-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Restraining order question
- Thread starter Nicksbald
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
One department had a position of "once a TRO was made into an RO there was a judicial finding the subject was at risk of violent action. Expiration of the RO without any violation or incident does not undo the fact that such a judicial finding was issue, and no person shall be issued an LTC" (I think it may have been Wrentham. The court agreed.
You have to remember, a lot of chicks that get murdered get murdered by their lovers, true crime is the new 50 shades of grey for women right now, and she lives in a state full of bat shit crazy libtards filling her head with all kinds of nonsense about gun owners. So she’s probably legit concerned you’re going to pop her, and she’s probably been coached on what to say to the police by her friends, family, and everyone else under the sun that she’s recently been communicating your train wreck to. You’ve got a perfect storm brewing here and you’re probably going to need a lawyer, a bunch of cash, and a bit of old fashioned luck if you’re going to keep your rights in this situation.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
Actually, it takes the form of something like:
"As an attorney I cannot advise you to not work, but I can advise that persons who cannot work due to their child care obligations get better settlements."
Or....
"If you are in fear and get a 209A you will have sole access to the marital home and kids while we negotiate your share of the loot plus ongoing payments, but I'm not saying you should do that if you are not in fear. Divorces sure can be scary things can't they?".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
The court date must be within (I think) 10 days unless the target of the order requires firearms access to make their living in which case it is 2 days.
FFS, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
Quoting Rob Boudrie's post #92 above:
One department had a position of "once a TRO was made into an RO there was a judicial finding the subject was at risk of violent action. Expiration of the RO without any violation or incident does not undo the fact that such a judicial finding was issue, and no person shall be issued an LTC" (I think it may have been Wrentham. The court agreed.
The situations remain irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the position of the town LO. Believing anything beyond that is wishful thinking.When something like this happens, because MA is one of the cuck states that have ex post facto laws, don't you have to surrender ALL of your current guns and ammo you possess immediately? Because you no longer have a valid LTC, AKA your second amendment rights are put on hold?
Just like if you're involved in a defensive gun shoot incident, you need to surrender your ENTIRE collection to a bonded warehouse, pay the big man the daily storage rate while the law and court 'figure it out'?
Just like if you're involved in a defensive gun shoot incident, you need to surrender your ENTIRE collection to a bonded warehouse, pay the big man the daily storage rate while the law and court 'figure it out'?
AHM
NES Member
Oh one department. The police are not robots, they do not have a uniform policy. The situation matters. Every case is different and most departments will handle them differently based on the situation/facts.
I have firsthand experience with a case and know of others with that department and each case is handled differently based on the facts. you are wrong.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
What we he wrong about specifically? The fact that the only thing that matters (in regards to the LTC) is the position of the licensing officer?
I have known situations reaching a very satisfactory conclusion after a RO expired and a divorce was finalized.
And as to warehouse - A good friend picked up the gun from the local PD that was taken from a woman indicted for a federal misdemeanor (she authorized it). Funny thing - even a conviction on the underlying offense would not render her a state or federal PP. No bonded warehouse, and the PD was very happy to get the gun off their hands. Too bad it was a Charter Arms instead of a Python or Boa.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
NES often forgets that there are reasonable CPO’s out there. They maybe in the minority but they aren’t unicorns.
Bob
I wonder what would happen if someone in the town feels threatened by that a-hole CLEO and takes a restraining order on him.
Maybe we should all do that, the popo won't be able to approach anyone.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
Agreed, but if you are a party and there is a turd in the punchbowl, chances are people aren't spending their time thinking about how good the punch from the clean side of the bowl must taste.
Sure, all it takes is proof of a family or substantial dating relationship and evidence sufficient to overcome the courts biases in favor of the LEO.
AHM
NES Member
You explain it in this post. The licensing officer has the control and the majority of them make decisions based on the situation/facts in each case. And ease case will involve very different facts, persons (with various personalities, backgrounds, etc).
