Boston PD Denial for 1990 OUI

[nstassel]

I appeared today in court for an FID denial petition by the Boston Police. The grounds for the denial were that the applicant was disqualified due to a 1990 conviction for OUI. If you're even minimally familiar with this area of law you know not only that the maximum penalty then was only two years not two and a half but also that after five years the right to an FID card was restored by statute.

Yet the department lawyer pleaded in the petition it was two and a half, and made no mention of the restoration. I wonder how many times they've done that.

 

[Palladin]

So glad you're on our side

 

[Goliathan]

State and agency lawyers twisting the law to deprive people of their rights. That's unusual.

Thanks for all you do!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Don't think for a second that it was an error or accidental. Intentional misrepresentation of the law to fit a personal political agenda. Thoroughly disgusting and should be disbarred for that.

 

[Garys]

Which is why it's important, especially in this misbegotten state, to have counsel well versed in the gun laws.

This reminds me of the case where the Commonwealth's attorney mislead a judge by stating that a LTC wasn't necessary because the plaintiff could apply for a "Permit to Purchase."

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Even if you are granted the FID, it'll take a ruling in either the 1st Circuit or the Supreme Court that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) doesn't apply to you in order not to be a Federally prohibited person. Good luck with your case!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I saw a lie on a search warrant application. The officer indicated that visual sighting of a brass casing gave him reason to believe that based on training an experience there was likely to be a gun in a car, and that a gun in a parked car was illegal on school property. The car owner was known to have an LTC. The warrant was granted based on this allegation of lawful behavior because the police fabricated an extension to MGL269§10j. At court (hearing, not the trial) the first thing the judge said to defense was "counsel, I don't want to hear any argument about the warrant".

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Even if you are granted the FID, it'll take a ruling in either the 1st Circuit or the Supreme Court that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) doesn't apply to you in order not to be a Federally prohibited person. Good luck with your case!

Not if the conviction was prior to an increase of the maximum sentence from 2.0 to 2.5 years for first offense OUI.

 

[Ron Jablonski]

I've shared my story on here before. I've experienced first hand how the police and DA will blatantly lie to get a conviction. It's how I ended up winning my case, there were so many fabrications in the officers testimonies that they all ended up contradicting each other, my lawyer ripped them to shreds on the stand and made them look like idiots. It was pretty impressive to watch. All because I refused any sobriety and breath tests, apparently they decided they were going to try and make an example out of me.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Not if the conviction was prior to an increase of the maximum sentence from 2.0 to 2.5 years for first offense OUI.

The federal law reads as follows (emphasis mine). There's no difference between 2 and 2.5 years.

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person, including as a juvenile—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

 

[nstassel]

The federal law reads as follows (emphasis mine). There's no difference between 2 and 2.5 years.



Source: 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

Ahh but you have to read 18 USC §921(a)(20)(B) which states:

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

 

[Garys]

My upvote is because you comment finally helped me understand the apparent discrepancy between the "one year" rule and the MA definition of a felony. Which I think is what Congress was trying to sort out.

Probably soon, SCOTUS is going to grapple with the question of life time bans on possession of firearms and how the 2A can be reconciled.

Ahh but you have to read 18 USC §921(a)(20)(B) which states:

 

[nstassel]

My upvote is because you comment finally helped me understand the apparent discrepancy between the "one year" rule and the MA definition of a felony. Which I think is what Congress was trying to sort out.

Probably soon, SCOTUS is going to grapple with the question of life time bans on possession of firearms and how the 2A can be reconciled.

Also remember that massachusetts defines a felony as a crime for which you can receive a state prison sentence.

 

[Garys]

A change from the old definition of 2 1/2 years or more in a state prison. IIRC, that was the maximum term that could be served in a HOC as opposed to MCI.

I always chuckled that a Misdemeanor was any crime that was not a Felony.

It's been a long time since I had to know any of that.

Also remember that massachusetts defines a felony as a crime for which you can receive a state prison sentence.

 

[Waher]

At court (hearing, not the trial) the first thing the judge said to defense was "counsel, I don't want to hear any argument about the warrant".

Good indication that the flaming bag of crap masquerading as a judge had prior experience with the PD in the case lying to conduct unlawful searches and knew enough to preemptively deny a defense against corruption as an active coconspirator.

 

[In God We Trust]

Not if the conviction was prior to an increase of the maximum sentence from 2.0 to 2.5 years for first offense OUI.

