A reason for denial, our laws at work

bostonasphalt2 said:
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?[rolleyes][rolleyes]


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

I'm with you and Scriv on this...

While I certainly feel bad for the old fella, his situation is a statutory DQ, NOT a PD run around, not an anti-gun chief, hell even if MA was "shall issue" if it were a statutory DQ he'd still be with out his license.

The fact that he is a vet or a "recovered" alcoholic really doesn't play into it as I see it (well maybe the alcoholic part if that contributed to the DQ)...

Thats not to say that I agree with how the law is written or that whatever the yet to be named offense should/should not be DQ. Simply that I see a case of a statutory DQ as alot different than a case where the licensing authority is being an A-hole...
 
Last edited:
securityboy said:
While I certainly feel bad for the old fella, his situation is a statutory DQ, NOT a PD run around, not an anti-gun chief, hell even if MA was "shall issue" if it were a statutory DQ he'd still be with out his license.
Click to expand...

Yet we still do not know what the arrest was for.......
 
Yet we still do not know what the arrest was for.......
Click to expand...
Or if the FLRB is allowed to grant a state level relief from disability relative to the individual. If so, the $100 FLRB review fee and a reasonable presentation of his case should make the problem go away.
 
s GOAL providing a lawyer for this guy ?
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any case where GOAL has "provided" (as in paid for) a lawyer for an LTC applicant - it's outside the scope of their mission (but, they do refer people to lawyers they can hire privately).
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I am not aware of any case where GOAL has "provided" (as in paid for) a lawyer for an LTC applicant - it's outside the scope of their mission (but, they do refer people to lawyers they can hire privately).
Click to expand...

I guess this is another reason why Jcohens idea should be implemented.

84 yr old guy probably doesn't have the cash to fund the appeals,nor the time to do so.

I would donate for causes like this.
 
I guess this is another reason why Jcohens idea should be implemented.

84 yr old guy probably doesn't have the cash to fund the appeals,nor the time to do so.

I would donate for causes like this.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Greg said:
Is GOAL providing a lawyer for this guy ?
Click to expand...

It's not clear that he even needs a lawyer or that one would help. This isn't a chief pulling the "suitability" BS that we've seen in the two other recently discussed cases, it's a statutory DQ resulting from an arrest that we don't know anything about....

If whatever he got pinched for in 1953 was minor he should be able explain his case to the FLRB and get his permit. If what he did was major then it's unlikely that any lawyer in the Commonwealth will be able to help him. Not even the esteemed Scrivener. [wink]

So: What did he actually get arrested for? Getting drunk and shooting a cop is a lot different than getting drunk and falling asleep at the bus station. If it's the later and the FLRB is giving him the run-around, then I agree that he should lawyer up and I'll even donate a few bucks to the cause. If it's the former he's got no chance whether we agree with the law or not.

(Just for the record I don't agree with the law and I do support H. 2259. I'm also a GOAL member and I appreciate what GOAL is doing.)
 
The only way to challenge this is to challenge state law. It has nothing to do with the PD at all as far as I can see. I don't think there is any legal action he could take if he had all the money in the world. Repeal or replace the current laws. Also, not that I care what his crime was back in the 50s, but it isn't exactly clear from the posts. As far as I can tell, "alcoholism" isn't a crime unless you commit an actual crime while intoxicated... so what was his crime? That said he is obviously not in jail now so he should have his rights as specified in the 2nd amendment...

jasons said:
So: What did he actually get arrested for? Getting drunk and shooting a cop is a lot different than getting drunk and falling asleep at the bus station. If it's the later and the FLRB is giving him the run-around, then I agree that he should lawyer up and I'll even donate a few bucks to the cause. If it's the former he's got no chance whether we agree with the law or not.

(Just for the record I don't agree with the law and I do support H. 2259. I'm also a GOAL member and I appreciate what GOAL is doing.)
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Lucas McCain said:
How is this helping anything related to the OP?
Click to expand...

+1

jasons said:
Not necessarily, since we don't know what the actual crime was.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the crime was?

Our founding fathers paid much too high of a price for people to pick and choose who should have access to basic human rights, and especially when it's a situation like this, decorated vet and a 50 year old charge.
 
GSG said:
+1



Who cares what the crime was?

Our founding fathers paid much too high of a price for people to pick and choose who should have access to basic human rights, and especially when it's a situation like this, decorated vet and a 50 year old charge.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world you'd be 100% right, but the reality of our current situation is not equal to that ideal. So, from a PRACTICAL perspective, I care what the crime was because I don't want a guaranteed loser of a case to be a precedent setting test case.

