Bill proposes changes LTC standards? (HR 2341)

[Gil]

I read this in the text of HR 2341:

1 SECTION 1. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as
2 appearing in the 1998 Official Edition, is hereby amended by
3 striking out the definition of “Conviction” and inserting in place
4 thereof the following definition:—
5 “Conviction”, a finding or verdict of guilt or a plea of guilty,
6 whether or not final sentence is imposed, or a continuation without a
7 finding after a finding of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of
8 guilty.


So they want a CWF to equal a conviction. the bill then goes on to say:


1 SECTION 2. Section 131 of said Chapter 140, as so appearing, is
2 hereby amended by striking out subsection (d) and inserting in place
3 thereof the following subsection:—
4 (d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the
5 jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any person residing in an
6 area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town
7 may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police,
8 an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, or
9 renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel
10 may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be
11 issued such license, and that the applicant has a good, specific and
12 compelling reason to fear injury to his person or property, or may
13 issue a license limited to the carrying of firearms for use in sport or
14 target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or autho-
15 rized under this section, unless the applicant:—
16 (i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adju-
17 dicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission
18 of:—
19 (a) a felony;
20 (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than one
21 year;
22 (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121;
23 (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, owner-
24 ship, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation
25 of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may
26 be imposed; or
27 (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of
28 controlled substances as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 94C;
29 (ii) has been confined to any hospital or institution for mental ill-
30 ness, unless the applicant submits with his application an affidavit of
31 a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with
32 the applicant’s mental illness and that in such physician’s opinion
33 the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that
34 should prevent such applicant from possessing a firearm;
35 (iii) is or has been under treatment for or confinement for sub-
36 stance or alcohol abuse unless such applicant is deemed to be cured
37 of such condition by a licensed physician, and such applicant may
38 make application for such license after the expiration of five years
39 from the date of such confinement or treatment and upon present-
40 ment of an affidavit issued by such physician stating that such physi-
41 cian knows the applicant’s history of treatment and that in such
42 physician’s opinion the applicant is deemed cured;
43 (iv) is at the time of the application less than 21 years of age;
44 (v) is an alien;
45 (vi) is currently subject to:—
46 (A) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to
47 Section 3B or 3C of Chapter 209A or a similar order issued by
48 another jurisdiction; or
49 (B) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to
50 Chapter 208 or Chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another
51 jurisdiction; or
52 (vii) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in
53 any state or federal jurisdiction.
54 (viii) has not successfully completed a firearms safety course of at
55 least twenty hours, including a minimum of four hours of practical
56 shooting instruction at a firing range that has been approved by the
57 secretary of public safety or his designee.


So, if this bill passes, does this mean they want to make it so someone with a CWF for a misdemeanor drug possession from high school, or a CWF for possessing a switch blade twenty years ago can no longer get a LTC in MA? If they want to make a CWF equal a "conviction" all the way around, this will be the effect. If so, this is complete bullshit and needs to be stopped.

Those of us with non-resident LTCs can't do much besides sit and watch. I hope someone down there keeps an eye on this.

 

[Gil]

Did this post?

I didn't see if this thread actually got posted. It doesn't show up in new posts - is Deval Patrick preventing this?

 

[Pilgrim]

may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be
11 issued such license, and that the applicant has a good, specific and
12 compelling reason to fear injury to his person or property

this didn't bother you?

 

[kevin9]

Yep. Which is why GOAL opposes this bill.
http://www.goal.org/legislation/legischart.htm
It's sponsor gets a big fat "D" rating as well.
http://www.goal.org/2006Elections/Housewinners.htm

 

[jhrosier]

I read this in the text of HR 2341:

.....
8 an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, or
9 renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel
10 may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be
11 issued such license, and that the applicant has a good, specific and
12 compelling reason to fear injury to his person or property, or may
13 issue a license limited to the carrying of firearms for use in sport or
14 target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or autho-
15 rized under this section,....

The end of ALP and all licenses restricted???
Who dreams up this cr*p?

 

[WayneWong]

This is the current langueage of Chapter 140 Sect. 131

...and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property...


Changed from "good" to "good,specific, and compelling." Plus, still leaving the final decision to the local chief and his personal philosophy.


If goal needs people to show support, I would gladly be part of a group.


BTW, Here's my good, specific, and compelling reason: "I wish to invoke my 2nd ammendment rights."

 

[Gil]

that too -

this didn't bother you?