I’m curious if the increase was deliberate to make as many PP as possible. Why else would they increase it by 6 months? If 2 years in prison doesn’t stop drunks, did they think another 6 months would do the trick?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Good indication that the flaming bag of crap masquerading as a judge had prior experience with the PD in the case lying to conduct unlawful searches and knew enough to preemptively deny a defense against corruption as an active coconspirator.

Case was disposed of with a CWOF ( I think two years) on storage charges; 269§10(j) charge was dropped.

 

[Garys]

It was pushed by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

I’m curious if the increase was deliberate to make as many PP as possible. Why else would they increase it by 6 months? If 2 years in prison doesn’t stop drunks, did they think another 6 months would do the trick?

 

[nstassel]

It was pushed by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

It's ludicrous especially when you consider that nobody ever gets two years let alone more than two years for first offense oui.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Good indication that the flaming bag of crap masquerading as a judge had prior experience with the PD in the case lying to conduct unlawful searches and knew enough to preemptively deny a defense against corruption as an active coconspirator.

What was interesting about this is there was no lie about facts - the brass case was really there.

The lie was mis-stating the law to the court. Not even sure they knew they were lying, as police departments are reluctant to teach the "one ones permit" limitation of 260§10j.

 

[drgrant]

I appeared today in court for an FID denial petition by the Boston Police. The grounds for the denial was that the applicant was disqualified due to a 1990 conviction for OUI. If you're even minimally familiar with this area of law you know not only that the maximum penalty then was only two years not two and a half but also that after five years the right to an FID card was restored by statute.

Yet the department lawyer pleaded in the petition it was two and a half, and made no mention of the restoration. I wonder how many times they've done that.

Makes me wonder how many times the ShitTowns (TM) still do this shit to people and think they can just get away with it because theres no repercussions for doing it.

It's mind numbing. You would wish at least once a judge would even just chastize the shit out of them. "Did you even read the law? ??"

 

[drgrant]

I’m curious if the increase was deliberate to make as many PP as possible. Why else would they increase it by 6 months? If 2 years in prison doesn’t stop drunks, did they think another 6 months would do the trick?

An MA misdafelony is exponentially more painful legally to the accused than its lesser counterpart.

 

[milktree]

An MA misdafelony is exponentially more painful legally to the accused than its lesser counterpart.

Is this true for anyone besides gun owners?

 

[Mesatchornug]

I appeared today in court for an FID denial petition by the Boston Police. The grounds for the denial were that the applicant was disqualified due to a 1990 conviction for OUI. If you're even minimally familiar with this area of law you know not only that the maximum penalty then was only two years not two and a half but also that after five years the right to an FID card was restored by statute.

Yet the department lawyer pleaded in the petition it was two and a half, and made no mention of the restoration. I wonder how many times they've done that.

Is there a process for bringing a complaint against a lawyer who misrepresents the law like that? Would it be more effective to tilt at windmills?

 

[drgrant]

Is this true for anyone besides gun owners?

Being a federally prohibited person likely disqualifies people from a lot of jobs.

 

[nstassel]

Is there a process for bringing a complaint against a lawyer who misrepresents the law like that? Would it be more effective to tilt at windmills?

There is an ethical violation to cite to a court improper authority that you know is wrong. You'd have to show they knew of the 1994 change though. This was a young guy and I thoroughly called him and the PD out in my memo to the judge and attached the act that changed the law. I think he'll never forget that.

I would go further if I heard of them doing this again though.

 

[Mesatchornug]

There is an ethical violation to cite to a court improper authority that you know is wrong. You'd have to show they knew of the 1994 change though. This was a young guy and I thoroughly called him and the PD out in my memo to the judge and attached the act that changed the law. I think he'll never forget that.

I would go further if I heard of them doing this again though.

Thanks. That sounds like the right process, all considered.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I saw a lie on a search warrant application. The officer indicated that visual sighting of a brass casing gave him reason to believe that based on training an experience there was likely to be a gun in a car, and that a gun in a parked car was illegal on school property. The car owner was known to have an LTC. The warrant was granted based on this allegation of lawful behavior because the police fabricated an extension to MGL269§10j. At court (hearing, not the trial) the first thing the judge said to defense was "counsel, I don't want to hear any argument about the warrant".

Piece of shit Judge. Corrupt

 

[Asaltweapon]

Is this true for anyone besides gun owners?

You must be baiting.