Time for more letters

[LANShark42]

Sorry if this is a dup, but I think it's worth that risk. Ruger makes it VERY easy...

Ruger - Protect Your Rights

 

[Dorky_D]

Yep, keep it up!

 

[nlnyhuise]

I sent mine. Thanks for the great and quick link! It's so easy my husband can use it LOL

 

[Mrmonte]

I just looked at the FixNICS website, No thanks Ruger.

 

[ModernGunner]

Thanks, LANShark. Ruger couldn't make it any easier than that.

 

[Mark 1911]

Thanks, LANShark. Ruger couldn't make it any easier than that.

^^^^^^
what he said!

and Done!!

 

[super duty1]

When you are on the Ruger site click on the FIXNIC's and read the Facts & INFO portion.
It says the NSSF thinks the exsisting background system needs to be fixed before Congress can consider expanding background checks. NO THANKS!

 

[TopDog]

When you are on the Ruger site click on the FIXNIC's and read the Facts & INFO portion.
It says the NSSF thinks the exsisting background system needs to be fixed before Congress can consider expanding background checks. NO THANKS!

Sounds pretty good until you read it. There is a statement in there about "records showing someone is the subject of a domestic violence protective order" any asshat can get a protective order on someone. Nope this goes just a little too far. So you don't like someone just get a protective order against them and poof they can no longer have guns. Sorry Ruger has gone too far.

Make sure you agree with the whole thing before sending it.

 

[Mark 1911]

Sounds pretty good until you read it. There is a statement in there about "records showing someone is the subject of a domestic violence protective order" any asshat can get a protective order on someone. Nope this goes just a little too far. So you don't like someone just get a protective order against them and poof they can no longer have guns. Sorry Ruger has gone too far.

Make sure you agree with the whole thing before sending it.

So not arguing here, just asking a question. Isn't there a difference between a "protective order" and a "domestic violence protective order"? Not every protective order is related to domestic violence. Some are related to stuff like harassment, stalking, etc... A domestic violence conviction will disqualify someone from purchasing firearms, whereas the others will not unless they are felony convictions. I agree that there should be no disqualification for purchasing firearms unless there is first a conviction. So the question that follows is, does there have to be a domestic violence conviction before a domestic violence protective order is issued? If yes, then I would not have a problem with the proposal since there would still have to be a conviction first. If no, then I totally agree with you, because as you say then anyone could file for such a protective order, we should never deny anyone a right without due process.

 

[Gadgetmonster]

Done, Thanks

 

[TopDog]

So not arguing here, just asking a question. Isn't there a difference between a "protective order" and a "domestic violence protective order"? Not every protective order is related to domestic violence. Some are related to stuff like harassment, stalking, etc... A domestic violence conviction will disqualify someone from purchasing firearms, whereas the others will not unless they are felony convictions. I agree that there should be no disqualification for purchasing firearms unless there is first a conviction. So the question that follows is, does there have to be a domestic violence conviction before a domestic violence protective order is issued? If yes, then I would not have a problem with the proposal since there would still have to be a conviction first. If no, then I totally agree with you, because as you say then anyone could file for such a protective order, we should never deny anyone a right without due process.

You bring up a good point. I am not a lawyer and if anyone understands this better than me feel free to correct me.

First as I understand it there is no difference between the two other than semantics. There is a difference between a protective order and a restraining order. That difference is commonly that a protective order is issued when there is an established relationship, or the matter is complex. I found the term complex used when researching this on the internet. A restraining order is a simpler document.

So for example if I understand this correctly. Say you have a female neighbor that is Liberal. She lives say two doors down from you. You legally open carry. But she finds this offensive and wants it stopped. So she gets a protective order against you because she says your are intimating her constantly with your gun. The relationship part of a protection order is satisfied because you are neighbors. It could be even easier for her to get the protection order if say she had even called the cops just once because of you open carrying, even if the cops did nothing because you were legally open carrying. I grant you this is far less likely to happen in a conservative state like Indiana but in a less conservative state? I say it becomes far more likely to happen.

 

[Mark 1911]

You bring up a good point. I am not a lawyer and if anyone understands this better than me feel free to correct me.

First as I understand it there is no difference between the two other than semantics. There is a difference between a protective order and a restraining order. That difference is commonly that a protective order is issued when there is an established relationship, or the matter is complex. I found the term complex used when researching this on the internet. A restraining order is a simpler document.

So for example if I understand this correctly. Say you have a female neighbor that is Liberal. She lives say two doors down from you. You legally open carry. But she finds this offensive and wants it stopped. So she gets a protective order against you because she says your are intimating her constantly with your gun. The relationship part of a protection order is satisfied because you are neighbors. It could be even easier for her to get the protection order if say she had even called the cops just once because of you open carrying, even if the cops did nothing because you were legally open carrying. I grant you this is far less likely to happen in a conservative state like Indiana but in a less conservative state? I say it becomes far more likely to happen.

Actually now that you mention it, I believe I was confusing restraining and protective orders. A conviction is not required for a restraining order, just one person's word against another's. But I don't know if the same holds true in the case of protective orders. As you mention, with the protective order there is some established relationship involved, but I don't know if that means there was also a history of abuse and more importantly, a conviction.

 

[Slapstick]

You bring up a good point. I am not a lawyer and if anyone understands this better than me feel free to correct me.

First as I understand it there is no difference between the two other than semantics. There is a difference between a protective order and a restraining order. That difference is commonly that a protective order is issued when there is an established relationship, or the matter is complex. I found the term complex used when researching this on the internet. A restraining order is a simpler document.