Oh yeah, that too, but the first part of the bill, the one that redefines a conviction, was right at the top and it jumped out at me, having just finished law school I get worked up about little twists in a word once taken at face value.

If a CWF is to be considered the same as a conviction, there's no second chance for a youthful offender who might get busted for something stupid in high school to rehabilitate himself. This was the whole point of the Commonwealth creating the CWF judgment for certain offenses.

Also, if CWF = conviction, say bye-bye to ever working as a cop, teacher or who knows how many other professions. Pretty blatantly political and short sighted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Who dreams up all this cr*p?

Rep Linsky resubmits a variant of this bill every year. Although one must remain ever vigilant, he hasn't got his way ... yet.

The CWOF==conviction actually reduces the discretion a police chief has - something that GOAL should use against the bill. It is also an ex post facto punishment, since people who accepted CWOF with ASF did so after weighing factors including their chances of prevailing at trial; legal fees and anticipated punishment. Absent the "gun ban" a CWOF is, in many cases, a lighter punishment than the legal fees associated with going to trail - even if the defendant is found innocent. Unfortunately, the MA legal system does not recognize a ban on holding an LTC ban, therefore, the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws are null and void.

after a finding of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty

A lawyer who used to be active on this list explained that there is a "ASF" (admission to sufficient facts) box on the case form which, if checked, means the defendant has as part of his plea "admitted to facts sufficient for a conviction." Think someone will be able to avoid the provisions of this proposed law by not admitting sufficient facts? Think again. He also explained that many courts in MA will not give a CWOF disposition without an admission to sufficient facts.

A second attorney on this list told me the purpose of ASF is to cover the contingency of the defendant getting into additional trouble before the "continuance period" is up. If the defendant has not admitted to sufficient facts, the defendant retains the right to dispute his guilt in the original CWOF case, whereas, with ASF, he has for all practical purposes pre-entered a guilty plea that may be used later.

Lawyers on the list are welcome correct me if this statement is not correct.

 

[zenprop]

The key to that line in regards to a CWOF is: "after a finding of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty". If your CWOF says 1 year probation, and you complete it successfully, without incident, the case is dismissed and you're all set. If you mess up while servong your CWOF, it turns to a guilty finding and you're done.

 

[Gil]

The key to that line in regards to a CWOF is: "after a finding of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty". If your CWOF says 1 year probation, and you complete it successfully, without incident, the case is dismissed and you're all set. If you mess up while servong your CWOF, it turns to a guilty finding and you're done.

Is there some notification or tracking of this in the system? That's the first I heard of it, though it seems logical enough.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The key to that line in regards to a CWOF is: "after a finding of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty". If your CWOF says 1 year probation, and you complete it successfully, without incident, the case is dismissed and you're all set. If you mess up while servong your CWOF, it turns to a guilty finding and you're done.

I believe your analysis is in error.

A CWOF is entered with, or without, an "Admission to Sufficient Facts" by the defendant. If the admission is made, it is recorded on the form (not sure if this shows up in the CHSB, or if one must track down the court record to find out). Doing your "continuance time" without getting into trouble will not erase the fact that you "admitted to sufficient facts" which will almost certainly be treated as a "finding of sufficient facts" for the purpose of the proposed law.

A CWOF is not "probation", but a period of time during which the charges remain "continued". They move to "dismissed" if the defendant does not come to the attention of the system during the contination period. "Probation" is a form of court supervision imposed after a finding of guilty.

Legal scholars with degrees - did I get this right?

 

[Gil]

That sounds more like it - I'd have to check, but as far as I know, there is no probationary period for CWF, and the status of that judgment does not automatically change over time.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Current MGL Ch. 140 S. 131 (d)(i) - Statutory Disqualifiers:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm

(i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of

(a) a felony;
(b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years;
(c) a violent crime as defined in section 121;
(d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or
(e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;​

(ii) has been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness, unless the applicant submits with his application an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant’s mental illness and that in such physician’s opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent such applicant from possessing a firearm;

(iii) is or has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless such applicant is deemed to be cured of such condition by a licensed physician, and such applicant may make application for such license after the expiration of five years from the date of such confinement or treatment and upon presentment of an affidavit issued by such physician stating that such physician knows the applicant’s history of treatment and that in such physician’s opinion the applicant is deemed cured;

(iv) is at the time of the application less than 21 years of age;

(v) is an alien;

(vi) is currently subject to: (A) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to section 3B or 3C of chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction; or (B) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction; or

(vii) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. . .

