Convicted Felon Question

[JERRYS.]

dogtowntom, I appreciate your banter, however your version of facts do not line up with what happens in the real world in cases of domestic violence arrests. I appreciate your discretion in not revealing the details of your friend's situation, though I find that excuse convenient.

[dogtown tom]

JERRYS. dogtowntom, I appreciate your banter, however your version of facts do not line up with what happens in the real world in cases of domestic violence arrests.

I know exactly what happens or can happen during a domestic violence incident. That doesn't make your post accurate. You made nonsensical claims, including the laughable "guilty until proven innocent" statement.

Read my post#18. I tear apart nearly every single thing you wrote in your first post. While a domestic violence CONVICTION is a prohibiting factor, you didn't make that claim, instead writing that a "claim/accusation" will strip someone of their Second Amendment rights...………..and that's simply not true.

I appreciate your discretion in not revealing the details of your friend's situation, though I find that excuse convenient.

Why not just call me a liar? If you actually read my post you would have read that CHARGES WERE NEVER FILED.

If you doubt me then do your own research.
Here, let me help: https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-...ng-orders.html
Pay particular attention to what elements a "restraining order" might contain. For example in some states a firearm prohibition is not automatic.

Then, go read the actual instructions to Question 11.h. on Qualifying Restraining Orders. Haven't done that have ya? Remember when I asked if you had read the Form 4473? Guess how I knew?

Then, go read the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights and tell us where "guilty until proven innocent" is codified by any federal or state law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

dogtowntom, I appreciate your banter, however your version of facts do not line up with what happens in the real world in cases of domestic violence arrests. I appreciate your discretion in not revealing the details of your friend's situation, though I find that excuse convenient.

What difference do the names make? If the parties were arrested and then released without charges being filed or a restraining order having been issued, your statement has been refuted.

[zukiphile]

If one's spouse asserts a misdemeanor assault/DV, the result can be, and routinely is, a restraining order that disqualifies you from a transfer from a federal licensee until the order is dissolved, even though you've received no hearing and there has been no finding of guilt.

It isn't just felonies and it doesn't require the state to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile If one's spouse asserts a misdemeanor assault/DV, the result can be, and routinely is, a restraining order that disqualifies you from a transfer from a federal licensee until the order is dissolved, even though you've received no hearing and there has been no finding of guilt.

FLAT OUT 100% WRONG.
Read the instructions to Question 11.h. on the Form 4473.

Then read this from ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/...33102/download



And this from the U.S Attorneys Office:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...r-18-usc-922g8


What law are they talking about? That would be 18 U.S.C.§922(g)(8):

(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)
(i) includes a finding that such 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; or....

It isn't just felonies

No kidding?

and it doesn't require the state to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, no kidding.

[zukiphile]

Once again, you hit your limits well before you've stop typing. You appear to function under the misapprehension that the instructions appended to a government form is rosetta stone unlocking the meaning of the law more generally. You will recall how upsetting it was to you to have strawmen purchases explained to you. Let's not do that again.

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

FLAT OUT 100% WRONG.

That is incorrect. Receiving notice of a hearing and having the opportunity to attend it is not the same as having your defense heard. Many restraining orders are issued ex parte even where all parties are given actual notice of the hearing. We try to have everyone heard, but that isn't always possible when everyone is in a hurry. It's the nature of the beast. A matter may be filed at 10AM with a hearing at 3PM with notice given sometime between.

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

No kidding?

***
Again, no kidding.

That's an abnormal way to respond to a point you do not dispute, and illustrations of the emotional quality of your reaction don't improve it.

You may take pride in having read the instructions to a federal form, but against the scale of life's accomplishments it's modest. JerryS didn't articulate his point in the manner an attorney would, but then you didn't either. No need to destroy the courtesy conducive to conversation.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile Once again, you hit your limits well before you've stop typing.

No, you're just wrong. I've provided proof that your comment "...a restraining order that disqualifies you from a transfer from a federal licensee until the order is dissolved, even though you've received no hearing..." is patently false.

Receiving notice of a hearing and having the opportunity to attend it is not the same as having your defense heard.

I don't disagree with that, and that's not the statement you made above.

You may take pride in having read the instructions to a federal form, but against the scale of life's accomplishments it's modest.

