PDA

View Full Version : Neighbor Gets TRO Against "Gun Nut"


halifax
08-31-2009, 4:32 AM
So, I met this guy who got into a spat with a neighbor. The neighbor called the cops and told them she was afraid because the guy is a "gun nut". The responding officer told her to file a TRO against him. Mind you no firearms were involved or displayed during the spat. The guy is a stand-up, law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, but the neighbor knew he owned firearms. Apparently that is enough to be granted a TRO. He was forced to transfer his firearms to a responsible party. :mad: Fortunately, a judge dismissed the order and this guy had to pay again to transfer everything back.

Is there a civil claim that could be made here or is he just SOL? I've never seen a case like this on Judge Judy.

EDIT: After a brief Google, I see this guy is pretty much SOL given the current state of DV jurisprudence:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/173-restraining-orders-out-of-control

yellowfin
08-31-2009, 6:00 AM
Perhaps sue for defamation of character?

B Strong
08-31-2009, 6:13 AM
So, I met this guy who got into a spat with a neighbor. The neighbor called the cops and told them she was afraid because the guy is a "gun nut". The responding officer told her to file a TRO against him. Mind you no firearms were involved or displayed during the spat. The guy is a stand-up, law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, but the neighbor knew he owned firearms. Apparently that is enough to be granted a TRO. He was forced to transfer his firearms to a responsible party. :mad: Fortunately, a judge dismissed the order and this guy had to pay again to transfer everything back.

Is there a civil claim that could be made here or is he just SOL? I've never seen a case like this on Judge Judy.

EDIT: After a brief Google, I see this guy is pretty much SOL given the current state of DV jurisprudence:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/173-restraining-orders-out-of-control

"Neighbor" doesn't qualify as DV.

Tell your friend to consult an attorney.

Sobriquet
08-31-2009, 6:23 AM
Yet another unfortunate example of why you probably shouldn't tell neighbors you own firearms in this unwelcoming state.

1923mack
08-31-2009, 7:07 AM
So much for the principle of innocent untill proven guilty.

cortayack
08-31-2009, 7:25 AM
So much for the principle of innocent untill proven guilty.

+1......Thats where we are heading or maybe we are already there.....

jamespres2001
08-31-2009, 7:39 AM
Does anyone have one of those Yard signs that say sometime like " Attention Burglars My neighbor does not own a gun and I Promise I won't use my 2nd Admin. to protector her"

halifax
08-31-2009, 7:48 AM
"Neighbor" doesn't qualify as DV.

Tell your friend to consult an attorney.

I only used DV in reference to the link I posted. TROs can be brought against anyone even if you've never met them. Ask David Letterman.

Lancear15
08-31-2009, 8:42 AM
TROs need reform. Just like most anything the gov has produced other then the bill of rights.

andalusi
08-31-2009, 8:46 AM
So, I met this guy who got into a spat with a neighbor. The neighbor called the cops and told them she was afraid because the guy is a "gun nut". The responding officer told her to file a TRO against him. Mind you no firearms were involved or displayed during the spat. The guy is a stand-up, law abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, but the neighbor knew he owned firearms. Apparently that is enough to be granted a TRO. He was forced to transfer his firearms to a responsible party. :mad: Fortunately, a judge dismissed the order and this guy had to pay again to transfer everything back.

This sounds rather fishy to me. The woman should not have been able to get a TRO simply because she alleged her neighbor owned guns. Unless, of course, she lied big time, in which case, I'm wondering why the judge didn't slam her at the hearing.

Out of curiosity, did the "gun nut" :rolleyes: surrender his firearms to the local police department or did he outright sell them to a dealer?


Is there a civil claim that could be made here or is he just SOL? I've never seen a case like this on Judge Judy.

In the State of California, the losing party in a civil harassment can be made the other party's court costs and attorney fees. I have no idea how often that occurs, but I suspect if it's a completely bogus claim---i.e., if the person was, ironically, using a restraining order to harass an innocent party---the judge would be much more inclined to award the victim of the unjust TRO costs and fees.

As for what civil claims the unjustly accused neighbor could bring, I can think of several possibilities, but that's something he really should discuss with a lawyer face-to-face.

Also, Judge Judy is a bad place to learn law! For one thing, the show is not a small claims court in action: it's an arbitration center with the appearance of a courtroom. And small claims courts are nowhere near as dramatic and neither are the parties allowed to expound on their stories as much as you see on Judge Judy. The magistrate or judge already has all the documents, has read the statements, and will ask a few questions as needed to make a ruling. Prior to that, he or she will ask the parties to try to mediate their disagreement in the hallway (there are paid and volunteer mediators for most small claims courts in California).