[rolleyes]
 
Last edited:
As stated earlier, his "crime" is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we have a prime example of how our state legislators have stirpped a decorated war hero, and citizen of his Constitutional Rights.

This was the intention of the OP, not to get into the specifics of his case.

FWIW, he is on the right track towards getting his license back and probably will, the PD in his town have actually been HELPING him towards that end with the FLRB, as there is nothing that would disqualify him from getting it back.

I will be taking him shooting this spring when it warms up. I have a feeling he might like shooting the Garand :)

Happy Holidays everyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GOAL C.M. said:
I will be taking him shooting this spring when it warms up. I have a feeling he might like shooting the Garand :)

Happy Holidays everyone.
Click to expand...

Good on ya for that. It might be nice if several other GOAL/NES members could go along to thank this veteran for his service.

Merry Christmas to you and all of the GOAL staff.
 
GOAL C.M. said:
As stated earlier, his "crime" is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we have a prime example of how our state legislators have stirpped a decorated war hero, and citizen of his Constitutional Rights.

This was the intention of the OP, not to get into the specifics of his case.

FWIW, he is on the right track towards getting his license back and probably will, the PD in his town have actually been HELPING him towards that end with the FLRB, as there is nothing that would disqualify him from getting it back.

I will be taking him shooting this spring when it warms up. I have a feeling he might like shooting the Garand :)

Happy Holidays everyone.
Click to expand...

didnt you say in an earlier post he had a statutory DQ?
 
Everything is irrelevant...The message some are missing is that the mere existence of a statutory DQ is not only a slap in the face to this heroic citizen - it's a punch in the gut for freedom and liberty.....From Swampscott, to Brockton - this man and beyond, all of this should be a battle cry. However I fear that the combination of the: "hey I got mine", "he should get some training" and "what exactly did he do?" folks, the battle cry this should be, will become a faint whisper in the hallway of apathy, complacence and suitability here in the Nanny State...
 
GOAL C.M. said:
As stated earlier, his "crime" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It should be irrelevant, but sadly it's not. This is the real world that we're living in. GOAL of all organizations should understand this and recognize the need to be strategic.

GOAL C.M. said:
FWIW, he is on the right track towards getting his license back and probably will, the PD in his town have actually been HELPING him towards that end with the FLRB,
Click to expand...

So first the PD was giving him the round-around and now they're being helpful? I guess I'm missing something.

GOAL C.M. said:
as there is nothing that would disqualify him from getting it back.
Click to expand...

Obviously there is / was something or we wouldn't be having this conversation. You just haven't communicated what that something is. All that we know is that he served in honorably from '42 to '46 and then did something serious enough to be a statutory DQ in 1953. You expect us to ignore the bad thing that he did 53 years ago because of the good thing he did 65 years ago even though we don't know what the bad thing was?

You are GOAL's Communications Manager. I don't think it's out of line to ask you to communicate the full set of facts so that we can make our own determination about what is or isn't relevant.
 
Last edited:
GOAL C.M. said:
http://goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/disqual.pdf

BA, go to this link, check the line in the left column that begins with this;

"Past or current treatment for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness"

A statutory DQ is not supposed to be a lifetime sentence.
Click to expand...

OMFG....

It's unacceptable to deny people human rights when they've already served their sentence. And no, I don't care WHAT the crime was. As far as I'm concerened some gang-banger who shot up a local bar should have their rights restored when they finish their sentence.

Keeping dangerous criminals behind bars for a long time when they commit crimes would solve the problem.

But the whole BS about ever having been in treatment....ya, a guy who has an alcohol problem should be stripped of his rights...sure. why not the right to vote? How about free speech? Where does it stop?

The idea that we should have two classes of citizenship in this country is disgusting. It flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

Keep the freakin criminals locked up! We KNOW...we absolutely KNOW that the vast majority of repeat offenders are under age 35. Crime has ALWAYS been closely tied with age demographics.

Even if we did nothing but keep these people in jail until after that age we'd reduce recidivism drastically. but if you're going to make these guys permanent second-class citizens for life on release, well, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be law-abiding in the future now does it? Where's the payoff?
 
Bill Nance said:
OMFG....

It's unacceptable to deny people human rights when they've already served their sentence. And no, I don't care WHAT the crime was. As far as I'm concerened some gang-banger who shot up a local bar should have their rights restored when they finish their sentence.

Keeping dangerous criminals behind bars for a long time when they commit crimes would solve the problem.

