209a Protection Orders (and firearms)

[Republic of Mass]

Well, this thread was going to start a nice debate over "restraining orders" and firearms. But, after looking at a 209a we have on file here at dispatch, I don't get it.
Origional post:

Well, as you know, per MGL, anyone who is named in a 209a Protection Order (Restraining order) is disqualified from possesing any firearm license, and therefore any firearms / ammunition.

If the deffendant hasn't already transfered his firearms to someone by the time the police / courts serve the papers, they're required to immediatetly surrender them. (And dealers are happy to pick them up for you, for at least $100/per gun)

Why? All because a sneaky lawyer had his client file for a 209a becasue of pending divorce case, and he/she needs more leverage against the other spouce.

If anyone has ever seen a 209a order, there are actualy different "levels" of orders. Meaning "do not contact", "do not abuse" "stay away from residence" "stay away from workplace" "visitation rights" "no visitation rights" as well as other stipulations and orders, like compensation and child support

That being said, i realized that Section 12 of the restraing order is "Immediate threat of violence, surrender firearms to P.D."

I just looked through about 50 209a's we have, and every one has section 12 'selected', thereby ordering the party named in the order to surrender the weapons, per MGL.

So, are the courts just covering their @$$? Or do they really believe that because somone got into a little verbal pissing contest with someone, and the plantif took it to an unnecesary level, that they're an immediate threat to that person's wellbeing, and must surrender their personal protection, property, and hobby?

The 209a system is, IMO, becoming more and more of a "make you look bad" cry like a baby system, than a true system for people in danger to get one more thing to protect themselves...

I was in a nice little disagrement with a female I was dating this weekend, and realized mid-streem that nothing at all stops this woman, like anyone, from going to a judge and saying she feels threatened, and there goes my guns, license and oppertunity to continue in LE work).....

So what do you think? Is it reasonable that the courts are ordering all 209a defendants loose their firearm rights, or there shold be a more complex system to the entire system of prevention orders?

All this being said, I realize that it is 'just a piece of paper' and nothing actualy stops someone from commiting a crime. It just keeps the honest people more honest, and provides LEO and Courts more leverage in abuse situations. Nothing will stop everyone, but it sure adds one more level of 'what if' to persons considering violent actions, as violating the prevention order is just one more effect to deal with

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yup, big can of worms.

I suggest that you read Ch. 209A completely.

That LAW used to give the judge some leeway on confiscation of property rights, BUT the LAW was changed and the Judge/Police have NO discretion any more.

209A means ALL guns, ammo, components, licenses, house keys, etc. MUST be handed over immediately. [You ONLY get to leave with the clothes on your back, no going back to pack, taking bankbooks, etc. If you don't leave immediately the law says that the Police MUST arrest.] Even if the order is vacated when the hearing takes place within 10 days, you are almost certainly going to lose all the above anyway permanently. Don't know any PDs that will give you back your stuff . . . they are all scared shitless about liability if you do take revenge, so they lean on "suitability" and revoke your LTC and keep the guns/ammo/components. They may ship off to storage (no permission needed) and it will usually cost you more to retrieve them (not really, actually give to a dealer to sell for you) than they are worth.

Yes, most "good" divorce attorneys who specialize in representing women demand that the woman get a 209A . . . they use it as a bargaining chip to get more than 50% of property/money. . . and it is a very effectively mis-used tool!

 

[Moderator]

Thats one scary piece of paper. How easy is it to get someone served one of these? Are some towns more willing to hand these out then others?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

209A

Temporary 209As are issued "on request" - all the applicant needs to do is say "I fear violence" and have a family to dating relationship with the target of the order.

Longer term 209A's require a hearing wihtin 10 days (2 days if your job depends on being able to posess firearms).

Once the hearing has been held, the prohibition becomes federal as the federal law requires you be given the opprotunity to appear before a kangaroo court (ooops, I meant "inpartial finder of fact") for the prohibition to kick in at the federal level. The state level prohibition starts immediately.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How easy one asks?

Pick up the phone, call your local PD and say "I am in fear".

The PD MUST call a judge on standby (no kidding 24x7 someone is assigned to take the calls and issue 209As). Judge MUST ISSUE the 209A and the police head over to the house with it and the guy is "toast" . . . forever!

The accusation itself in this state is enough to kill your rights to possess guns for the rest of your life. Even if the judge's hearing 10 days later shows it be all a pile of Bull . . . he can vacate the order but the local chief can declare you "unsuitable". IIRC the FLRB can not hear any cases involving accusations of domestic violence and thus you are screwed for life here (and possibly in many other states as well).