EDIT: After a brief Google, I see this guy is pretty much SOL given the current state of DV jurisprudence....[/URL]

Your example above would not have been a domestic violence TRO. If they're just neighbors, then she filed for a civil harassment TRO.

00BuckShot
08-31-2009, 8:50 AM
My neighbor is a gun nut. Antelope and deer heads hanging in his garage. Polaris Ranger 4x4 with gun scabbords. I think I'm safe!

halifax
08-31-2009, 8:57 AM
This sounds rather fishy to me. The woman should not have been able to get a TRO simply because she alleged her neighbor owned guns. Unless, of course, she lied big time, in which case, I'm wondering why the judge didn't slam her at the hearing.

Restraing Orders can be filed against most anyone. See David Letterman's experience (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/173-restraining-orders-out-of-control)

Out of curiosity, did the "gun nut" :rolleyes: surrender his firearms to the local police department or did he outright sell them to a dealer?

He transferred them to a friend for safe keeping.


In the State of California, the losing party in a civil harassment can be made the other party's court costs and attorney fees. I have no idea how often that occurs, but I suspect if it's a completely bogus claim---i.e., if the person was, ironically, using a restraining order to harass an innocent party---the judge would be much more inclined to award the victim of the unjust TRO costs and fees.

As for what civil claims the unjustly accused neighbor could bring, I can think of several possibilities, but that's something he really should discuss with a lawyer face-to-face.

I think he is talking with a lawyer

Also, Judge Judy is a bad place to learn law! For one thing, the show is not a small claims court in action: it's an arbitration center with the appearance of a courtroom. And small claims courts are nowhere near as dramatic and neither are the parties allowed to expound on their stories as much as you see on Judge Judy. The magistrate or judge already has all the documents, has read the statements, and will ask a few questions as needed to make a ruling. Prior to that, he or she will ask the parties to try to mediate their disagreement in the hallway (there are paid and volunteer mediators for most small claims courts in California).

The Judge Judy comment was tongue-in-cheek


Your example above would not have been a domestic violence TRO. If they're just neighbors, then she filed for a civil harassment TRO.

The DV reference was meant for the link I posted.

M1A Rifleman
08-31-2009, 9:41 AM
Yet another unfortunate example of why you probably shouldn't tell neighbors you own firearms in this unwelcoming state.


+1.

Casual_Shooter
08-31-2009, 9:45 AM
The TRO system is not meant to be an "all facts considered" event. It is to immediately protect someone (who says they are) in possible danger. After a short time period, both parties show up in court to present their case and a permanent RO is granted - or not.

Just like someone can sue someone for anything, it only takes a sworn statement to get a TRO.

Also, nobody checks to make sure you surrender your firearms. At least not in our case. From talking with my atty and the local sheriff's dept, we would have to call the courthouse to find out whether or not the person the TRO was filed against actually surrendered them to a police department, but otherwise, no one follows up.

gregorylucas
08-31-2009, 10:42 AM
I knew a guy that had to defend himself against a TRO at the hearing. If the judge views the accusations as baseless and without merit there is a possibility that you can get attorneys fees (as he did in his case).

As some others have said in this thread for me it violates the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty."

Greg

yellowfin
08-31-2009, 10:57 AM
Yet another unfortunate example of why you probably shouldn't tell neighbors you own firearms in this unwelcoming state. Because you don't, they continue to abuse and malign you at the ballot box, in social circles, in your kids' classrooms, and in print and speech.

halifax
08-31-2009, 12:48 PM
The TRO system is not meant to be an "all facts considered" event. It is to immediately protect someone (who says they are) in possible danger. After a short time period, both parties show up in court to present their case and a permanent RO is granted - or not.

Just like someone can sue someone for anything, it only takes a sworn statement to get a TRO.

Also, nobody checks to make sure you surrender your firearms. At least not in our case. From talking with my atty and the local sheriff's dept, we would have to call the courthouse to find out whether or not the person the TRO was filed against actually surrendered them to a police department, but otherwise, no one follows up.

That is the way it was here too. Unless the person who filed the TRO pushed the Sheriff's Dept to do it. Now they pay a mandatory visit within 24hrs to be certain.

