Glas Ridire
Well-Known Member
Are restraining orders enough to prevent someone from buying a gun? I don't think this is the case
Question "h" on the 4473, yes, they can't legally buy a gun while on a restraining order.
Upvote
0
Are restraining orders enough to prevent someone from buying a gun? I don't think this is the case
Question "h" on the 4473, yes, they can't legally buy a gun while on a restraining order.
So once the restraining order is over they can purchase a firearm, correct?
http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdfh. 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?
(See Important Notice 7.)
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, 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 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. For purposes of this prohibition, an intimate partner of a person is: the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person.
When does a restraining order end? To my knowledge, one may use limited duration restraining orders to provide temporary protective paper, while a party seeks more permanent remedy from the courts. Some restraining orders are permanent . . . I suppose, if a temporary one expires, a person could be eligible to buy firearms again.
Wrong thread
Is it?
Permanent Restraining Orders | LegalMatch Law Library
In a discussion on universal background checks, one of the line items on a 4473, namely line "H" and its consequential prohibition on the sale (if answered in the affirmative) seems relevant. The 4473 and subsequent NICS check (should) result in a no-sale at an FFL. Among private parties, because we aren't allowed access to NICS, we (folk who have guns in our hobbies list) generally rely on ID and a permit to carry/ permit to purchase . . . which requires a background check (to get those documents) . . . regardless of where the trade occurs.
Is it?
Permanent Restraining Orders | LegalMatch Law Library
In a discussion on universal background checks, one of the line items on a 4473, namely line "H" and its consequential prohibition on the sale (if answered in the affirmative) seems relevant. The 4473 and subsequent NICS check (should) result in a no-sale at an FFL. Among private parties, because we aren't allowed access to NICS, we (folk who have guns in our hobbies list) generally rely on ID and a permit to carry/ permit to purchase . . . which requires a background check (to get those documents) . . . regardless of where the trade occurs.
If someone is deemed by the courts to be a permanent physical threat to another person then perhaps they should not own a gun.
Well, it is fortunate that they can't legally then, isn't it.
People under a restraining order are forbidden from purchasing and/or possessing firearms. There may be some oddball exception I am not aware of, but restraining orders generally include line items referring to firearms restrictions even among individuals with no history of guns or violence.
Further, questions B,C,and I on the 4473. . . .
If someone is deemed by the courts to be a permanent physical threat to another person then perhaps they should not own a gun.
Because you can't shoot someone with a crossbow.
You don't need a background check to get one of those.
Why would the government need to know who owns what?
There's laws against selling to prohibited people.
Because it's not "reasonable."
Forgive me if I don't trust gun banners good intentions.
It doesn't prevent people from using them in crimes, either.
And to my knowledge, government only enforces a registration law if they catch you driving an unregistered vehicle on a public road.
No. The founding fathers saw no limits on owning a weapon except the ability to pay for it.
Because it's in the people's interest to ensure that gun owners are "well-regulated," like it says in the Second Amendment.
Right. And to enforce those laws, we need to know who is prohibited from owning one so they can't get one. Which is why ALL gun transfers and sales need to be subject to a background check.
. Firearms, when used properly, can.
Neither do locks, so does that mean all laws protecting private property should be struck down?
The founding fathers knew that regulations were necessary.
A2SG, militias we got, its the well-regulated part some gun owners seem to have a problem with....if that doesn't set off alarm bells, it should...
The 2nd Amendment says the militia is supposed to well regulated, not gun owners.
And no, militia membership is not a requirement of gun ownership. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms afterall.
All transfers? Now we know you're just anti-gun.
The point of requiring BG checks on all transfers is to try to destroy the gun culture by making it hard for people to get into the hobby, as you can't just lend or hand people guns to try.
See either you're anti self defense or don't know much about guns. Used properly, guns are actually remarkably safe devices.
But I'll bet you're type who thinks Sex-Ed is A-Ok but would balk at requiring gun safety training in schools.
Anyway, last I checked things like murder and reckless shooting were already illegal.