Pride has nothing to do with it. Reading the instructions is something I was taught in elementary school.

You will recall how upsetting it was to you to have strawmen purchases explained to you. Let's not do that again.

Your explanation was faulty, and not the least bit upsetting. Sorry.

[riffraff]

Haha I'm surprised this thread is not locked yet ..

The below is stated precluding special misdemeanors, ie domestic violence is treated like something different all together that prevents firearms ownership for life federally.

One thing to point out, the federal government does not really recognize the term "felony" in the same manner states do, who can all recognize the term differently, the metric used to preclude firearms ownership (or possession, or whatever you want to call it, not gonna debate that) is convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of > 2 years.

Now, some states a felony might not carry that for certain felonies, other states a misdemeanor might carry > 2 years. Soooo a convicted felon by state law very well might be able to own guns by federal measure and someone with a misdemeanor conviction might not.

States have piles of their own laws and without looking at the state you can't make any generalization. Some states preclude firearms ownership for life upon any minor drug conviction - and a NICS check will result in deny if the agent has their head screwed on right as they do checks with respect to state laws... Other states have the potential to restore firearms ownership for what would normally be considered a serious felony carrying a life sentence even, and the federal government is supposed to uphold those rights restorations provided the restorations restore the subjects right to hold public office and participate in jury duty (that is how the feds measure an expungement/annulment/sealing/whatever-the-state-calls-it feature of forgiveness for a crime - rights fully restored mean you can own guns by the state law plus are not barred from all other such potential civic duties).. If rights are restored legally that does not mean a NICS check will not deny them incorrectly, which is a problem w/ NICS.

Now states can have laws that violate fed laws, for instance in NH they say if you were convicted of a felony in another state that NH does not consider a felony, you are not barred from firearms ownership - so the state cannot use their laws to prosecute someone in that situations, but that does not mean the feds couldn't or that the person will pass a NICS check.

The feds do have laws on the books also to restore rights to people barred by crimes, but as has been stated, are not taking those applications for relief.

Personally I think the whole thing is a bit over-reaching. If someone goes 10-15 years passed the end of a sentence clean I think no matter what, they ought to be able to own guns again, I don't care if they murdered someone with a gun, people are often different people after that much time and really violent people are gonna get in trouble or get a gun if they want it anyway. Many states use the features of this federal law just to cut down on gun ownership, ie state of MA has made a first time DWI a 2.5 year sentence, with no relief possible for life, even though nobody has even done such time for the crime, as well as a slew of other crimes that shouldn't bar firearms ownership at all if you ask me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

No, you're just wrong. I've provided proof that your comment "...a restraining order that disqualifies you from a transfer from a federal licensee until the order is dissolved, even though you've received no hearing..." is patently false.

Sorry, but zukiphile is NOT wrong -- you are. Several states have now enacted so-called "ex parte" restraining order laws (my benighted state being one of them). The order is issued before any hearing, the cops show up and take all your guns, and a hearing must be held (in theory) within two weeks to give you an opportunity to argue for why you should get them back. Unless and until you succeed in having the order dissolved, you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Given the extreme liberal bias of most judges in my state, the odds against a restrainee getting an ex parte order dissolved at hearing are astronomical.

I have a friend who is going through this right now. His primary income since semi-retirement had been teaching NRA classes, so not only has he lost possession of his guns, he has also been effectively put out of work.

Form 4473 question 11h asks:

Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

Yes, I know the instructions for 11h say "after a hearing." Doesn't matter. The legislature intended the law to prohibit possession of firearms instantly, before the hearing, and that's what it does. People subject to these ex parte orders are reported as prohibited, and they will not be allowed to purchase a firearm if they are foolish enough to attempt to do so.

Could they go to court to argue that under federal law they should be allowed to buy a gun? It would be costly and time consuming, but they might prevail. Winning that argument won't accomplish anything, because the state law still says they can't possess or purchase a firearm, and there isn't an FFL anywhere in the state who will transfer one to them.

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca

Sorry, but zukiphile is NOT wrong -- you are. Several states have now enacted so-called "ex parte" restraining order laws (my benighted state being one of them). The order is issued before any hearing, the cops show up and take all your guns, and a hearing must be held (in theory) within two weeks to give you an opportunity to argue for why you should get them back. Unless and until you succeed in having the order dissolved, you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Given the extreme liberal bias of most judges in my state, the odds against a restrainee getting an ex parte order dissolved at hearing are astronomical.