Untamed1972
08-31-2009, 12:52 PM
They need to change the whole TRO system such that the hearing is held within 48 hours of it's filing and that no one is expected to divest themselves of any legally owned property until the judge has made a ruling. Being required to divest oneself of property simply because of an accusation just seems wrong on so many levels.

I wonder if with rulings like Heller these TRO requirements could be challenged? What other fundamental right is a person expected to give up simply on the accusation of another?

MrClamperSir
08-31-2009, 1:04 PM
This is disgusting IMO. I guess the tin foil hat still has a place amongst gun owners.

Josh3239
08-31-2009, 1:08 PM
Does anyone have one of those Yard signs that say sometime like " Attention Burglars My neighbor does not own a gun and I Promise I won't use my 2nd Admin. to protector her"

:laugh:

http://www.shortarmguy.com/NeighborGunRightsSign.jpg

WeekendWarrior
08-31-2009, 1:30 PM
That sign is almost perfect, it needs a blinking arrow all lit up at night though.

Maybe add some verbage like - They have a Plasma TV, Blu Ray, lots of jewelry, etc. hahahaha Antis will never figure it out until it happens to them.

bruce381
08-31-2009, 8:55 PM
Ok I'm not up on half of the abrevations what is TRO?

tyrist
08-31-2009, 8:58 PM
Ok I'm not up on half of the abrevations what is TRO?

Temporary restraining order...It's what you get prior to a hearing done with the other party and a judge.

MrClamperSir
08-31-2009, 10:06 PM
Ok I'm not up on half of the abrevations what is TRO?

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

SJgunguy24
08-31-2009, 10:19 PM
So what to stop somebody from filing a TRO under false pretense. Then having their gang banger homies pull off a home invasion now knowing there firearms have been removed.

What recourse could you have? Just imagine if it went farther than just armed robbery? Scary thought but if the parties involved don't even have to know each other I could see this being abused to no end.

Sheepdog1968
08-31-2009, 10:41 PM
My 2 cents, do nothing. The last thing you want to do is piss off a crazy neighbor by filing a lawsuit. Your friend has his guns back. Don't give the neighbor any reason to be more upset with your friend. The money he spent to date will pale in comparison to what will happen by irking his neighbor. When I was younger (now 41) I would have wanted to sue. As I've gotten older, I can clearly see that no good will come from a lawsuit to gain back a few hundred or thosdand dollars.

G17GUY
09-01-2009, 12:11 AM
My 2 cents, do nothing.

:mad:

andalusi
09-01-2009, 6:12 AM
Restraing Orders can be filed against most anyone. See David Letterman's experience (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/173-restraining-orders-out-of-control)


Sure, they can be, but I'm not arguing that point. My point is that she wouldn't have got one just for saying her neighbor has guns and she's afraid. She would have had to come up with some lie on top of that to sway a judge.

At least, I would hope most judges recognize that simply owning guns is not in itself any indicative of a threat. (Though that could just be wistful thinking on my part.)


He transferred them to a friend for safe keeping.


And he got them back all right without any trouble with the law? I'm asking because I'm curious what the procedure actually is. I know that the restrained party is supposed to either turn the guns over to the police or sell them to a dealer, but just how that's enforced or whether anyone checks is not something I've ever encountered.

I do know that the police are allowed to charge the restrained party the cost of storage for the firearms, which implies to me that the owner can get them back when and if the restraining order is lifted... but I haven't found anything *explicitly* stating that the police must return the weapons.



I think he is talking with a lawyer


Good. You have no idea how happy I am to read this. Restraining orders are meant to protect actual victims, not to harass innocent folks. Frivolous TROs take time and resources away from parties who are in genuine danger---frivolous filers should be punished.


The Judge Judy comment was tongue-in-cheek


Sorry for jumping the gun with my response, then. Sadly, I have met a fair number of people who think that a combination of Judge Judy, Law & Order, and CSI have made them lawyers in all but name....

andalusi
09-01-2009, 6:38 AM
They need to change the whole TRO system such that the hearing is held within 48 hours of it's filing and that no one is expected to divest themselves of any legally owned property until the judge has made a ruling. Being required to divest oneself of property simply because of an accusation just seems wrong on so many levels.


I agree. An accusation and a TRO shouldn't result in any permanent loss of property.

To me, it makes more sense to me to require a person faced with a TRO to temporarily give up his or her firearms (either to the police or some other entity with secure storage, like a firing range or gun store). If the hearing determines there was no basis for a restraining order, then the false accuser should be forced to pay for the cost of storage.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-01-2009, 7:10 AM
http://www.acronymfinder.com/



Thank you!

The Raisuli

jamespres2001
09-01-2009, 7:18 AM
That sign is almost perfect, it needs a blinking arrow all lit up at night though.

Maybe add some verbage like - They have a Plasma TV, Blu Ray, lots of jewelry, etc. hahahaha Antis will never figure it out until it happens to them.

++:)1

Meplat
09-01-2009, 2:55 PM
So what to stop somebody from filing a TRO under false pretense. Then having their gang banger homies pull off a home invasion now knowing there firearms have been removed.

What recourse could you have? Just imagine if it went farther than just armed robbery? Scary thought but if the parties involved don't even have to know each other I could see this being abused to no end.

It is not unlawful to "loan" firearms in CA. Borrow one or two from your brother, son. father. friend, etc. until you get yours back. I will never be without arms in my home, regardless.

There should be substantial financial penalties for unfounded filling for ROs. Preferably payable to the accused party. This is BS, especially when perpetrated by ex-spouses.

Librarian
09-01-2009, 3:21 PM
It is not unlawful to "loan" firearms in CA. Borrow one or two from your brother, son. father. friend, etc. until you get yours back. I will never be without arms in my home, regardless.

There should be substantial financial penalties for unfounded filling for ROs. Preferably payable to the accused party. This is BS, especially when perpetrated by ex-spouses.

While I understand the motivation, lending to someone with a TRO that requires surrender of firearms is not a good legal idea:
(e) The restraining order requiring a person to relinquish a
firearm pursuant to subdivision (b) shall prohibit the person from
possessing or controlling any firearm for the duration of the order.California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 527.9

Such a restraining order makes the subject a 'prohibited person'.

ETA: Longer discussion on this, from some lawyers who seem to be on the Right Side, here (http://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2008/08/those_fighting_restraining_ord_1.html). So, in the final analysis, we see that the Court in Heller found that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and enjoyed by all individuals in America. That notwithstanding, under California law, the state can deprive an individual of that Constitutional right:

1. Who has been convicted of no crime, and who has committed no act of physical violence at all (remember "alarming" conduct is "harassment")
2. Based upon the uncorroborated say so of one person without the right of the individual to respond in court
3. In a proceeding where the individual has no right to an appointed attorney if he or she is indigent
4. In a proceeding where the individual has no right to a trial by a jury of his or her peers
5. Even if the judge, after the full hearing, believes that the person poses no future danger of committing any act of violence, the judge MUST take the individual's "right to keep and bear arms" away.

It will be interesting to see how a Court, presented with a Second Amendment challenge to this statutory scheme, might rule.

jdberger
09-01-2009, 3:34 PM
There's something awfully satsfyimg about serving someone with 60 pages of lawsuit.

dantodd
09-01-2009, 3:40 PM
There's something awfully satsfyimg about serving someone with 60 pages of lawsuit.

I joy that I get vicariously through the good work of CGF.

Maestro Pistolero
09-01-2009, 3:52 PM
There was a case (last year, I think) of an airline pilot who had a civil disagreement with neighbors over his autistic son. The neighbors got a TRO against him out of irrational fear and the judge threw it out and awarded the pilot attorneys fees and other damages to the tune of 20.000 plus dollars IIRC. Does anybody remember that story or have a link?

halifax
09-01-2009, 4:16 PM
There was a case (last year, I think) of an airline pilot who had a civil disagreement with neighbors over his autistic son. The neighbors got a TRO against him out of irrational fear and the judge threw it out and awarded the pilot attorneys fees and other damages to the tune of 20.000 plus dollars IIRC. Does anybody remember that story or have a link?

Here it is. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=177922)

tyrist
09-01-2009, 8:32 PM
So what to stop somebody from filing a TRO under false pretense. Then having their gang banger homies pull off a home invasion now knowing there firearms have been removed.

What recourse could you have? Just imagine if it went farther than just armed robbery? Scary thought but if the parties involved don't even have to know each other I could see this being abused to no end.

Well the TRO expires very quickly which is not really enough time to make arrangements for the transfer of firearms. Just show up at the hearing and contest the restraining order.

fleegman
09-01-2009, 8:56 PM
Frankly, I'm appalled at how easily people meekly give up their rights.

Librarian
09-01-2009, 8:57 PM
Well the TRO expires very quickly which is not really enough time to make arrangements for the transfer of firearms. Just show up at the hearing and contest the restraining order.

The 'disability' takes effect as soon as the judge signs the order. There's a little flexibility, but not the whole 15 days it might take to get the hearing.

California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 527.9
(b) Upon the issuance of a protective order pursuant to
subdivision (a), the court shall order the person to relinquish any
firearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subject
to that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours of
being served with the order, either by surrendering the firearm to
the control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling the
firearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified in Section 12071 of
the Penal Code. A person ordered to relinquish any firearm pursuant
to this subdivision shall file with the court a receipt showing the
firearm was surrendered to the local law enforcement agency or sold
to a licensed gun dealer within 48 hours after receiving the order.

Meplat
09-01-2009, 9:02 PM
While I understand the motivation, lending to someone with a TRO that requires surrender of firearms is not a good legal idea:

Shooting an intruder in your home at 3AM is probably not a good legal idea either. That does not mean that it is not a good idea overall in many cases. I will never be disarmed. That is a hill I am willing to die on. Fortunately, I have plenty of weapons that have not been on any books sense they left the hardware store in the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's, so I have no need to involve others. I feel no moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws.

But, I fail to see how it would be unlawful to loan a gun to someone who you do not know is the subject on a TRO, do they tattoo it on your forehead?

HondaMasterTech
09-01-2009, 9:12 PM
(b) Upon the issuance of a protective order pursuant tosubdivision (a), the court shall order the person to relinquish anyfirearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subjectto that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours ofbeing served with the order, either by surrendering the firearm tothe control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling thefirearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified in Section 12071 ofthe Penal Code. A person ordered to relinquish any firearm pursuantto this subdivision shall file with the court a receipt showing thefirearm was surrendered to the local law enforcement agency or soldto a licensed gun dealer within 48 hours after receiving the order.


This is unreasonable. You have NO time to contest the order!!!

Librarian
09-01-2009, 11:37 PM
Shooting an intruder in your home at 3AM is probably not a good legal idea either. That does not mean that it is not a good idea overall in many cases. I will never be disarmed. That is a hill I am willing to die on. Fortunately, I have plenty of weapons that have not been on any books sense they left the hardware store in the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's, so I have no need to involve others. I feel no moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws.

But, I fail to see how it would be unlawful to loan a gun to someone who you do not know is the subject on a TRO, do they tattoo it on your forehead?

I don't suggest it's illegal to loan a gun to someone - but it's illegal for him/her to accept it while that stupid order is in force.

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 12:31 AM
Sounds like selling to someone other than a dealer is not an option. That tight time frame indicates to me that the intent is to pressure you to relinquish your arms to Law Enforcement out of convenience. I wonder how readily one's firearms can be redeemed, or is this essentially another gun grab? I was born and raised here, but because of @%$# like this I'm embarrassed to say I still live here:mad:

Is there a way to move the guns out of state and out of California's jurisdiction in the event of a TRO?

yellowfin
09-02-2009, 5:43 AM
Frankly, I'm appalled at how easily people meekly give up their rights.The other side has quite a talent for stacking up a big, mean, ugly system that doesn't like firearm rights to make people meek and timid real quickly. Five or six figure legal bills and a whole police department, DA's office, and slanted judges can make whatever you've got look like a .22 in your hands with an angry elephant charging.

woodey
09-02-2009, 7:04 AM
If you have a 10/22 & 1911 can you just turn over the 2 frames/recievers? Take the barrel,triger group,stock & handles off & hand them the registerable peace of the gun as raw as you can make it?

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 10:24 AM
If you have a 10/22 & 1911 can you just turn over the 2 frames/recievers? Take the barrel,triger group,stock & handles off & hand them the registerable peace of the gun as raw as you can make it?

EXCELLENT QUESTION!
(Still curious about shipping out of state, though)

sv_1
09-02-2009, 11:45 AM
What would have happened if he owned raw's?

Casual_Shooter
09-02-2009, 11:58 AM
^ that's what I would have to do with one of my "rifles" anyway since it is a stripped lower. I would strip the other and hand it over as well if I was forced.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 12:00 PM
What would have happened if he owned raw's?

Really good question. Does anyone know of a case were a RAW was lost due to a TRO or where one was transferred back after the TRO was lifted?

halifax
09-02-2009, 12:00 PM
What would have happened if he owned raw's?