But the whole BS about ever having been in treatment....ya, a guy who has an alcohol problem should be stripped of his rights...sure. why not the right to vote? How about free speech? Where does it stop?

The idea that we should have two classes of citizenship in this country is disgusting. It flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

Keep the freakin criminals locked up! We KNOW...we absolutely KNOW that the vast majority of repeat offenders are under age 35. Crime has ALWAYS been closely tied with age demographics.

Even if we did nothing but keep these people in jail until after that age we'd reduce recidivism drastically. but if you're going to make these guys permanent second-class citizens for life on release, well, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be law-abiding in the future now does it? Where's the payoff?
Click to expand...

+1.
 
I'm curious... are there other rights that can be withheld for this reason?

I fell comfortable in saying the doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists, mental health professionals, military, clergy, law enforcement and certainly politicians are allowed to maintain their licenses to practice and professional positions after such incidents. Folks are also able to retain their driver's license and remain parents in possession of their kids.

Why should gun rights be different?

Rich
 
machocheese said:
"Past or current treatment for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness"

Ineligibility waved after five years from treatment with physician's affidavit.
Click to expand...

News Flash: One does not get arrested for "treatment."

Those of us who read the OP saw that there was an arrest. There was almost certainly a criminal charge, likely A&B or OUI.

Further, unless and until there is a properly prepared affidavit filed,* he is still statutorily prohibited and the PD cannot issue the LTC. Period.

* A "doctor's letter" is not an affidavit. Neither will a generic "he's my patient and I see no problem" duck-and-cover generality suffice.
 
Last edited:
GOAL C.M. said:
As stated earlier, his "crime" is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we have a prime example of how our state legislators have stirpped a decorated war hero, and citizen of his Constitutional Rights.

This was the intention of the OP, not to get into the specifics of his case.

FWIW, he is on the right track towards getting his license back and probably will, the PD in his town have actually been HELPING him towards that end with the FLRB, as there is nothing that would disqualify him from getting it back.

I will be taking him shooting this spring when it warms up. I have a feeling he might like shooting the Garand :)

Happy Holidays everyone.
Click to expand...

GOAL C.M. said:
http://goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/disqual.pdf

BA, go to this link, check the line in the left column that begins with this;

"Past or current treatment for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness"

A statutory DQ is not supposed to be a lifetime sentence.
Click to expand...

Scrivener said:
News Flash: One does not get arrested for "treatment."

Those of us who read the OP saw that there was an arrest. There was almost certainly a criminal charge, likely A&B or OUI.

Further, unless and until there is a properly prepared affidavit filed,* he is still statutorily prohibited and the PD cannot issue the LTC. Period.

* A "doctor's letter" is not an affidavit. Neither will a generic "he's my patient and I see no problem" duck-and-cover generality suffice.
Click to expand...

I did in fact read the OP. I also read the two posts quoted above yours. I admit that I erroneously thought that the two posts referenced were from Attorney Cohen as opposed to GOAL. However the portions in bold would seem to indicate that at least in GOAL's opinion, the man in question may have a legal "right" to his LTC. I could of course be wrong, that's just how I read it.

By the way, do I get to join the fan club now? [wink] Merry Christmas!
 
Scrivener said:
News Flash: One does not get arrested for "treatment."

Those of us who read the OP saw that there was an arrest. There was almost certainly a criminal charge, likely A&B or OUI.

Further, unless and until there is a properly prepared affidavit filed,* he is still statutorily prohibited and the PD cannot issue the LTC. Period.

* A "doctor's letter" is not an affidavit. Neither will a generic "he's my patient and I see no problem" duck-and-cover generality suffice.
Click to expand...

fatality.jpg
 
machocheese said:
However the portions in bold would seem to indicate that at least in GOAL's opinion, the man in question may have a legal "right" to his LTC. I could of course be wrong, that's just how I read it.

By the way, do I get to join the fan club now? [wink] Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

A statutory disqualifier IS a lifetime bar, unless the disqualifier is removed. Therefore, there is no " 'right' to his LTC" so long as the disqualification remains.

As for the fan club, you're too late. Dark forces, fearful of the numbers of my faithful and the depth of their wrath if aroused, have expunged the Scrivener's Tough Love Fan Club from the face of the net.
 

Similar threads

Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Is this a good enough reason to get a .45 GAP?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
900
tuna
tuna
Looking for sponsor at Hopkinton Sportsmans Association
Replies
3
Views
155
Ripshot
R
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Need a lawyer for a will... would prefer a gun guy/2a friendly...
Replies
20
Views
535
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom