Alias
Banned
Hey, numb nuts.....yeah, you.
You don't take someone's guns away for a DUI and a restraining order. In fact, you're so damn stupid, you assumed there must be a law doing exactly that when their isn't.
Get off the forum you big dope.
Hey, numb nuts.....yeah, you.
You don't take someone's guns away for a DUI and a restraining order. In fact, you're so damn stupid, you assumed there must be a law doing exactly that when their isn't.
Get off the forum you big dope.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Christ, you're stupid.
I already proved that issuance of a restraining order in domestic violence cases automatically triggers the federal law compelling surrender of all firearms and ammunition in all 50 states.
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...fender_Gun_Ban
Here's the Washington state statute, just for good measure.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=9.41.800
But don't get off the forum, Failias. It's fun to expose your stupidity.
Alias
Banned
Christ you're stupid. Nothing in there about a temporary restraining order automatically triggering a Federal Law.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
God damn, you're dumb. Get an adult to explain what this means:
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...fender_Gun_Ban
Then there's the state law:
| [h=2]RCW 9.41.800[/h][h=1]Surrender of weapons or licenses — Prohibition on future possession or licensing.[/h] | |
(a) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(b) Require the party to surrender any concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(c) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(d) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
(2) Any court when entering an order authorized under RCW 9A.46.080, 10.14.080, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, 26.50.060, 26.50.070, or 26.26.590 may, upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence but not by clear and convincing evidence, that a party has: Used, displayed, or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a felony, or previously committed any offense that makes him or her ineligible to possess a pistol under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040:
(a) Require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(b) Require the party to surrender a concealed pistol license issued under RCW 9.41.070;
(c) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon;
(d) Prohibit the party from obtaining or possessing a concealed pistol license.
(3) The court may order temporary surrender of a firearm or other dangerous weapon without notice to the other party if it finds, on the basis of the moving affidavit or other evidence, that irreparable injury could result if an order is not issued until the time for response has elapsed.
(4) In addition to the provisions of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section, the court may enter an order requiring a party to comply with the provisions in subsection (1) of this section if it finds that the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by any party presents a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety, or to the health or safety of any individual.
(5) The requirements of subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section may be for a period of time less than the duration of the order.
(6) The court may require the party to surrender any firearm or other dangerous weapon in his or her immediate possession or control or subject to his or her immediate possession or control to the sheriff of the county having jurisdiction of the proceeding, the chief of police of the municipality having jurisdiction, or to the restrained or enjoined party's counsel or to any person designated by the court.
[2002 c 302 § 704; 1996 c 295 § 14; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 430.]
Humiliate yourself some more.
Alias
Banned
Why weren't his guns taken away?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Jesus H. Christ...that's the question the OP asks...
Alias
Banned
There must be a reason. Perhaps you're missing something.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Hilarious. You've spent hours denying that the law requires law enforcement to confiscate guns when serving a domestic violence order of protection, and now you finally get it.
Obviously he got guns and ammo from somewhere.
What am I missing?
Anyone know?
Alias
Banned
You're assuming they took his guns away. We don't know that.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
If they didn't, they were supposed to. You didn't know that, apparently, until I rubbed your face in it.
Christ, you're an imbecile.
How could someone be knowledgeable about gun rights and not know the law?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
\\\legion/// just pwned himself thoroughly
i now have more proof he is just a cut and paste troll. previously he has slammed someone for not seeing or knowing the difference between "may" and "shall".....
his citation of WA law is "may" unless he has used the guns or dangerous weapons. therefore, without knowing more, the answer is quite simple:
1. may is permissive, not mandatory
2. he didn't get the restraining order because he used guns or a dangerous weapon.
you're welcome for the education
i now have more proof he is just a cut and paste troll. previously he has slammed someone for not seeing or knowing the difference between "may" and "shall".....
his citation of WA law is "may" unless he has used the guns or dangerous weapons. therefore, without knowing more, the answer is quite simple:
1. may is permissive, not mandatory
2. he didn't get the restraining order because he used guns or a dangerous weapon.
you're welcome for the education
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are such a fricking retard. you have the nerve to try and mock others when your stupidity reigns supreme in this thread?
Legion said:
so you pull federal law out of the middle hole of your ass? go back to kindergarten, dumbass.
Too bad he wasn't in CO. Bozo....or is that Bingo?
Either way, you're a fuckin' idiot
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
You must be so humiliated that your tears blinded you to my citation of Washington state statutes. Not my problem.
It's curious how such an ardent defender of the constitution is apparently ignorant of what many consider to be a rampant infringement of due process.
Maybe you should spend more time on pro-gun forums. Here's one:
Having a restraining order on you is a Federal bar to possessing firearms. Will we find out that he was a prohibited possessor for other reasons as well?
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2012/01/was-reportedly-now-dead-mt-rainier.html
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do you always have a difficult time differentiating between STATE and FEDERAL???
Alias
Banned
So find the judge who allowed this miscarriage of justice and tell us who he is.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how could someone parade around here pretending to be so knowledgable about the law and not know the difference between state and federal when telling people to google it?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Much butt-hurt. SmarterThanFew earned his nickname today.
Alias
Banned
So who is responsible for this miscarriage of justice?