So for example if I understand this correctly. Say you have a female neighbor that is Liberal. She lives say two doors down from you. You legally open carry. But she finds this offensive and wants it stopped. So she gets a protective order against you because she says your are intimating her constantly with your gun. The relationship part of a protection order is satisfied because you are neighbors. It could be even easier for her to get the protection order if say she had even called the cops just once because of you open carrying, even if the cops did nothing because you were legally open carrying. I grant you this is far less likely to happen in a conservative state like Indiana but in a less conservative state? I say it becomes far more likely to happen.

Your example isn't quite right for Indiana and each State has different guidelines and terms. In Indiana protective orders are for victims of domestic abuse, sex abuse stalking etc.

Restraining orders are used for more causal relationships, think neighbor disputes that get out of hand, work place harassment and threats, etc. Both have to be signed off by a judge. Then there are two types of protective orders and restraining orders. Temporary, signed quickly without the benefit of all parties and very short in duration and after a hearing if granted a more permanent injunction. Yep it's confusing and I'm not explaining it too well but I hope you get the gist of the difference.

In your example your hippie neighbor would have to go court or at least fill out the proper paper work and explain why and how you are a threat to her. Unless she commits perjury no Judge in their right or wrong mind would grant her request since you posed no real threat to her and are within your rights.

All of that is actually mote as far as NICS goes. Question 11.h of the infamous 4473. "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child ofsuch partner?(See Instructions for Question 11.h.)"

Question 11.h. Definition of Restraining Order: Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that, A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking,or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use,or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An“intimate partner” of a person is: thespouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or cohabitating with the person.

The above is the only meaning that counts as far as NICS and Feds are concerned.

 

[TopDog]

Your example isn't quite right for Indiana and each State has different guidelines and terms. In Indiana protective orders are for victims of domestic abuse, sex abuse stalking etc.

Restraining orders are used for more causal relationships, think neighbor disputes that get out of hand, work place harassment and threats, etc. Both have to be signed off by a judge. Then there are two types of protective orders and restraining orders. Temporary, signed quickly without the benefit of all parties and very short in duration and after a hearing if granted a more permanent injunction. Yep it's confusing and I'm not explaining it too well but I hope you get the gist of the difference.

In your example your hippie neighbor would have to go court or at least fill out the proper paper work and explain why and how you are a threat to her. Unless she commits perjury no Judge in their right or wrong mind would grant her request since you posed no real threat to her and are within your rights.

All of that is actually mote as far as NICS goes. Question 11.h of the infamous 4473. "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child ofsuch partner?(See Instructions for Question 11.h.)"

Question 11.h. Definition of Restraining Order: Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that, A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking,or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use,or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An“intimate partner” of a person is: thespouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or cohabitating with the person.

The above is the only meaning that counts as far as NICS and Feds are concerned.

Thanks for the information. If I understand this, then Ruger wanting to add Protection orders as a dis qualifier on the NICS in addition to Question 11.h would cover a wider net of people. And the protection order is harder to get, correct? Would this apply to all states that both a restraining order and protection order are hard to get issued?

 

[Slapstick]

Thanks for the information. If I understand this, then Ruger wanting to add Protection orders as a dis qualifier on the NICS in addition to Question 11.h would cover a wider net of people. And the protection order is harder to get, correct? Would this apply to all states that both a restraining order and protection order are hard to get issued?

I took it mean that the proposal is for States that do not enter the data upon the Court granting a permanent injuction be required to do so. Most States do, some do not and some localities , (Counties within the State) may not be entering the info into NICS. I know from personal experence just how messed up getting info entered into NCIC (FBI) and III (State) criminal data bases can be. It relies on several people from Court Staff to the Sheriff's department to get it entered upon conviction and anyone of them can drop the ball. Since NICS relies on the NCIC data base then not getting the info entered is a problem.

I don't think Ruger wants to add anything, the fix NICS argument is getting States to enter the info in the first place to improve the NCIS system instead of creating new laws with the same flaws. If the "fixed system" proves ineffective then discuss how to improve it., (that will take years of data collection before anyone can say if it needs "improved").

Don't get too hung up on the semantics of protective order vs restraining order. Each States defines it differently so go with the Fed definition on the 4473.

 

[TopDog]

I took it mean that the proposal is for States that do not enter the data upon the Court granting a permanent injuction be required to do so. Most States do, some do not and some localities , (Counties within the State) may not be entering the info into NICS. I know from personal experence just how messed up getting info entered into NCIC (FBI) and III (State) criminal data bases can be. It relies on several people from Court Staff to the Sheriff's department to get it entered upon conviction and anyone of them can drop the ball. Since NICS relies on the NCIC data base then not getting the info entered is a problem.

I don't think Ruger wants to add anything, the fix NICS argument is getting States to enter the info in the first place to improve the NCIS system instead of creating new laws with the same flaws. If the "fixed system" proves ineffective then discuss how to improve it., (that will take years of data collection before anyone can say if it needs "improved").

Don't get too hung up on the semantics of protective order vs restraining order. Each States defines it differently so go with the Fed definition on the 4473.

Seriously, thanks for all the clarification.

 

[beararms1776]

Sounds pretty good until you read it. There is a statement in there about "records showing someone is the subject of a domestic violence protective order" any asshat can get a protective order on someone. Nope this goes just a little too far. So you don't like someone just get a protective order against them and poof they can no longer have guns. Sorry Ruger has gone too far.

Make sure you agree with the whole thing before sending it.

I agree with this. It's to easy for innocent people to be falsely charged with some bogus bs via their aggressor. This system could be used by the same people that already use CPS in fictitious manners.