A temp RO doesn’t automatically mean an LTC suspension or revocation with the majority of towns/cities, those licensing officers m access each situation and make decisions based on the facts in those cases
cathouse01
NES Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,444
- Likes
- 4,671
You hope. The problem with the MA licensing law is that it gives no explicit direction to the LO as to how they “access each situation and make decisions based on the facts”. Suitability is left entirely to the discretion of the LO and CLO. It's much like the definition of “readily” in the latest ATF ruling. After reading all the weasel words, it still comes down to what the enforcing entity thinks. Any law that is so vague that it depends on what the enforcing entity thinks is a bad law and runs afoul of the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,554
- Likes
- 33,617
Really? Any details.
When the TRO becomes an RO a judge has to sign off on it, and I have NEVER heard of a judge deciding the person was a threat so a 209A was needed but the person was not a threat so gun surrender was not needed. NEVER. I welcome any example to the contrary.
Under 209A I'm sure you are correct, but there are other types of orders commonly referred to as "no contact" or "restraining" orders that that have the same no contact affect but do not prohibit firearm. I'm an example of that, back in 1997 my ex-to-be was preventing my seeing our children and threatened to drag it out in court if I didn't agree to an RO. My lawyer negotiate the no contact order (under another section of MGL, I'll have to look it up), that "prevented" contact but had no effect on firearms. I had 2 FFLs (MA and NH) at the time and even renewed my MA LTC while it was in affect. I didn't like the idea of the order but given that I wasn't about to talk to crazy, it had zero effect on my life, and prevented her from isolating the kids.
The C. 208B and the C. 258E ROs do NOT require confiscation of firearms/licenses/ammo/mags/etc.
The way a C. 209A temp RO is issued, the judge gives the police permission to sign the judge's name, serve the document and requires a hearing within 10 days.
Every PD that I'm aware of and every discussion amongst LE that I'm aware of . . . they serve the temp RO (209A) and seize/confiscate all the guns/ammo/mags at the same time if possible. This is MA . . . in other states the process requires that hearing with both parties PRIOR to confiscation, not so in MA.
Can there be some outlier cases where they didn't confiscate when serving the temp RO? Certainly possible but not the way it is done normally in MA.
The way a C. 209A temp RO is issued, the judge gives the police permission to sign the judge's name, serve the document and requires a hearing within 10 days.
Every PD that I'm aware of and every discussion amongst LE that I'm aware of . . . they serve the temp RO (209A) and seize/confiscate all the guns/ammo/mags at the same time if possible. This is MA . . . in other states the process requires that hearing with both parties PRIOR to confiscation, not so in MA.
Can there be some outlier cases where they didn't confiscate when serving the temp RO? Certainly possible but not the way it is done normally in MA.
"The way a C. 209A temp RO is issued, the judge gives the police permission to sign the judge's name, serve the document and requires a hearing within 10 days."
This is true if the RO is given during court working hours. A temporary RO can be issued after hours where the Police fax a request to an on call judge.
The following morning in the district court a regular RO is issued. If the complainant does not show the RO is dropped.
Another thing you should be aware of is an RO can be pulled in a district court and a separate one pulled in a superior court. The courts frown on this but it happens.
AHM
NES Member
MA Appeals Court: Restraining Order Hearings Must Be Fair to Both Parties
Restraining orders are an essential tool that Massachusetts law makes available to help victims of abuse or harassment stay safe. Abuse prevention orders and harassment prevention orders (the two ...
ETA: Note timestamp of 4-Apr'22.
The appellate case was decided on 25-Mar'22.
Lautenberg makes the person any domestic restraining order is issued against a FEDERALLY PROHIBITED PERSON subject to EXTREME penalties for having so much as one round of ammo.
There is no exemption in Lautenberg for any reason... ask any cop who ever got jammed up on a 209A before a divorce or a 208A as part of a divorce... they are FUBAR'd as they can not "carry on the badge"
Even U S Military personnel on active or reserve duty ( or any duty status) are prohibited from handling a weapon in the service of their country if they are subject to a domestic restraining order.
The black highlighted section is the point that I originally made over which you started arguing. I find it amusing that shortly after you state I'm wrong, you make my point in an argument with someone else.
The underlined italicized section is your completely unsubstantiated assertion, based upon a single case you are aware of where the LO was acquainted with the parties. Past that, even if true, "the majority of" is not "all", therefore the only factually correct statement in all cases is that the LO has the control. Anything past that remains wishful thinking.