 

[Doctordrew]

if this bill passes, when will it (they) likely go into effect?

I dont have my LTC yet, (applying in march) and if i have to have a "good,specific and compelling reason" to have a LTC instead of ALP....

can anyone ? besides LEOs...



man, I was in a gun shop in NH and heard a guy talking... "...everytime i go to the chief of police hes gone, hahah i need him to sign off on another automatic.... supressed mac 11 for me and everytime i go there hes gone!"

 

[Len-2A Training]

Usually laws don't go into effect for x days after being signed unless an emergency preamble is part of the law. I think x is equal to 90 or 120 days IIRC.

Hopefully that BS won't pass, but if it were to pass, most chiefs would implement that sort of requirement almost immediately (under "chief's discretion") . . . some chiefs already require that sort of nonsense (and have for years).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

dupe removed

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does Chief Glidden teach that this is his recommendation as to how the suitability requirement be applied, or does he teach that this currently constitutes a statuatory disqualifier?

And even if all MA judges did something a certain way, that does not mean that a case in another state might not have been done totally differently.

Procedures between states are sufficiently different to make comparison a bit difficult. The term CWOF is not standardized (for example, in NY the term is "Adjournment contemplating dismissal"), and not all other states may have the concept of an admission to sufficient facts.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob,

Although I've seen Ron writing that "in all cases" CWOF requires ASF and therefore . . . , I haven't paid enough attention to the nuances in his words to answer your question definitively.

I agree fully with your second comment.

Regardless, the "influence" is on treating any CWOF or equivalent as a DQ and using "suitability" to cover that subjective decision.

 

[Doctordrew]

question...

so if having a Continuance Without A Finding makes one eneligible, what if a police officer has had one in the past and is now a police officer....must he be fired because he cant carry???



any news on this bill? if it goes into effect will screw me because i still have 4 months till i can apply for my LTC...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Is there some notification or tracking of this in the system? That's the first I heard of it, though it seems logical enough.

Yes. If someone is arrested and/or charged, it remains in their CORI record for life with no provision for removal. Although the details on the disposition (i.e,. if ASF was checked) may not be in the system, the procedure will almost certainly be to assume the worst until proven otherwise by looking up the actual court record.

 

[zenprop]

If you agrree to a CWOF and the case is later dismissed because you fullfilled your requirements, the only thing your record will show is that you were charged with x and the case was dismissed, the date the case was dismissed, and who dismissed the case.

If your chief is a real knob and interperts all CWOF's as an admission of guilt then you should move. In reality a CWOF is not an admission of guilt, just that the prosocution does have enough evidence to succesfully prosecute the case and you take this offer instead of risking trial. It's a means to not ruin the lives of young indivuals or lifelong good citizens who make a mistake.

IANAL but I do have first hand knowledge of how this works.

This was also verified by a prosecutor friend of mine when I was applying for my LTC (recieved w/ no restrictions).

 

[SKS Ray]

If you agrree to a CWOF and the case is later dismissed because you fullfilled your requirements, the only thing your record will show is that you were charged with x and the case was dismissed, the date the case was dismissed, and who dismissed the case.

A CORI shows the date for CWOF and the date dismissed.

 

[Talon3]

How to read and interpret CORI codes.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssub...I)&L4=How+to+Read+a+Criminal+Record&sid=Eeops

If the huge link does not work try mass.gov/chsb

click on the second link down on the left, then select the " how to read a cori record.

 

[Moderator]

Time to send GOAL more $$$

 

[Doctordrew]

any new information about the new law?

when it will go into effect, if it will at all etc.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's not a Law . . . yet!

 

[Doctordrew]

yeah i hope it never will be, i should have said "proposed" law.


but any new news about when it may go into effect, if it will at all etc.

cause we all know law abiding people need more regulations.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Only when a bill is passed (very long process normally), signed by the gov . . . then we will know when it goes into effect. If they attach an "emergency preamble", it can go into effect almost immediately (I don't recall specific time), if not it is either 90 or 120 days later (again, I don't recall the numbers).

The objective is to try to make sure it gets "buried in committee" and never sees daylight. That is what GOAL and us do/should be (respectively) working on.

 

[Doctordrew]

The objective is to try to make sure it gets "buried in committee" and never sees daylight. That is what GOAL and us do/should be (respectively) working on.

+1