Stuck with an FID? You might be a federally prohibited person

[aphextwin11]

Has anyone gone through this process recently? If so, how long did it take? I have a close family member that sat in front of the FLRB in March, who (at least, according to them) is a good candidate, and still haven't heard anything. Is 6+ months typical?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Has anyone gone through this process recently? If so, how long did it take? I have a close family member that sat in front of the FLRB in March, who (at least, according to them) is a good candidate, and still haven't heard anything. Is 6+ months typical?

But of what use? FLRB relief is not recognized by the feds, since the applicant only lost gun rights, not civil rights, therefore there was no state level restoration of civil rights.

 

[aphextwin11]

But of what use? FLRB relief is not recognized by the feds, since the applicant only lost gun rights, not civil rights, therefore there was no state level restoration of civil rights.

My understanding is that it's relatively similar to Marijuana. Still a schedule 1 drug federally, but that doesn't stop anyone from waltzing into a dispensary and buying it in MA.

The MA transfer portal seems to work similarly, even though you'd get hunter biden'd via 4473 at an FFL.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My understanding is that it's relatively similar to Marijuana. Still a schedule 1 drug federally, but that doesn't stop anyone from waltzing into a dispensary and buying it in MA.

The MA transfer portal seems to work similarly, even though you'd get hunter biden'd via 4473 at an FFL.

A difference is that when you buy the heathen devil weed you are not checked against a federal database that will cause your purchase to be rejected. And yes, a NICS appeal for an FLRB relieved offense will been denied (I have seen a rejection letter for an FLRB relieved offense, first offence OUI I think)

 

[aphextwin11]

A difference is that when you buy the heathen devil weed you are not checked against a federal database that will cause your purchase to be rejected. And yes, a NICS appeal for an FLRB relieved offense will been denied (I have seen a rejection letter for an FLRB relieved offense, first offence OUI I think)

Right, even with FLRB relief they'd get dinged at an FFL because BAFTE is a great organization that deserves all the funding in the world. However, if they purchased private sale using the transfer portal, so long as their permission slip is valid they wouldn't have any issues.

Edit: regardless, don't want the purpose my original post to get hijacked - any idea? They don't have NES and came up blank on the Google machine. I figured this crowd would know if anyone did.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Right, even with FLRB relief they'd get dinged at an FFL because BAFTE is a great organization that deserves all the funding in the world. However, if they purchased private sale using the transfer portal, so long as their permission slip is valid they wouldn't have any issues.

Unless the fall out of favor and the feds decide to make an example of them.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Unless the fall out of favor and the feds decide to make an example of them.

wasn't comm2a, at one time, looking for an individual who had FLRB relief and a FID, but had not yet possessed a firearm?

 

[aphextwin11]

wasn't comm2a, at one time, looking for an individual who had FLRB relief and a FID, but had not yet possessed a firearm?

They probably still are!

 

[Coyote33]

the fed position is that 2A rights are not "civil" in nature

Can you be more specific when you say "the fed position"? Courts? Laws? Regulations? All of the above? Is this stated or implied?

 

[Coyote33]

But of what use? FLRB relief is not recognized by the feds, since the applicant only lost gun rights, not civil rights, therefore there was no state level restoration of civil rights.

So how does this gap get bridged? What is the fix?

wasn't comm2a, at one time, looking for an individual who had FLRB relief and a FID, but had not yet possessed a firearm?

Maybe here?

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They probably still are!

Yup. Morin v. Lyver is a different issue.

In order to be a suitable plaintiff, the FLRB relivee must not have EVER possessed a firearm, rifle or shotgun after they gained FLRB relief. If they did, a competent attorney will advise the client he should not litigate the issue because, if the courts upheld the FLRB relief as invalid, they could be prosecuted as a felon in possession.

The best bet would be a relivee (perhaps from a first offense OUI) who was trying to become a gun owner, had an LTC or FID, was denied by NICS, but there was absolutely no indication they possessed a firearm after the disability started.

 

[aphextwin11]

Can you be more specific when you say "the fed position"? Courts? Laws? Regulations? All of the above? Is this stated or implied?

