-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Bill proposes changes LTC standards? (HR 2341)
- Thread starter Gil
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,569
- Likes
- 33,635
I believe the term used is "referred for study"
I have a vested interest in this as well. CWOF at least in english terms seems pretty clear: "Without a Finding"... meaning not proven guilty. If this shit can pass I'll lose my mind. The next thing would be a disqualification for license if you have ever been arrested! Complete and uter BS in this state and all it's dumb ass legislators! ![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Agreed... more money to GOAL!
Agreed... more money to GOAL!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,569
- Likes
- 33,635
That bastion of gun rights, Arizona specifically considers "offenses for which a pardon has been granted" as disqualifiers for a LTC in that state proving that it's not just something in the regional water supply.
In MA it is "considered" bu LE to be a "guilty" equivalent and treated as such by most chiefs. Doesn't matter if it was for stealing a candy bar or OUI, same deal.
And let us not forget, that the condition precedent to a CWOF is an admission of facts sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty. This is a guilty plea in all but name. What a CWOF gets a D is an escape from penalty, not from the fact that an offense was committed.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,569
- Likes
- 33,635
Except that the defendant is promised a disposition without a finding if the terms are met. Even innocent defendants will find a deal such as this very appealing given the uncertainty of the justice system (being innocent of the offense provides no assurance the defendant will not be convicted - it just reduces the chances) and the thousands it would cost to fight being told "you have to be on good behavior for a period of time or this case will be re-opened."
I know the law doesn't work that way (certainly in Massachusetts and particularly when guns are involved), but in plain English admitting that the prosecution has sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty simply means that there's no reason to bother moving for dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence before putting on a defense.
Ken
Ken
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,569
- Likes
- 33,635
In Massachusetts it means you have agreed to make such an admission as one of the conditions for receiving a continuance without a finding.
It's not considered a pardon or guilty plea under the law. I cite the example of AZ considering a pardoned offense as a disqualifying criminal record as a second example of a case where a state government has decided that the lack of a conviction (as the conviction no longer exists once a pardon has been issued) will not prevent the alleged offense from being used as the basis to deny a license. I'm not certain that's still the case in AZ, however, so this info may not be currently accurate.
Sitting here reading this and tapping my toes waiting for my LTC renewal to come in has me thinking one thing:
I have a CWOF case on my record that reads dismissed and have consulted an attorney who has told me there is nothing on my record that should subject me to a DQ upon renewal.
Even the licensing authority told me I was all set when I went for my renewal, but I'm still sweating the days until it comes in.![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I have a CWOF case on my record that reads dismissed and have consulted an attorney who has told me there is nothing on my record that should subject me to a DQ upon renewal.
Even the licensing authority told me I was all set when I went for my renewal, but I'm still sweating the days until it comes in.