What part of FEDERAL do you not understand?
States can always be more restrictive than Federal law as long as they do not violate federal law.

But the discussion is FEDERAL prohibitive factors. and FEDERAL LAW says that the restraining order must meet certain criteria.

Form 4473 question 11h asks:

Yes, I know the instructions for 11h say "after a hearing." Doesn't matter.

It may in a different state and it certainly would matter in federal law.

The legislature intended the law to prohibit possession of firearms instantly, before the hearing, and that's what it does. People subject to these ex parte orders are reported as prohibited, and they will not be allowed to purchase a firearm if they are foolish enough to attempt to do so.

Again, that's IN YOUR STATE. What your state legislature intends isn't what FEDERAL LAW SAYS.

Could they go to court to argue that under federal law they should be allowed to buy a gun? It would be costly and time consuming, but they might prevail. Winning that argument won't accomplish anything, because the state law still says they can't possess or purchase a firearm,

Don't be silly. It's pretty common knowledge that some states have drastically more restrictive laws regarding firearms than others. In California those laws get more restrictive every month...…….but that doesn't affect buyers in other states does it?

The Form 4473 has instructions for transferring silencers, even though they are prohibited in seven or eight states.

…..and there isn't an FFL anywhere in the state who will transfer one to them.

Hopefully the FFL is aware of his own state laws regarding firearms.

Some states classify AR lowers as handguns, requiring a different background check procedure, yet the Form 4473 must be completed as ATF describes in the instructions.

[JERRYS.]

Aguila Blanca, what difference the names make is because I can say anything off the wall and claim it true, and no one can verify it because I did not give names, dates, locations..... makes for a convenient story to tell when you have a false narrative or agenda to push.

[JohnKSa]

A specific case is not needed to prove that a tpo/tro is NOT automatically issued anytime there is an arrest for domestic violence.

I did an internet search using the terms:

arrested for domestic violence "no restraining order"

The first result of that search was a law firm's website with a discussion of domestic violence cases.

https://moralessparks.com/criminal-d...bstance-abuse/

Here's quote from the website:

If there is no restraining order or you are in consenting contact with the alleged victim, you can ask him or her to write an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution, which is a statement including a personal version of the event and a request not to file charges against you.

Since this particular section is talking about "measures you can take to attempt to reduce the severity of your sentence", it's clearly about a post-arrest situation. In fact in that section it specifically says: "You’re in a much better situation legally if you are out of police custody while your domestic violence charges are pending."

In other words, it is clear, that in at least one state, a person can be arrested AND charged with domestic violence without a restraining order being issued.

[dogtown tom]

AGAIN, you guys need to read the Form 4473.
Specifically:
11a "Are you under indictment or or information in any court for a felony or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

and

11h "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

and

11i "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

These are separate and distinct prohibitions. The examples that you keep giving involve arrests for domestic violence with a restraining order issued. Just being charged with those crimes makes you a PROHIBITED PERSON until the charge is dropped or adjudicated. Meaning the buyer could not truthfully answer Que. 11b if he was under indictment "or information" for the crime.


What you are missing is that a restraining order can be issued WITHOUT an arrest. WITHOUT committing a crime of domestic violence. And that clearly requires what I posted above from ATF, the USAO and the US Code.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

But the discussion is FEDERAL prohibitive factors. and FEDERAL LAW says that the restraining order must meet certain criteria.

Actually, the discussion, as posited in the opening post, is supposed to be

Can a convicted felon with prohibited person status work in an establishment that sell firearms and ammunition?

There is no mention of "federal" in the question under discussion. Properly speaking, since the question specifies a convicted felon and it is stipulated that he/she is prohibited, all the discussions about domestic violence restraining orders are also off-topic.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

Aguila Blanca, what difference the names make is because I can say anything off the wall and claim it true, and no one can verify it because I did not give names, dates, locations..... makes for a convenient story to tell when you have a false narrative or agenda to push.

So you are calling dogtown tom a liar, then.

[JohnKSa]

There must be a reason to leave this open, but I can't think of one right now. If someone comes up with one, PM me.