-
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.
Collecting a friend's guns after a restraining order..
- Thread starter milktree
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
I think the requirement in this state is a MA Licensed Dealer.
I don't think the Lautenberg amendment prohibits police from transferring to another legal party - it was MA law that added the "dealer only for a 209A" provision.
This is why everyone should have a good relationship with one FFL who can handle this sort of thing - even if it means you sometimes pay $20 more than "rock bottom" for a gun or $10 more than the cheapest guy doing transfers.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6
- Likes
- 0
I just got an email stating that the Attleboro police chief is giving my ffl the run around. What should I do?
LAWYER! Atty Jason Guida or Keith Langer can get it done!
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
Ask your FFL if he can show up at the PD with a copy of his FFL valid for the PD stating that the gun/s are being picked up for safe storage, a copy of his dealers license, a copy of his LTC, a locking case of the right size, originals of all his licenses for viewing and a picture of a safe. See what they say then. Jack.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Keith is awesome
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
Your attorney should also deliver a letter, with copy by certified mail, to the chief documenting that (a) You have given permission to, and requested, a state licensed dealer take possession of the guns pursuant to MGL Chapter 140 Section 129D; (b) The date on which the dealer is arriving at the police station to pick up the guns. This should be the same date as the letter, and the first copy delivered in person by the attorney who arrives with the dealer, (c) You are specifically demanding that they do not turn the guns over to a bonded warehouse as you have arranged prompt lawful transfer to a dealer, and (d) you will litigate for any expenses, loss and damage to the guns if they are turned over to the warehouse despite your arrangement of a dealer.
You need to "ambush" the PD by having the attorney+dealer just show up at the PD with the letter and documentation of dealer status. If you give them a courtesy of a "call ahead", the PD may call Dowd and ask him to "hurry up".
The well prepared individual has such a letter prepared for delivery to the PD with any confiscated guns.
It's also important to have your attorney handle everything, so the documentation as to the steps taken is "clean", and you lay the proper groundwork for legal action if the guns are not transferred. It also makes it less likely the police will lie about what transpired, or try to claim that you did not follow the proper procedure in arranging transfer to the dealer.
So I have read most of the posts. It seems that there has to be a consequence for a BS RO. Now in all my reading I never really found out why an RO was issued to the OP's friend. I may have skipped right over that....even so, the thread took a little turn about the validity of these RO's and when i read post #50 that was kind of scary.
There should be fines and jail time as consequences to someone who files for an RO just for spite. If there are no consequences then anybody can jam anyone up with out any backlash for false reports. It is ridiculous that the lawyers file them for lots of divorce cases. Divorce should not be a cause or a reason for an RO. There really should be a higher standard than that.
There should be fines and jail time as consequences to someone who files for an RO just for spite. If there are no consequences then anybody can jam anyone up with out any backlash for false reports. It is ridiculous that the lawyers file them for lots of divorce cases. Divorce should not be a cause or a reason for an RO. There really should be a higher standard than that.
robjax, if they prosecuted for false ROs or lying wrt divorce/child support issues, the system would come to a grinding halt and damn near everyone involved could face jail time/huge legal expenses/fines.
They just ignore the fact that many claims are lies or embellishments (being generous here).
They just ignore the fact that many claims are lies or embellishments (being generous here).
From my firsthand experience I can attest to this. Even when the judge knows what was submitted for the temp RO was COMPLETE BS, the RO is dismissed and that's it. There are zero repercussions for the lies put on the temp RO application. There is literally no risk in lying, the ADA was sitting right there with the cop from my town assigned to represent the town at court. They were not part of the hearing to extend the temp RO but heard all the lies and BS (and they knew the whole situation and much more from other issues with the nut) and they do nothing.
The cops hate the RO system. At 4pm when local cops get the court orders for the day and drive around delivering the temp RO's issued that day, they've told me 90% of them are complete BS and a waste of their time. The woman detective for my town told me the whole system is a joke and worthless. She said MA is far worse than other states.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
The system doesn't even prosecute for false rape allegations when the bogosity is provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
The thinking is that that it is better to have 100 bogus ROs than fail to issue one that is warranted, plus, prosecution for perjury in an RO application or rape case would have a chilling effect on legitimate victims and make them fearful of filing a report.
The thinking is that that it is better to have 100 bogus ROs than fail to issue one that is warranted, plus, prosecution for perjury in an RO application or rape case would have a chilling effect on legitimate victims and make them fearful of filing a report.
Last edited:
Are you familiar with mattress girl emma sulkowicz from columbia university? Harrassed the guy for the past 2 or 3 yrs with clearly false rape allegations. She's. Feminist hero now. Sen gillibrand had her as a state of the union guest. Sick.
I know a crazy woman who has had a restraining order on her ex-boyfriend for almost 2 decades. She keeps renewing it, despite the fact he has never broken the RO, and so far as I know, lives on the other side of the country. And I know it was a BS thing. I was there. And I know them both. She's batshit crazy and I haven't let my self be in her presence ever since then.
It really comes down to "Be careful who you breed with". It can't be emphasized enough.
ROs are totally unconstitutional, under any reading of the constitution. I am just mid blown that NO RO that I am aware of has EVER gotten to the supreme court. Why is that? Nobody wealthy enough with a clear cut win has ever gotten an RO and bothered to push it all the way up the food chain? Man....
And yes, 98% of them are total BS. Furthermore, do you know how many women are killed each year even after getting an RO? ROs protect nobody! I suspect, in legitimate cases, they further enrage the bad guy!
