N.J.S.A 2C:58-3c(6), for example, prohibits issuance of a handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card to any person who is subject to a FRO issued pursuant to N.J.S.A 20:26-29 that prohibits the person from possessing any firearm. 18 U.S.CA § 922(g)(8) makes it unlawful for any person who is subject to a court order that “restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner ... and ... includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner ... or ... by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner[,]” to possess any firearm. See State v. S.A., 290 N.J.Super. 240, 247, 250-51, 675 A.2d 678 (App.Div.1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, there is a strong public policy
holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 holding that a statute which made it illegal for a person to knowingly use  any false writing or document did not involve a continuing offense because it contemplated a single act quoting 18 usc  1001 holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms holding that a fro issued under the act satisfied all the criteria of 18 usca  922g8ac making it illegal for the defendant to possess firearms holding that conviction on second firearms offense even though charged in the same indictment as the first gives rise to enhanced sentence under 18 usc  924c1