Does BAFTE interpretation count as a regulation? If so, then regulation. Their position is that 2A does not constitute a civil right, therefore there is no right to restore. Under this twisted interpretation, in theory they would only recognize the restoration if you were a felon who lost civil rights. Because the misdefelony for 2a purposes sits in a grey zone, it allows for this interpretation (regulation?) to exist, and be "accepted".

My .02 is because the state of MA concedes "legal" firearm purchase private sale via transfer portal with FLRB restoration, there is enough slack provided where it hasn't faced a staunch challenge. But, I'm not a lawyer so take that for what's it's worth. Also, I image finding a plaintiff who is both sympathetic and hasn't breathed on a firearm prior to FLRB restoration is hard to find

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does BAFTE interpretation count as a regulation? If so, then regulation. Their position is that 2A does not constitute a civil right, therefore there is no right to restore. Under this twisted interpretation, in theory they would only recognize the restoration if you were a felon who lost civil rights. Because the misdefelony for 2a purposes sits in a grey zone, it allows for this interpretation (regulation?) to exist, and be "accepted".

The misdafelony is NOT in a grey zone. Under 10USC922, any crime with a potential sentence > 2 years is considered a felony for the purpose of prohibited person status. Full stop.

It is not a regulation, but how the BATFE applies the law. It has NOTHING to do with the difference between felony and misdafelony - for federal purposes, it is a felony. It has to do with the govt not wanting the rights restores and twisting logic to achieve this result. I believe this was initially done to neuter a California law that allowed first offense domestic violence misdemeanons to restore theig run rights.

US v. Logan contained dicta referring to Voting, holding public office and serving on a jury as civil rights - and the BATFE claims that is an exhaustive of rights that are "civil". We also have to counter the "plural" argument since the FLRB only restores on civil right. There have been court decisions in our favor on this issue, but none at a high enough level to make any difference in BATFEs rejection of FLRB relief.

Accepted means two things: (1) NICS will issue a denial, even if one has FLRB relief, and (2) The possibility of a "felon in possession" prosecution exists.

 

[aphextwin11]

So how does this gap get bridged? What is the fix?

I'd image a scenario where this gets challenged by a qualified plaintiff with standing, and the 1CA rules based on the jurisprudence from Bruen (ha, hahahaha). OR there's a petition for certiorari in the range v. Garland case in the 3CA that gets accepted and ends up 2A favorable.

 

[aphextwin11]

The misdafelony is NOT in a grey zone. Under 10USC922, any crime with a potential sentence > 2 years is considered a felony for the purpose of prohibited person status. Full stop.

It is not a regulation, but how the BATFE applies the law.

Accepted means two things: (1) NICS will issue a denial, even if one has FLRB relief, and (2) The possibility of a "felon in possession" prosecution exists.

It's a grey zone for the purposes of analyzing rights restoration at the federal level (at least, according to BAFTE), but not a grey zone for being DQ'd on 4473.

You're not a felon, so there's no civil rights to restore. You don't have a clean record either - you sit in between.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's a grey zone for the purposes of analyzing rights restoration at the federal level (at least, according to BAFTE), but not a grey zone for being DQ'd on 4473.

You're not a felon, so there's no civil rights to restore. You don't have a clean record either - you sit in between.

1. Please provide a reference to where the BATFE calls it a grey zone

2. Your statement of "you are not a felon" is incorrect. It is correct to say "you are not a felon under MA law, but are under federal law using the definition of felony proscribed in US Code for the purposes of firearms prohibited person status"

Please read the definition of Felon in 18USC922, section 20 in the definitions section:

(20)The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—​

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or​

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.​

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.​

​

And then in 18USC922(g)​

​

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--​

.....​

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;​

.....​

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.​

So, your claim that the "felon status" of a misdafelony in MA does not appear to have a legal basis.

Can you state what renders the above clauses in 18USC922 invalid? I mean court decision, precedent, etc. - not simply your assertion.

 

[aphextwin11]

1. Please provide a reference to where the BATFE calls it a grey zone

2. Your statement of "you are not a felon" is incorrect. It is correct to say "you are not a felon under MA law, but are under federal law using the definition of felony proscribed in US Code for the purposes of firearms prohibited person status"

Please read the definition of Felon in 18USC922, section 20 in the definitions section:

(20)The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—​

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or​

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.​

What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.​

​

And then in 18USC922(g)​

​

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--​

.....​

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;​

.....​

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.​

So, your claim that the "felon status" of a misdafelony in MA does not appear to have a legal basis.

