prohibits the defendant from possessing a firearm, the court shall also order the defendant to transfer any firearm owned or possessed by the defendant immediately after service of the order to the appropriate law enforcement agency for the duration of the order.” ¶ 19 Here, the trial court did not follow these procedures or issue any transfer order, although service of the order of protection occurred at the hearing. This suggests the court overlooked the relevant laws; applied an incorrect legal standard, using the “reasonable cause” test under § 13-3602(E) rather than the “credible threat” test under § 13 — 3602(G)(4); or based its decision on the erroneous legal assumption that firearms restrictions automatically result from an order of protection. See Sanchez, 639 F.3d at 1204-05 (<HOLDING>). Any one of these legal errors would account
holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association holding federal restrictions of firearms rights not triggered by general nocontact order recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority recognizing general rule