A reason for denial, our laws at work

[GOAL C.M.]

Just had an interesting phone conversation I wanted to share with a member that lost his license in 1998 when our laws were changed, resulting in him having to sell all of his guns.

His story. He is 84 years old, landed on Omaha Beach with the 1st I.D. D-Day June 6th 1944 fought as a rifleman all through Europe, was wounded, decorated, wound up serving 4 years in the Army until being released in 1946.

Like many of that great generation he came home, got married, started a family, bought a house, made a life, and dealt with the horrors he saw internally. He couldn't however get what he saw out of his head, had a very difficult time coping, and this being way before PTSD counseling or anything of that nature he started drinking. It turned into an addiction until finally he had a problem and was arrested in 1953.

After his arrest he got sober, got his life together and carried on.

In 1998 when our laws were changed every licensed gun owner went under the microscope, and anybody that had any sort of problem going back to the day they were born lost their license. Even if you were a decorated, now sober for many years WW2 vet that landed on D-Day and fought through Europe. No exceptions, no mercy.

So here we sit some 11 years later, our friend the veteran still wants to be able to go shooting. Because of wounds he received in WW2 he now has difficulty with his lungs and breathing so he is on many different medications, he's still sober, and now even if he were to go back to drinking it would probably kill him.

He's going for his license again, trying, working with his local P.D. and he's still getting a run around. He only wants to be able to enjoy a sport that he once took great enjoyment out of, and he wants to be able to protect himself.

The greatest generation, getting the run around because of something that happened 56 years ago.

This is a classic example of why we need to reform our current laws. Please help us by supporting H. 2259.

 

[lord1234]

Mike,
This sucks. I am also waiting for a goal press release regarding the brockton and swampscott issues. Will these be in the next message?

 

[Mass-diver]

That's horrible, thanks for posting it, and for all the good work that GOAL does!

 

[Tim111]

I have written to my reps so many times regarding H2259 that the last responses they sent me included a photocopy of a letter in favor of the bill with their signatures on it. Both of their letters to me also included language asking me to stop writing to them because they promise to vote in favor of the bill.

I think my girlfriend is right, my OCD is getting worse.

 

[jasons]

Just had an interesting phone conversation I wanted to share with a member that lost his license in 1998 when our laws were changed, resulting in him having to sell all of his guns.

His story. He is 84 years old, landed on Omaha Beach with the 1st I.D. D-Day June 6th 1944 fought as a rifleman all through Europe, was wounded, decorated, wound up serving 4 years in the Army until being released in 1946.

Like many of that great generation he came home, got married, started a family, bought a house, made a life, and dealt with the horrors he saw internally. He couldn't however get what he saw out of his head, had a very difficult time coping, and this being way before PTSD counseling or anything of that nature he started drinking. It turned into an addiction until finally he had a problem and was arrested in 1953.

After his arrest he got sober, got his life together and carried on.

In 1998 when our laws were changed every licensed gun owner went under the microscope, and anybody that had any sort of problem going back to the day they were born lost their license. Even if you were a decorated, now sober for many years WW2 vet that landed on D-Day and fought through Europe. No exceptions, no mercy.

So here we sit some 11 years later, our friend the veteran still wants to be able to go shooting. Because of wounds he received in WW2 he now has difficulty with his lungs and breathing so he is on many different medications, he's still sober, and now even if he were to go back to drinking it would probably kill him.

He's going for his license again, trying, working with his local P.D. and he's still getting a run around. He only wants to be able to enjoy a sport that he once took great enjoyment out of, and he wants to be able to protect himself.

The greatest generation, getting the run around because of something that happened 56 years ago.

This is a classic example of why we need to reform our current laws. Please help us by supporting H. 2259.

Is it safe to assume that the "problem" is a statutory DQ and not another asshat Chief? It wasn't murder or something like that, right?

Please pass on my thanks for this gentleman's service.

 

[Tim94gt]

This is a classic example of why we need to reform our current laws. Please help us by supporting H. 2259.

I will write a letter this afternoon, am I supposed to send a duplicate to Jim Wallace?

I also just joined goal, and bought a t-shirt.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

I will write a letter this afternoon, am I supposed to send a duplicate to Jim Wallace?

I also just joined goal, and bought a t-shirt.

Thanks Tim! Please do send an original hand signed copy to Jim PO Box 567 Northboro 01532.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Is it safe to assume that the "problem" is a statutory DQ and not another asshat Chief? It wasn't murder or something like that, right?

Please pass on my thanks for this gentleman's service.

It was a statutory DQ due to alcoholism.

 

[jasons]

It was a statutory DQ due to alcoholism.

I'm not trying to prick, but what does that mean? Alcoholism as in he got piss drunk and shot his bartender or alcoholism as in he got picked up for something non-violent while he happened to be drunk?

Either way I support the bill and you already have my letter, just wondering if this is the sort of publicity that's good for the cause.

 

[Scrivener]

It was a statutory DQ due to alcoholism.

In which case, the chief CANNOT issue the license and even applying for it is a complete waste of time and money.

