• 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.

Comm2A Challenges Prohibition Based on Non-Violent Misdemeanor Convictions

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,045
Likes
18,110
I have also argued that a person in MA already in legal possession of a handgun (example: A person downgrading from LTC to FID or possibly
Consider the case of a person whose LTC has been suspended or revoked for "suitability" and gets a "turn them all in" order. Is keeping the handgun(s) and high cap mag(s) legal if they have an FID?
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
17,661
Likes
13,429
Location
Southern NH
All should be moot as requiring permission, nevertheless continually reoccurring permission to just have and maintain possession of legal firearms already owned is literally the definition of infringing on the right to keep arms. Not even the arguably worse state of NJ demands that.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,440
Likes
12,516
Location
90% in NH
That's it? [laugh] Guess I'll have to settle for a Len-2A one-line zinger. [cheers]

I was referring to this (and only in the context of my post):

MGL 140-129C(n)

(n) The transfer of a firearm, rifle or shotgun upon the death of an owner to his heir or legatee shall be subject to the provisions of this section, provided that said heir or legatee shall within one hundred and eighty days of such transfer, obtain a firearm identification card or a license to carry firearms if not otherwise an exempt person who is qualified to receive such or apply to the licensing authority for such further limited period as may be necessary for the disposition of such firearm, rifle or shotgun;

Read your quoted law again. It ONLY applies if the executrix/executor is keeping the guns, they have 180 days to get licensed. It is the terminal actions of the estate at the settling of the estate. The 180 days is not from death nor does it mean that the guns must be distributed (in accordance with the will) within 180 days of anything. Lots of misinformation and misinterpretations of this law.

Consider the case of a person whose LTC has been suspended or revoked for "suitability" and gets a "turn them all in" order. Is keeping the handgun(s) and high cap mag(s) legal if they have an FID?

No due to C. 269 S. 10 that makes it a felony not to turn everything over immediately. After that one can attempt to make the point to the PD to return FID compliant guns. However, with suitability now in the equation if they suspend/revoke a LTC, I'd consider it a slam-dunk to get a judge's blessing to do the same for the FID.
 

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,885
Likes
6,639
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
Consider the case of a person whose LTC has been suspended or revoked for "suitability" and gets a "turn them all in" order. Is keeping the handgun(s) and high cap mag(s) legal if they have an FID?

Or the case where a person with an FID applied for a LTC and is denied. The denial comes in a 129D letter instructing the person to surrender all rifles, shotguns, etc.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
5,416
Likes
4,091
Read your quoted law again. It ONLY applies if the executrix/executor is keeping the guns, they have 180 days to get licensed. It is the terminal actions of the estate at the settling of the estate. The 180 days is not from death nor does it mean that the guns must be distributed (in accordance with the will) within 180 days of anything. Lots of misinformation and misinterpretations of this law.


Is that in the context somewhere? (I couldn't find/understand such context) That quoted bit says, "heir or legatee" which is the person who is the benefactor, not the executrix/or

(I love the word "executrix" :)
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,440
Likes
12,516
Location
90% in NH
How much time do you get to comply with a turn in order?

A mere matter of minutes. They come with the letter/order and expect to leave with all guns/ammo/mags even if others in the home are licensed and even if others own the guns confiscated. They let you battle it out afterwards but failure to immediately turn everything over is a felony under C.269 S. 10 and is prosecuted.


Is that in the context somewhere? (I couldn't find/understand such context) That quoted bit says, "heir or legatee" which is the person who is the benefactor, not the executrix/or

(I love the word "executrix" :)

Executor/executrix is no longer used (at least in MA) according to my attorney (we re-did our wills a few months ago), it is now "personal representative". In many cases the PR is also the heir/legatee. So the PR can hold and distribute the guns per the wishes in the will AND if said PR decides to keep them, they have 180 days to become licensed (grace period) after the estate is settled. IANAL but this was what Atty Jason Guida informed me when I asked him about the 180 days mentioned in the law. [Reason for my inquiry was that due to circumstances (family member with diminished capacity) the court didn't appoint me as PR for my Father's estate until 270 days after his death and filing of the will in court.]
 

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
152
Likes
1,085
Yesterday Dr. Morin filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

As in the original appeal, the question before the court is whether Dr. Morin applied for the least restrict firearms license that would allow him to possess a handgun (firearm) in the home for self defense. The Attorney General has continued (rather disingenuously) to assert that case law established by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allows exactly that.

In his brief, Dr. Morin clearly articulates the genesis and history of that mistake. The AG has bootstrapped obiter dicta (a relevant, but not precedential observation or remark), into case law. In doing so, they've created an effective means of suppressing the exercise of the Second Amendment. A person simple cannot possess a handgun with an FID card. But the fact that the courts have bought into this fiction means that there is no right to the one license (LTC) that DOES allow someone to possess a handgun in their home.