It really comes down to "Be careful who you breed with". It can't be emphasized enough.
ROs are totally unconstitutional, under any reading of the constitution. I am just mid blown that NO RO that I am aware of has EVER gotten to the supreme court. Why is that? Nobody wealthy enough with a clear cut win has ever gotten an RO and bothered to push it all the way up the food chain? Man....
And yes, 98% of them are total BS. Furthermore, do you know how many women are killed each year even after getting an RO? ROs protect nobody! I suspect, in legitimate cases, they further enrage the bad guy!
ROs forbid ANY contact. Text, Email, phone are all methods that are prohibited via RO and distance apart doesn't matter then does it?
To continue what Len said, if the guy told a mutual friend, "oh tell stephanie I said Hi", that is a violation of an RO. Any contact will get you arrested and appearing before a judge. It doesn't need to be threatening, as Len said, any contact even if indirect.
If I were him, I would spend the money for a plane flight and lawyer and get it dismissed. It's not wise to leave it out there even if it's been 2 years and he's 3000 miles away.
She either didn't know the system or didn't want to screw you over. If she did (either or both), she would expend next to nothing for effort and the system would go to work grinding you up. She get's a victim advocate and everything.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Even though I am a woman, I see some particularly evil examples of my sex. My neighbor across the street has a son in his late 20's. I've know him since he was just a child. He was a quiet kid, and went hunting with his father every year. Years later he meets this pretty girl who later on turns out to be a drunk and addict but only after they have a kid. Thankfully he didn't marry her. So they go to break up and he wants to take the son to keep him out of an addicts household and she fights him in court.
But one thing she did do was to slap a restraining order on him and presto he lost his gun rights. I personally believe she did that as a way of getting back at him since he was an avid hunter and knew exactly how to hurt this guy. He didn't commit any crimes, he's never been a violent guy, he just shacked up with a crazy chick.
So when people talk about wife beaters shouldn't have the ability to get guns and shoot their wives, yeah sure I can understand that. But there doesn't seem to be a way to let the innocent off the hook when they are being manipulated by a vindictive spouse. That's the example I see every day.
Which I suppose brings me to my question. Despite the restraining order, would I be violating a law if I invited him to range to go shooting with me? Or would he be violating a law? Or both of us? I have sort of felt sorry for this guy because he got such a rotten deal.
But one thing she did do was to slap a restraining order on him and presto he lost his gun rights. I personally believe she did that as a way of getting back at him since he was an avid hunter and knew exactly how to hurt this guy. He didn't commit any crimes, he's never been a violent guy, he just shacked up with a crazy chick.
So when people talk about wife beaters shouldn't have the ability to get guns and shoot their wives, yeah sure I can understand that. But there doesn't seem to be a way to let the innocent off the hook when they are being manipulated by a vindictive spouse. That's the example I see every day.
Which I suppose brings me to my question. Despite the restraining order, would I be violating a law if I invited him to range to go shooting with me? Or would he be violating a law? Or both of us? I have sort of felt sorry for this guy because he got such a rotten deal.
MachineHead
NES Member
It looks like the only way out of these bs ROs is to legislate the hell out of them to include specific qualifiers and thresholds. I'm for less government intrusion, but it sucks when good people get shanghaied and the only correct way out is through legal means.
It should be required that there be a documented history of violence or criminal past to get an RO, not just words or emotions. This, at the very least, shows a good-faith effort that it seems less likely the basis for the RO is bullshit.
It should be required that there be a documented history of violence or criminal past to get an RO, not just words or emotions. This, at the very least, shows a good-faith effort that it seems less likely the basis for the RO is bullshit.
I agree with you with the addition that some divorce attorneys push their female clients to get an RO as a "bargaining chip" in child support/visitation/divorce actions.
The 209A RO is the MA implementation of the Lautenberg Act, a federal law and IIRC it makes the person a federally PP while the RO is in force. Therefore, he'd be risking jail and if you knowingly hand him a gun/ammo I suspect that you'd also be at risk of prosecution. I do suggest checking that out . . . a Google search gave the best info relating to ROs here on a MIL website.
http://www.bragg.army.mil/directora...s/Information Papers/Lautenberg Amendment.pdf
The federal penalties seem to be $250K fine and up to 10 years in federal prison.
- - - Updated - - -
Agree but don't see that ever happening especially in MA.
M60
NES Member
I can't see how you taking him to shoot your legally owned firearms, at a legitimate gun club would be a violation of any law.
His RO probably only restricts him from possessing and or carrying. Ask him to read the specifics of his RO to be sure. Other than the can't do's in his RO, he should be just like any other non gun owner citizen.
His RO probably only restricts him from possessing and or carrying. Ask him to read the specifics of his RO to be sure. Other than the can't do's in his RO, he should be just like any other non gun owner citizen.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6
- Likes
- 0
yeah, that won't do any good because the chief still has to sign off on it. I am taking this matter to the city solicitor to make them look up the law.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
Contact through the other party's attorney is permitted, otherwise, divorces could not be negotiated.
This is true, however, prosecution for this temporary possession is rarely prosecuted unless one of the involved parties is a Muslim. There was a case of an Egyptian student who was prosecuted for the temporary holding of a rifle.
I annoyed a bunch of people at work when I limited the 50 caliber outing to US citizens and permanent residents.
M60
NES Member
Based on your position, it would also be just as illegal to bring any non licensed person to a gun club to shoot, since possession is illegal if not licensed.
Similar threads