No, because stealing actually harms somebody and is an activity worthy of punishment, wheras owing a box with a metal spring doesn't or having a 14 inch barrel doesn't and isn't.
The founding fathers knew that regulations were necessary.
Well all know you're lying through your teeth.
You know full well a "well regulated" militia wouldn't ban dirt common military rifles, much less the neutured civvy versions actually up for discussion.
You're just being disengenuous, and we all know it.
Come back when you support a law you have to bring a gun to church for inspection or show up for drill or something.
You know, a law that actually would regulate a militia rather than just be a thinly disguised excuse to ban guns?
Because it's in the people's interest to ensure that gun owners are "well-regulated," like it says in the Second Amendment.
Right. And to enforce those laws, we need to know who is prohibited from owning one so they can't get one. Which is why ALL gun transfers and sales need to be subject to a background check.
What's unreasonable about regulating something as dangerous as a firearm? We regulate cars and cars, when used properly, don't kill. Firearms, when used properly, can.
I feel the same way about gun owners who object to any and all regulations.
Neither do locks, so does that mean all laws protecting private property should be struck down?
Enforcing gun laws only after first graders are mowed down by an assault weapon in their school is a bit more serious than an unregistered vehicle on a public road.
The more dangerous something is, the more we, the people, need to regulate it.
And the Second Amendment acknowledged that fact, by calling for gun owners to be part of well-regulated militias.
People get all wrapped up in 'guns shows' as if the venue really makes a difference, it doesn't! If you buy a firearm from an FFL, the FFL must run a NICS check. If you buy from a private individual there is no check because the private seller doesn't even have access to the system.
Internet sales are another thing gun grabbers get riled up over but it's a non-issue. You can buy a gun online but it is mailed to your local FFL who completes the transaction by running the NICS check.
If that is the case, why is the Manchin/Toomey proposal expanding background checks on "all commercial sales" including sales at gun shows and over the internet?
At the time the second amendment was written, what did the phrase, "well regulated," mean?
So then, how come if "we need to know it" members of the general public are not allowed access to NICS?
It sure doesn't seem like "we need to know it." Shoot, if "we need to know it," why not advocate for prohibited persons to have an 'F' tattooed on their foreheads?
For something we all need to know, it sure doesn't seem like you're coming up with an effective way of disseminating that information.
Sure. Let's regulate guns like we do cars. Anyone who can come up with the cash can buy any kind of car they desire. You don't need a license to operate it on private property. You don't need a license or a background check to sell one, you just pay $30 to the government. Anyone over 16 who can pass a simple government class can have one if they're over the age of 16. If I want to, I can go to any state and buy any kind of car that I want, and there's no special process for it. No background check required. If I misuse a car, it's a minor administrative fee. There's no size limits for cars. Any felon can have a car.
Based on legislative history, it's a slippery slope.
There's already reasonable regulation.
Why do we need more reasonable regulation.
If the gun banners want compromise, why don't they offer to do something like remove short barreled rifles or suppressors from the NFA or open up the machine gun registry if we'll agree to a background check. Based on their actions, gun banners don't want compromise, because their version of compromise means giving them exactly what they want with them giving up nothing.
Possession of an inanimate piece of metal is not bad. Theft is. See the difference? In one, you own an object. In the other, you steal stuff from other people.
How many laws did the Newtown shooter violate?
And how much did he care about the consequences?
The obvious solution to a crazy guy who doesn't care about eight or ten or so laws is obviously to pass another law. It's positively brilliant!
So then why don't you call for regulations on things like bleach and vinegar?
They should be regulated, because they can be used to produce chemical weapons and yet, anyone can go down to a local Wal-Mart and load up with them.
So, forgive me, if I doubt the sincerity of this statement, since you obviously are not calling for regulations of things that are actually dangerous.
Amendment IX. Even if the Second Amendment only pertains to militias, it can't be construed to deny or restrict others reserved to the people. So, basically, even if you're right it still doesn't justify gun legislation.