Can you state what renders the above clauses in 18USC922 invalid? I mean court decision, precedent, etc. - not simply your assertion.

No federal agency would be dumb enough to call something a grey zone lmao take a deep breath. However, one with a critical mind can peice together that if BAFTE does not consider FLRB restoration valid because no civil rights were lost (which would only happen to a black-letter felon), then in theory it would be easier to label it a "full" restoration if you were a "real" felon. That is what I mean by grey zone. Not a grey zone for pp status, grey zone for losing civil rights as interpreted by BAFTE.

You don't need to keep quoting the 2.5 year rule (OUI), anyone who pays a little bit of attention knows it. Yes, legally for the purposes of purchasing a firearm at an FFL (thus my shortcut referring to it as simply "4473"), and possessing a firearm according to federal law there is no distinction between a misdefelony and a felony - either way, from a legal standpoint you are still a federal PP. However, when is the last time you were pulled over by the DEA driving down main street for not using a turn signal? Have you ever been pulled over by homeland security driving to work? Has the FBI stopped and frisked you on your morning walk? Has the ATF pulled you over for a speeding ticket? Are you negligently discharging firearms in an FFL while the ATF is auditing the FFL's paperwork? Are taking unchecked pistols through the security checkpoint at logan? Are you mounting a SAW on the back of a used Toyota and cruising memorial drive? I think you see where I'm going with this.

For the purposes of MA (state level law), which is the only state this would apply to (maybe aside from NH), if you have an LTC and posess a pistol or an FID and shoot trap, the likelihood of running into an issue is pretty low, assuming youre not a knucklehead. However, that would be according to an individuals risk tolerance in the context of their intended use and possession of firearms.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No federal agency would be dumb enough to call something a grey zone lmao take a deep breath. However, one with a critical mind can peice together that

But you asserted a federal agency did just that.

How do you reconcile your above statement with your previous statement "It's a grey zone for the purposes of analyzing rights restoration at the federal level (at least, according to BAFTE)"

 

[aphextwin11]

But you asserted a federal agency did just that.

How do you reconcile this statement with your previous statement "It's a grey zone for the purposes of analyzing rights restoration at the federal level (at least, according to BAFTE)"

I already addressed it - however put more plainly, a "misdefelon" in MA didn't lose any civil rights according to BAFTE, and therefore, the FLRB isn't restoring anything according to them. It's a gratuitous and twisted interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless. A "real" felon would have lost civil rights. Using their own logic, in theory they would recognize a "real" felons right restoration more easily than they would a misdefelon. Because the misdefelon isnt as serious as a "real" felon, but also doesn't have a clean record and is dq'd on a 4473, they're theoretically stuck in between from a rights standpoint. This is according to my brilliant legal mind.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is according to my brilliant legal mind.

That explains it nicely. Thanks.

 

[taoFpew]

So how does this gap get bridged? What is the fix?



Maybe here?

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

or here maybe? JThe case, Range v. Attorney General United States of America; Regina Lombardo, comes as one of many recent decisions upholding the importance of the Second Amendment and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On June 6, 2023 another major win for supporters of the Second Amendment as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the U.S. government cannot constitutionally ban those convicted of non-violent felonies from possessing guns.

 

[aphextwin11]

or here maybe? JThe case, Range v. Attorney General United States of America; Regina Lombardo, comes as one of many recent decisions upholding the importance of the Second Amendment and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On June 6, 2023 another major win for supporters of the Second Amendment as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the U.S. government cannot constitutionally ban those convicted of non-violent felonies from possessing guns.

This was an as-applied ruling though, and it was in the 3CA which does not include MA.

Hopefully the SJC grants cert and takes the case (range v garland) - that's the only way it'll help. I'm curious to see the outcome of the rahimi case as well, as that might give an indication on how they'd think about range if it was ever heard.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The feds already consider *some* non-violent felonies to be non-disqualifiers, so the issue is not about "if" there is a line withing felondom, but where the line is drawn.

Felonies involving monopolistic business practice or restraint of trade and not felonies for the purpose of 18USC922(g).

This makes me wonder who was owed a favor way back when.