Restraining Order

[bronzepen]

I know someone who wants to join but has a harassment restraining order. It's a legal injunction and not a criminal record or felony.

There are no charges. Just a restraining order. It's 10 years old and will never expire.
Also, should he disclose it since it's not a criminal offense or felony?

Thanks.

[SteveLord]

I always say, its better to explain it now....instead of explain it AND ask for forgiveness for not bringing it up later.

[ParalegalNCO1]

I know someone who wants to join but has a harassment restraining order. It's a legal injunction and not a criminal record or felony.

There are no charges. Just a restraining order. It's 10 years old and will never expire.
Also, should he disclose it since it's not a criminal offense or felony?

Thanks.

Civilian restraining order is not a disqualifyer. There may be a question asking about civil offense, but IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

[RedLeg]

The only issue I could see is if the restraining order prevented someone from owning/possessing a weapon. In the jurisdiction where I work, this langauge is often included in these orders.

[ParalegalNCO1]

The only issue I could see is if the restraining order prevented someone from owning/possessing a weapon. In the jurisdiction where I work, this langauge is often included in these orders.

Most domestic violence restraining orders forbid you from possessing a weapon however there is an exception for that for military service. There is NOT an exception for a criminal conviction, but if it's just an order you are fine. I can post the actual law when I get home if you all are interested.

[bronzepen]

Most domestic violence restraining orders forbid you from possessing a weapon however there is an exception for that for military service. There is NOT an exception for a criminal conviction, but if it's just an order you are fine. I can post the actual law when I get home if you all are interested.

Yes, that is what I told my friend. He only has the order, no conviction.

Also, the law is you are forbidden from "owning" a fire arm. You do not own the weapon that is "lent" to you when in the military. That is owned by the US govt. It is a fine line but acceptable. Same way, you can go hunting or a shooting range with a friend who owns the weapons but you can use it while there.

[Mr_Loki]

Also, the law is you are forbidden from "owning" a fire arm. You do not own the weapon that is "lent" to you when in the military. That is owned by the US govt. It is a fine line but acceptable. Same way, you can go hunting or a shooting range with a friend who owns the weapons but you can use it while there.

:confused: :confused:

[ParalegalNCO1]

Yes, that is what I told my friend. He only has the order, no conviction.

Also, the law is you are forbidden from "owning" a fire arm. You do not own the weapon that is "lent" to you when in the military. That is owned by the US govt. It is a fine line but acceptable. Same way, you can go hunting or a shooting range with a friend who owns the weapons but you can use it while there.

ummm....no.

Doesn't matter who owns it. It forbids you from "possesing" a weapon. The exception is that you can still posses one while in service for the United States, as the law specifically reads.

Furthermore, it is a misdemeanor to give ANYONE who currently has an order a weapon...again, except for that exception I already noted.

[7011USMC]

Don't you just love word games! Paralegal thanks for the clarification

[Mr_Loki]

I thought I clarified it!

[ParalegalNCO1]

I thought I clarified it!

You pointed out it made no sense, I think I did the clarifying :D

[SGT Bart]

You pointed out it made no sense, I think I did the clarifying :D


No I think Teuvil did, sorry

[bronzepen]

ummm....no.

Doesn't matter who owns it. It forbids you from "possesing" a weapon. The exception is that you can still posses one while in service for the United States, as the law specifically reads.

Furthermore, it is a misdemeanor to give ANYONE who currently has an order a weapon...again, except for that exception I already noted.

You are correct. Here is the fine print. BTW this of for the state of NJ.

In proceedings in which complaints for restraining orders have been filed, the court shall grant any relief necessary to prevent further abuse. In addition to any other provisions, any restraining order issued by the court shall bar the defendant from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling a firearm and from receiving or retaining a firearms purchaser identification card or permit to purchase a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 during the period in which the restraining order is in effect or two years whichever is greater, except that this provision shall not apply to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty, or to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or member of the National Guard while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty. At the hearing the judge of the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court may issue an order granting any or all of the following relief:"

[ParalegalNCO1]

You are correct. Here is the fine print. BTW this of for the state of NJ.


I always am correct, it's just that sometimes others choose not to believe me, even in the face of facts.

[SGT Bart]

I always am correct, it's just that sometimes others choose not to believe me, even in the face of facts.

no i think Tuevil did, sorry