The Firearms License Review Board was created in 2004 - FIVE years ago - to provide relief for people like this gentleman.

He will need to file an application for the FLRB after filing a firearms license application (a pending app or denial is required), after which he will be given a hearing.

Why he doesn't know this - actually, why the PD or his friends did not tell him this - is unfortunate. Note that the app is on the GOAL website, making the OP far less productive than actually telling the vet what he needs to know.

 

[terraformer]

In which case, the chief CANNOT issue the license and even applying for it is a complete waste of time and money.

The Firearms License Review Board was created in 2004 - FIVE years ago - to provide relief for people like this gentleman.

He will need to file an application for the FLRB after filing a firearms license application (a pending app or denial is required), after which he will be given a hearing.

Why he doesn't know this - actually, why the PD or his friends did not tell him this - is unfortunate. Note that the app is on the GOAL website, making the OP far less productive than actually telling the vet what he needs to know.

There is nothing that indicates he didn't tell the gentleman this.

 

[Lucas McCain]

This state blows, I will take him shooting any time he wants, no guns or license necessary.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Keith, thanks for jumping to conclusions, I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt before you go posting something that implies we are giving out inaccurate information.

You have my email if you ever have any questions please feel free to use it.

 

[Scrivener]

There is nothing that indicates he didn't tell the gentleman this.

Really? What about THIS:

So here we sit some 11 years later, our friend the veteran still wants to be able to go shooting. Because of wounds he received in WW2 he now has difficulty with his lungs and breathing so he is on many different medications, he's still sober, and now even if he were to go back to drinking it would probably kill him.

He's going for his license again, trying, working with his local P.D. and he's still getting a run around. He only wants to be able to enjoy a sport that he once took great enjoyment out of, and he wants to be able to protect himself.

Point out where there is ANY indication of him being informed of the proper means of redress.

thanks for jumping to conclusions, I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt before you go posting something that implies we are giving out inaccurate information.

And also to you.

Now identify where I was:

1. "Jumping to conclusions;" and

2. Accusing you - or anyone else - of "giving out inaccurate information."

Given that I specifically stated that the app was on the GOAL website, your latter assertion seems particularly devoid of any factual basis.

 

[terraformer]

Really? What about THIS:

You are assuming he was doing that AS A RESULT of and not contemporaneously with or prior to speaking with GOAL. "Gone" is past tense, "going to" is future tense. "Going" can be considered either present tense or to be without a temporal tense. It doesn't say with any clarity or certainty when the actions taken were commenced or completed.

Point out where there is ANY indication of him being informed of the proper means of redress.

I don't have to. I never claimed he had OR had not been. I only stated there was no indication to prove your claim.

 

[bob68]

This state blows, I will take him shooting any time he wants, no guns or license necessary.

so will i....anytime he wants to.

 

[Lucas McCain]

Really? What about THIS:



Point out where there is ANY indication of him being informed of the proper means of redress.



And also to you.

Now identify where I was:

1. "Jumping to conclusions;" and

2. Accusing you - or anyone else - of "giving out inaccurate information."

Given that I specifically stated that the app was on the GOAL website, your latter assertion seems particularly devoid of any factual basis.

How is this helping anything related to the OP?

 

[MassMark]

Nice gestures to take this man shooting, but in the end - it's a bandaid on a bullet wound. He's still a man being denied his rights by a system designed to fail...Would be a bit like taking a slave for a ride in the countryside, but leaving the chains on....

 

[terraformer]

How is this helping anything related to the OP?

It's not.

Would be a bit like taking a slave for a ride in the countryside, but leaving the chains on....

Excellent analogy.

 

[MassMark]

Excellent analogy.

Thanks, but you know, I was thinking. We're all slaves in the end - just like this poor man. We just wear our chains under the tattered cloak of "suitability"....

 

[Scrivener]

You are assuming he was doing that AS A RESULT of and not contemporaneously with or prior to speaking with GOAL. "Gone" is past tense, "going to" is future tense. "Going" can be considered either present tense or to be without a temporal tense. It doesn't say with any clarity or certainty when the actions taken were commenced or completed.

Read it again. Particularly this part:

he's still getting a run around

That's present tense. Now, if you are temporally synchronized, you must realize that he is wasting his time if he is dealing w/the PD and not the FLRB.

I don't have to. I never claimed he had OR had not been.

And I never said you did. You are responding to a wholly separate statement to a wholly separate quote from a wholly different poster.

If the gentleman in question was not aware of the proper procedure, it appears he soon will be. Let us wish him well should he proceed with an appeal.

 

[Bill Nance]

That really stinks. It will also play well in the papers. I hope you get press releases out.

This is illustrative of the whole problem of labeling someone a criminal forever. Even if the guy had hit someone and run off, making it a felony, if he's been sober for 50 years and hasn't re-offended, why on earth would we treat this guy this way?

It's been 40-50 times the maximum possible sentence for the crime since his conviction fer cryin out loud!.

 

[jasons]

It's been 40-50 times the maximum possible sentence for the crime since his conviction fer cryin out loud!.

Not necessarily, since we don't know what the actual crime was. (Just playing devil's advocate here, I'm not accusing him of anything.)

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

Reading that OP almost caused me to lose my not-completely-digested lunch! The way that veterans are treated in this country is awful. The man had a disease (alcoholism) that was cured over 50 years ago. If he has not relapsed and stayed out of trouble since then, there is no need to deem him "unsuitable". His chief is being a star-studded a-hole, plain and simple.
As a stopgap measure, he should definitely apply for his FID. He will be able to do a lot of shooting and gun-owning legally with this "shall-issue" gun permit. Next, he should petition the Board in order to obtain his LTC (if he is interested in any guns that he would need one of these for). Not sure how long it would take. From what I understand, the Board can recommend that a petitioner but has no power to over-rule a CLEO when it comes to issuing a license or denying based on "suitability" issues.

 

[Scrivener]

Reading that OP almost caused me to lose my not-completely-digested lunch! The way that veterans are treated in this country is awful.

Some time I may tell you about the auxiliary cop that was forced off the department by an intermeddling little p**** who decided to run some people's CORI as a lark after Chapter 180 was enacted. The auxiliary had a conviction for A&B.
In 1954.

While on shore leave from his unit, fighting the Korean War.

Or the then (Korean War) recently-discharged Marine and his buddy who were out with their wives when some punks made obscene statements to said wives while stopped at a red light (how do you spell "Stupid?"). The 2 Marines flattened the 7 punks, but one Marine got a conviction for assault out of it. NO problem - until Chapter 180 suddenly and retroactively rendered him UNFIT to possess the firearms he'd safely owned for decades.

How about the Army sgt. who commanded "gun trucks" - equipped with such heavy weapons as M2 Brownings and Mk. 24 auto grenade launchers - in the sandbox. The unit was formed and equipped to defend convoys, just as a destroyer does at sea: Identify and interdict attackers to protect the transports. He had more firepower under his direct control than most here will dream of, but was deemed unfit under MA law from owning so much as a can of mace because of a misdemeanor conviction.

And then there was the Marine (IIRC) who responded with his unit to a IED mass casualty event which became an ambush. He helped his unit put down suppressing fire, recover the wounded and get them on evac choppers. THEN he went onto a roof and improvised a mortar position from which he shelled the ambushers. Yep, another Social Misfit deemed too dangerous to be trusted with a bolt .22 because of a prior misdemeanor conviction.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Amen Scriv, yet more great impetus to reform our unconstitutional laws!

 

[terraformer]

Some time I may tell you about the auxiliary cop that was forced off the department by an intermeddling little p**** who decided to run some people's CORI as a lark after Chapter 180 was enacted. The auxiliary had a conviction for A&B.
In 1954.

While on shore leave from his unit, fighting the Korean War.

Or the then (Korean War) recently-discharged Marine and his buddy who were out with their wives when some punks made obscene statements to said wives while stopped at a red light (how do you spell "Stupid?"). The 2 Marines flattened the 7 punks, but one Marine got a conviction for assault out of it. NO problem - until Chapter 180 suddenly and retroactively rendered him UNFIT to possess the firearms he'd safely owned for decades.

How about the Army sgt. who commanded "gun trucks" - equipped with such heavy weapons as M2 Brownings and Mk. 24 auto grenade launchers - in the sandbox. The unit was formed and equipped to defend convoys, just as a destroyer does at sea: Identify and interdict attackers to protect the transports. He had more firepower under his direct control than most here will dream of, but was deemed unfit under MA law from owning so much as a can of mace because of a misdemeanor conviction.

And then there was the Marine (IIRC) who responded with his unit to a IED mass casualty event which became an ambush. He helped his unit put down suppressing fire, recover the wounded and get them on evac choppers. THEN he went onto a roof and improvised a mortar position from which he shelled the ambushers. Yep, another Social Misfit deemed too dangerous to be trusted with a bolt .22 because of a prior misdemeanor conviction.

This is an issue that has come up wrt sex offender registries. I know people are comparing the registries to punishment created and meted out after the original act. Has the SCOTUS taken this up and if so, what has been the result? It would seem to me to be a similar case. That by moving the bar after the fact and denying the firearms a long time after the disqualifying act is a similar situation.

 

[TomH]

Nothing should be a disqualifier if you are a free man... I hope this legislation gets passed, I really do. [sad2]

 

[dagwag77]

Mike,
This sucks. I am also waiting for a goal press release regarding the brockton and swampscott issues. Will these be in the next message?

Mike - will GOAL be assisting with these two cases? Will you include something about them in one of the next newsletter/e-mails?

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Amen Scriv, yet more great impetus to reform our unconstitutional laws!

well, has anyone explained to him why he might be getting the run around from his licensing officer right now? Oh, I dunno, it could be because, as you said, he had a statutory disqualifier!

Your post left information out, questions wee asked, and it turns out the missing info reveals the guy has a statutory DQ? Yes, the laws suck at the moment, but what do you want? us to tell you he *WILL* get his license back?


Scriv, I think I understand you just a little bit more.