Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/1/2002 1:41:43 PM EST
[url]http://www.thetimesonline.com/index.pl/articlesubpc?id=25152511[/url] Agreements could strip away the right to own a gun BY BOB KASARDA Times Staff Writer Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 VALPARAISO -- Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber dug around his desk and pulled out a single-page notice likely to come as a surprise to some recently divorced individuals and their attorneys. The official-looking document announces in capital letters and bold type that as a result of specific wording used in divorce agreements to protect one or both parties from harm, the federal Brady Act has been invoked. The result is the potential offender loses his or her right to possess a firearm and is required to turn over all weapons.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 1:57:47 PM EST
This is nothing new to this, its been around since the Brady Bill came into effect. It's only now that people are realizing that they are giving up their second ammendment rights when they sign divorce papers worded like those. "Standard wording", I don't think so, I have been divorced and mine say nothing of the sort and there was never a draft that did. You would have to be an idiot to agree to a protective order when you did nothing wrong. Jake
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 2:03:14 PM EST
My brother had a restraining order slapped on him from his ex, because of this he can no longer buy guns retail. But there is no restrictions for owning firearms, now there a stupid law.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 2:11:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 2:15:02 PM EST by GSG9]
Originally Posted By sniped: My brother had a restraining order slapped on him from his ex, because of this he can no longer buy guns retail. But there is no restrictions for owning firearms, now there a stupid law.
View Quote
Really? I think he had better ask an ATF inspector if his opinion of this matter is correct. Jake
[center][b]RESTRAINING ORDERS[/center][/b] The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended existing firearms statutes to make it unlawful for persons subject to certain restraining orders to receive, ship, transport or possess firearms or ammunition. To be disabling, the restraining order must: Be issued after a hearing of which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate. Specifically restrain the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner (e.g., spouse or former spouse) or the child of an intimate partner . Include a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the intimate partner or child OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. This new amendment does not prohibit persons subject to such restraining orders from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of a Federal, State or local law enforcement agency. ATF Forms 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, have been amended to include this category of prohibited person. Federal firearms licensees should destroy all obsolete 4473 s and use only those that include this category. If you have any questions regarding prohibitive restraining orders, please contact your nearest ATF office. NOTE: We were unable to revise ATF Form 5300.35 (Brady form) due to the strict wording of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act regarding the information that can be requested on that form. However, if a licensee has reason to believe that a person is subject to a disabling restraining order, the licensee should not transfer a firearm to that individual.
View Quote
The above can be found on BATF's website at [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fflnews_pub/ffl0995.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/4/2002 9:28:43 PM EST
Specifically restrain the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner (e.g., spouse or former spouse) or the child of an intimate partner But if you dont know them its perfectly allright.
Top Top