"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
...


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The same screwing holds true for "boiler plate" orders of
separation in most divorce cases. The language on such orders
almost always includes prohibitions of gun ownership. The defendant
needs to contest such boiler-plate, but the problem is, he seldom
knows about it!

A) Documentation please, that such orders in "most" divorce cases
prohibit gun ownership. B) Hiring the wrong lawyer is always a bad
move.


He has no documentation because what he said is false. He talks more
**** than *almost* anyone I've ever witnessed. My ex-wife absolutely
HATES guns, but not a word was said about guns in our divorce
meetings with both lawyers, and the paperwork said nothing about guns
at all. HeyBub is a retired cop who needs to shoot his computer and
find another hobby. Law is not one of his talents.

You, no doubt, had an amicable divorce without a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) or one that precluded violence. Your must admit your unique
circumstance cannot extrapolate to the whole world.

I, on the other hand, do not make this **** up (although that's often more
convenient). You did, however, force me to dig out my old textbook from my
Family Law course.

In Texas, the Family Code lists some 30-odd different articles that may be
included in a TRO. The list includes the following:

" (1) intentionally communicating by telephone or in writing with the
other party by use of vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language or in
a coarse or offensive manner, with intent to annoy or alarm the other;..."
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/6.501.00.html

So here we have some boilerplate that's often included in a TRO divorce
petition. It restrains one party from attempting to annoy or alarm the
petitioner.

Now we look at 18 USC 922(g)

"It shall be unlawful for any person -

(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
intimate partner of such person 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;... or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate
or foreign commerce."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

So, then, if you are subject to a (state) temporary restraining order (in
a divorce proceeding) prohibiting you from alarming another, you are in
violation of federal law if you possess a firearm or ammunition.

You are correct, however, when you state "law is not one of his talents."
I never took the bar exam after finishing law school.

You are incorrect, though, when characterizing me as a "retired cop." I'm
neither a cop nor retired. I used to be a cop (or airline pilot, I forget
which).

I hope the above discourse convinces you I don't talk smack. If you have
any other instances in which you are as certain that I'm in error as you
were about the TRO/guns business, I'd certainly like an opportunity to
correct my remarks or enlighten you as to the wonderfulness of them.




Suddenly, you've changed the game to include TROs. Sorry. No dice. What
percentage of divorces involve TROs? Show a reliable source with stats.