Federal law prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if a criminal no-contact order is in place against that individual in cases where the protected party fits the description of an “intimate partner.” So, can a person subject to a criminal no-contact order lawfully possess a firearm for the purpose of hunting alone?
When Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA), persons who were subject to a court order restraining that person from “harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner” were prohibited from possessing firearms. The idea was to disarm batterers. In this case, during the pendency of a messy divorce, the husband was found guilty of harassing his wife. The trial court ruled that a criminal no-contact order be in place for five years. After finalization of the divorce, the ex-husband filed an application to modify the order, asking the court to grant him an exception to possess firearms for the purpose of hunting. The trial court agreed and modified the order, reasoning that because the parties were divorced, they were no longer “intimate partners.”
The ex-wife petitioned the court, arguing that the amended order was a violation of federal law. The court agreed, and issued an order rescinding the amendment to the order. However, on appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that the trial court’s attempt to deal with the issue via an order was improper. The Court stressed that an order of this type may only be used to correct clerical errors - the law does not permit possession of firearms for the purpose of hunting when a criminal no-contact order is in place. The VCCLEA states that if the no-contact order was issued at a hearing where the person was given notice and an opportunity to participate in and the person the order is protecting is an “intimate partner,” then the person may not possess a firearm for any purpose.
State courts do not possess the authority to contradict the VCCLEA, as “state courts cannot refuse to apply federal law.” They are bound by it. Weissenburger v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Warren County, 740 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2007)