it appears not.

You have a reliance to cite? When did this go into effect?

my guns are in a gun safe

So you think it's right to punish the law abiding to get to the criminals?

Funny, all I did was fill in a form saying my son gave it to me.

the person has to have had a domestic violence charge. the precedent case involved a domestic violence issue, after the restraining order was filed, the restrained went and bought a gun.

There are two separate federal firearms laws which relate to domestic violence. These are the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 contains a provision which prohibits the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms and ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or ammunition. Intimate partners include spouses, former spouses or significant others, but do not include significant others with whom the defendant has NOT cohabited. A qualifying court restraining order is one where:

* the court order must include a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the other person OR the order explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the other person.
* the order was issued after a hearing. Minnesota OFPs issued under the no-hearing law provisions Minn. Stat. 518B.01 subd. 7 would NOT qualify.
* the defendant had to have received actual notice of the hearing and have had an opportunity to participate in the hearing.



If a respondent of a qualifying court restraining order possesses firearms or ammunition, then they have committed a federal crime. If the restraining order expires or is dismissed, the respondent can then possess firearms again. The prohibition lasts as long as the restraining order.

A respondent does not need to be told about this prohibition against possessing firearms. They do not need to be ordered to not possess firearms. The penalty for violation of this federal firearm statute is a maximum of 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Although law enforcement officials are exempt from the restraining order law, the exemption applies only to department-issued firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 925(a). Therefore, a police officer who is the respondent of an OFP could still have their service revolver, even off-duty. That police officer just could not possess other guns.

MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 amended the Federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Under these provisions, it is unlawful for an individual convicted of a state or federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to "ship, transport, possess or receive firearms or ammunition."

A "misdemeanor crime of violence," pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(33)(a), means an offense that:

has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

Law enforcement officers and governmental employees (such as security guards or military personnel) art not exempt from this law with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Therefore, law enforcement and other government employees who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition or any purposes, including performing their official duties.

Furthermore, the law makes it unlawful for any person, including governmental agencies, to sell or otherwise issue firearms or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence.

As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.

With respect to all persons convicted, the law would NOT apply if the conviction is defective procedurally due to representation or trial issues, such as the person's constitutional rights to counsel and/or a jury trial were not knowingly and intelligently waived. Also, the law would not apply if the conviction has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored and the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Not sure when, but I've never had to take the class, I have a DD 214
But yes, the class has been around since before the brady bill I believe.
go into any gun shop, they will tell you the same thing
And I agree that people should take a course.
I can't tell you how many people I've taught how to shoot, great first date believe it or not.
I was trained by my step father, an ex- marine.
I was raised around all kinds of guns, even shot a gattling gun once, now that rocked!

raising my daughter that way, I know that she will can protect herself, she's good with a pistol, but scary good with my AR-15

So, he is exaggerating.

show them or point it at them? LOL

i really don't see the problem with not allowing certain individuals to possess firearms. it's due to their previous actions, therefore, a good thing.

FITTY GUN SHOTS!

Nope, but I think any thing that is made to kill and only to kill should be registered with authorities as a dangerous thing to contain within society.

A knife may be a killing device but it's also made to butter my bread.

Guns are made to ... shoot, kill, destroy, insert bullets into human bodies. Nothing else. No misinterpretation there... register the suckers and make sure we all know who owns what.

When you get it stolen and its used to shoot my neighbour, it'll help the cops find the fuckers who did it.

No prob with extreme gun registration. They're pretty useless anyhow. Unless the world is overwhelmed by zombies.

:D

actually, there doesn't always have to be any violence, just a restraining order
for the first 15 days of getting a restraining order, you haven't seen a judge, you never did, and you have 15 days to get rid of your guns, then in court you can fight it but good luck, most judges will just grant it to keep from having responsibility if you go postal

yes i read bullshit from the nra too..... LOL

I have no problem with registering my guns.
I have a problem with them adding further regulation. It's not helping anything but generating more taxes and giving the government more control over your freedoms

did you not read the actual federal law that i copy and pasted?

man, there's no shame in learning. you really look foolish in this thread.

so you didn't read the sources they listed?
I agree that the NRA goes over board sometimes, but I don't like hearing bullshit and told it's fact, so I read their sources
You're more likely to die from a bad diagnoses from a doctor that get shot by a gun

You're right, their is no shame in learning
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/dv110.pdf
look at item 21
this is a temporary restraining order from California, note the address
this can be issued by a judge without you being there and for things other than violence, like harassment, your girl friend can go into court and get this, then it will be served to you and you have about 15 days without guns before you can talk to a judge

Right to bear arms.

Aye, it'll just give the weapon smugglers more profit. Plus we need guns so the government still fears us right? We can't revolt without weapons.

Fuck no they're not!

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

right to arm bears.

Obama is going to take away your guns!!! (again)

move out of california and she gets less insane about guns :)

There's a gun shop about 2miles from here that sells anything you could ever want (gun wise)

i stand corrected.

i really like you, man, but this is ridiculous. the US is one of the most violent countries and almost all civilized western countries with gun control have a much lower crime rate - speaking of homicide, no theft etc.

and to compare that with Germany 1939 is just laughable, sorry

i looked into this a bit more and whilst i'm obviously not an attorney, i can say that simply filling out the application does not mean the order will be signed. it has to be decided by a judge and that will require some sort of evidence. even then, the temp order is only good for 15 days, at which time both parties are required to appear in court so the matter can be handled more appropriately.

that being said, i am a gun owner and believe in the right to bear arms. but i do not think it helps the cause to communicate incorrect/misleading information as you are doing in this thread.

I went thru this earlier this year, I speak from experience

So I can say, nothing misleading, been there done that

if you are following all the rules associated with owning a fire arm you should have no issues.

you speak from experience when you state that the white house is going to take away our guns?

Federal law says you cannot have guns or ammunition if
you are subject to a restraining order made after a noticed hearing.

You had to have been informed and allowed to respond before this goes into effect.

On the switzerland thing. Most of the weapons possessed are military firearms for reservists but notice that they are beaten out on this list by Ukraine, Turkey, Northern Ireland and Portugal(why?). Otherwise every other European country has a lower homicide rate. I might have missed one or two but sort of shows that the gun ownership being high might not be helping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

I like you too
But other countries crime rate involving guns went up after they had there gun rights removed.


Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe, and has the third lowest
homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita
rate as England and Wales. When they serve in the army, they keep their rifles.

According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been
victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005

arm right handed bears

Agreed and everyone who compares crime rates between countries should always take in consideration the (per capita factor and not the NEWS factor) UK as gun control laws and it's crime rate is higher then the US.

I have issues, LOL

Your guns

when people think of crime in the US, they have to remember , it's got some wide open spaces and everything is reported by news agencies to get ratings, unsolved gun crimes in the UK are not reported as gun crimes. People living in the country don't hear about gun crimes, they have no gangs, they use guns for protection and hunting

Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year
figure for more than 10 years ? nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms ? in a
country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.

You know this is wrong right? this was debunked many times even here on gfy.

edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

just to give you an idea.

Bring on the REVOLUTION BABY, I'm ready to fight for fucking freedom that we are supposed to have.

take away guns and the # of stabbings/beatings/etc goes up

you might want to read this

Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun
crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final
disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun
crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse,
British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely
lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.