confiscate his property?

You have to read the writ posted by Princetonian58 above.  This again is not a cut and dry case.  State claims he made threats after the divorce was finalized.

There is no doubt that punishment should be severe for real DV, but few things from this ruling are interesting...

 

----------------

The knowing violation of the gun laws in and of it self is a sufficient statutory basis for the court to order a forfeiture of seized weapons, without the necessity of the court also finding that the defendant is unfit or a danger to the public in general or persons in particular...

---------------

So you are done as soon  as you acknowledge knowing the law.....

 

 

--------

his admitted display of an untenable disrespect for our State's firearm regulations.

--------

The guy admitted as part of the PTI plea.. "untenable disrespect" may be bit far fetched.

 

 

-------------

Our nation's recent history is stained with the blood of far too many innocent victims who have died at the hands of people using these high capacity magazines..

--------------

Sounds more like a campaign speech.

Like they say "the woman is always right"

 

If I called 911 and said my wife was beating the s&&t out of me the woman would still walk away.

 

False DV reports are a big thing, that's why I refuse to ever get married.

 

We need a shelter for guys that are abused by woman

Like they say "the woman is always right"

 

If I called 911 and said my wife was beating the s&&t out of me the woman would still walk away.

 

False DV reports are a big thing, that's why I refuse to ever get married.

 

We need a shelter for guys that are abused by woman

You don't need to be married to be accused of DV; you just need to be in a relationship or cohabitating.

You don't need to be married to be accused of DV; you just need to be in a relationship or cohabitating.

 

I know, that's why I stick to one night stands in other states lol

I know, that's why I stick to one night stands in other states lol

And don't brag about them on facebook! : )

And don't brag about them on facebook! : )

 

I don't have a facebook acount lol

"Our nation's recent history is stained with the blood of far too many innocent victims who have died at the hands of people using these high capacity magazines. "

 

Sounds like political opinion that actual case law.