Find an AW dealer or turn them into LE. Keep all your reg paperwork. If you get cleared by the courts, you would have a legal right to your property but I have heard that DAs can claim the firearm is a public nuisance. Good luck getting them back.

yellowfin
09-02-2009, 12:22 PM
What would have happened if he owned raw's?Cook them.

pretz
09-02-2009, 12:50 PM
If you have a 10/22 & 1911 can you just turn over the 2 frames/recievers? Take the barrel,triger group,stock & handles off & hand them the registerable peace of the gun as raw as you can make it?

I may have misunderstood this law, but I think that when it comes to "possession", having any piece or part of a firearm MIGHT constitute firearm possession.

As I recall, this arises from gang members each carrying only one or two parts of a gun, then reassembling them into a complete gun when they meet up.

Do any of our Legal Eagles know anything about this?

Meplat
09-02-2009, 3:25 PM
I don't suggest it's illegal to loan a gun to someone - but it's illegal for him/her to accept it while that stupid order is in force.

Thanks for the clarification.

;)

Librarian
09-02-2009, 6:39 PM
Sounds like selling to someone other than a dealer is not an option. That tight time frame indicates to me that the intent is to pressure you to relinquish your arms to Law Enforcement out of convenience. I wonder how readily one's firearms can be redeemed, or is this essentially another gun grab? I was born and raised here, but because of @%$# like this I'm embarrassed to say I still live here:mad:

Is there a way to move the guns out of state and out of California's jurisdiction in the event of a TRO?

Sure - the trick is to do it before the TRO is served on you. Then you can avoid the LEO stuff, the subsequent LEGR for the guns, even possession by an FFL aside from the required waiting period associated with a PPT. Sell the whole collection to a friend who will sell them back as soon as the order has been quashed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quash). And you might even miss that part, if the friend lives out of CA.

Nothing illegal about selling all your guns in anticipation of a TRO.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 7:20 PM
I am not sure you can't sell them to a friend or relative. If you sell them after being served but before the expiration of the 24 hours then you no longer have and firearms in your possession at the 24 hour point which would be subject to the forced disposition.

woodey
09-02-2009, 7:32 PM
So if you own any gun kits/ AK kits you need to turn that in also? All you stocks, scopes, how about ammo?


I may have misunderstood this law, but I think that when it comes to "possession", having any piece or part of a firearm MIGHT constitute firearm possession.

As I recall, this arises from gang members each carrying only one or two parts of a gun, then reassembling them into a complete gun when they meet up.

Do any of our Legal Eagles know anything about this?

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 8:00 PM
Nothing illegal about selling all your guns in anticipation of a TRO.

Thankyou, but I wasn't talking about selling them, just moving them. For what would you be cited? And, would you face any ownership problems if you were to also subsequently move out of state and repossess your firearms in a "free" State? I'm thinking "jurisdiction".

leadchucker
09-02-2009, 8:11 PM
(b) Upon the issuance of a protective order pursuant tosubdivision (a), the court shall order the person to relinquish anyfirearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subjectto that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours ofbeing served with the order, either by surrendering the firearm tothe control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling thefirearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified in Section 12071 ofthe Penal Code. A person ordered to relinquish any firearm pursuantto this subdivision shall file with the court a receipt showing thefirearm was surrendered to the local law enforcement agency or soldto a licensed gun dealer within 48 hours after receiving the order.


I am not sure you can't sell them to a friend or relative. If you sell them after being served but before the expiration of the 24 hours then you no longer have and firearms in your possession at the 24 hour point which would be subject to the forced disposition.

I guess the question would be whether subdivision (a) refers to a TRO, or the actual court-approved RO. Does "within 24 hours ofbeing served with the order" refer to a TRO or an RO?

Paladin
09-02-2009, 8:56 PM
The 'disability' takes effect as soon as the judge signs the order. There's a little flexibility, but not the whole 15 days it might take to get the hearing.

California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 527.9
Will Heller and, presumably, Nordyke be able to change this law to stop the anti-RKBA implications of vexatious TROs?

Librarian
09-02-2009, 8:57 PM
I guess the question would be whether subdivision (a) refers to a TRO, or the actual court-approved RO. Does "within 24 hours ofbeing served with the order" refer to a TRO or an RO?

TRO.

Now this stuff, (b) Upon the issuance of a protective order pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall order the person to relinquish any firearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subject to that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours of being served with the order, either by surrendering the firearm to the control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer,seems to say the only legal disposal AFTER being served is to LEO or an FFL. Before? I dunno. Maybe giving them to a friend to hold would work, but "subject to that person's immediate possession or control" may mean the court expects more formality than 'Hey, Bob, gimme back my SKS'.

But I really don't know.