Only exception to this rule that I'm aware of is if you are a wealthy, well-known ball player (baseball, football, basketball). Many have had numerous DV complaints hit the courts, and yet they still have LTCs and guns in MA (and probably elsewhere as well).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

FLRB

The FLRB cannot hear cases involving a conviction for domestic violence. Cases involving vacated restraining orders are not a matter for the FLRB, since the FLRB exists only to remove statuatory restrictions in very limited circumstances. The FLRB may not direct a police chief to issue a license, but may under very specific situations, remove the legal prohibition from the chief doing so. Simply put the chief still has to make a "suitability" decision even if the application for an FLRB relief from disability has his application approved.

If there is no conviction for violating the restraining order, there is no statuatory prohibition - however, you need a pro-gun chief; lots of money; a connection; or incredible luck to get the guns back. If you're convicted of a violation you get a lifetime, non-revocable except by pardon, federal prohibition on gun or ammo posession..

There was one case where a child could not open the door to the building in which he lived when being dropped off from visitation. The father was convicted of a RO violation for getting out of his car to open the door, as the terms of the order required him to remain in the car at pickup and dropoff.

 

[Skald]

I had a messy break up with an ex-gf and she knew I loved guns and most likely considering filing a 209a. I had to point out a few things quickly to remind her she is in my neck of the country and not hers.

But I was scared shitless for a long time not sure if she would still go through with it.

 

[dwarven1]

RoM mentioned the disagreement with someone he's dating, and someone else mentioned that the person in question has to be in a "family to dating" relationship, and yet someone else mentioned vacating the house...

does this apply to someone who is dating someone else, but NOT living together? IE, Joe is dating Jane, but they're not living together. Jane gets upset and Joe and wants to hurt him in the holster... can she call the PD and say "I'm in fear"? What happens in that case - the PD just comes and drops off a piece of paper and confiscates his guns?

Just wondering.

Ross

 

[Cross-X]

Does this apply to someone who is dating someone else, but NOT living together? IE, Joe is dating Jane, but they're not living together. Jane gets upset and Joe and wants to hurt him in the holster... can she call the PD and say "I'm in fear"? What happens in that case - the PD just comes and drops off a piece of paper and confiscates his guns?

Just wondering.

Ross

Yes, the litmus test for issuance of a 209A restraining order for dates is whether a "substantial dating relationship" existed. If it did, the relationship is 209A restraining order eligible.

If there was no substantial dating relationship, the plaintiff is not lleft without a remedy. Instead of seeking a restraining order in District Court, she must go to Superior Court and get a restraining order there.

One more thing, Ross, as a lawyer, I should remind you that you are a married man.

 

[dwarven1]

Yes, the litmus test for issuance of a 209A restraining order for dates is whether a "substantial dating relationship" existed. If it did, the relationship is 209A restraining order eligible.

So in that case, all that happens is that the guns get seized, right? The guy doesn't have to leave his own home if she doesn't live there, does he?

One more thing, Ross, as a lawyer, I should remind you that you are a married man.

and here I was wondering what this ring on my left hand was for! Thanks for clearing that up, Darius!

Just one thing... You ever see a marriage certificate? [twisted] [twisted] We can't find the original... seems to be missing. [twisted]

One of these days I'll have to write the town we got married in and see if they have a record of it. [twisted]

Seriously, I don't expect to need to know any of this, I'm just curious about how it works.

Ross

 

[Cross-X]

Yes, the litmus test for issuance of a 209A restraining order for dates is whether a "substantial dating relationship" existed. If it did, the relationship is 209A restraining order eligible.

So in that case, all that happens is that the guns get seized, right? The guy doesn't have to leave his own home if she doesn't live there, does he?

Yes, you are correct. If she does not live with him, he does not have to leave his own home. If she does live there, it is a nightmare for him.

One more thing, Ross, as a lawyer, I should remind you that you are a married man.

and here I was wondering what this ring on my left hand was for! Thanks for clearing that up, Darius!

Just one thing... You ever see a marriage certificate? [twisted] [twisted] We can't find the original... seems to be missing. [twisted]

One of these days I'll have to write the town we got married in and see if they have a record of it. [twisted]

Yes, you can get another copy in the city or town where you applied for yoru marriage license, which may or may not be the town you got married in.