In 2014 Comm2A clearly brought this error to the attention of the SJC in our amicus brief in Gemme v. Holden:

Chapter 180, Acts of 1998, made major changes to the law which were, for the most part, the law in effect when this action arose. One major change was that you could no longer possess a handgun in your home under an FID card. The new G.L. c. 140, § 129B(6)(ii) only allowed possession of a handgun with an FID Card on a licensed gun range.
A License to Carry is Required to Simply Possess a Handgun in the Home
Although dicta in some recent cases says that a handgun may be possessed in one’s home on an FID card, see, e.g., Com. v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 799-800 n.14 (2012) or Chardin v. Police Com’r of Boston, 465 Mass. 314, 315 n.5 (2013), this is clearly wrong. The parties before the court apparently relied on cases interpreting the pre-1998 law (see, e.g., Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61, 61-62 (1st Cir. 2012) cited Com. v. Ramirez, 555 N.E.2d 208, 211 (1990) and Com. v. Seay, 383 N.E.2d 828, 831 (1978) which refer to the law repealed in 1998). After 1998 a gun purchased on the permit to purchase, G.L. c. 140, § 131A, had to be kept at a licensed gun range, not in your home.
During oral arguments in Holden, the court asked about this specific issue (Justice Lenk at 2:40). Taken from the transcript:
LENK: Could I get some clarification on a point. In one of the amicus briefs, the point was made that possession of a gun inside a home, not just outside of the home, requires this license to carry, which is part of regulatory scheme. And I wanted to ask you to address whether or not that license to carry is necessary for possession.
Holden’s attorney clearly doesn’t get the question and Lenk asks again:
LENK: My question is: Does this regulatory scheme applicable here require this license [LTC] just for the possession of a gun inside the home?
Greenberg: It does not.
And then Justice Botsford tried to double down on the 'FID is okay to possess a handgun' error.
It is at this point that we believe the SJC realized their mistake. Comm2A raised the FID is okay for handgun possession in our amicus brief and the justices brought it up in oral arguments. However, the Holden decision doesn't deven mention the FID and doesn't assert that Holden should have applied for one. The SJC has not made this claim since, but the AG continues tell courts that this is the law and the court continue to look the other way.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,045
Likes
18,110
A mere matter of minutes. They come with the letter/order and expect to leave with all guns/ammo/mags even if others in the home are licensed and even if others own the guns confiscated. They let you battle it out afterwards but failure to immediately turn everything over is a felony under C.269 S. 10 and is prosecuted.
It depends. I know of cases where the revocation/surrender letter arrived via US Snail. I also know of a case where the owner (well known to the PD, and in a good sort of way) said "I'll be glad to cooperate but I see you only brought one car".
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
8,178
Likes
6,079
It depends. I know of cases where the revocation/surrender letter arrived via US Snail. I also know of a case where the owner (well known to the PD, and in a good sort of way) said "I'll be glad to cooperate but I see you only brought one car".

And I know of a case where the gun owner was in custody at the station, they hand delivered the revocation for suitability, his lawyer told them where in the house the gun was stored, they took the gun and charged him with possession. All in one day. Before releasing the owner the next day.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
82   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,950
Likes
3,546
Location
Stoughton
I read it. Well, just today because I've been out of town. I'd say that the AG pulled the wool over the SJC's eyes, but it seems more like the judges of the SJC were willing victims of misdirection.

Doug, you're the only who's read the post. And I did at least provide this explanation: 'a relevant, but not precedential observation or remark'.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,771
Likes
4,919
Location
My forest stronghold
I read it. Well, just today because I've been out of town. I'd say that the AG pulled the wool over the SJC's eyes, but it seems more like the judges of the SJC were willing victims of misdirection.

Actually, I think the SJC realized their mistake but has done nothing to correct it while the AG continues to perpetuate this fiction on the courts. We got a lot of 'grown up' help (Comm2A donations hard at work) on this project from someone with significant federal appellate experience and he's surprised that the First Circuit was so willing to push the whole statutory issue aside.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,625
Likes
4,886
Any updates here? Were they waiting for a petition on a re-hearing from what I saw in post #98?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,625
Likes
4,886
Yesterday Dr. Morin filed a petition for rehearing en banc.

As in the original appeal, the question before the court is whether Dr. Morin applied for the least restrict firearms license that would allow him to possess a handgun (firearm) in the home for self defense. The Attorney General has continued (rather disingenuously) to assert that case law established by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allows exactly that.

In his brief, Dr. Morin clearly articulates the genesis and history of that mistake. The AG has bootstrapped obiter dicta (a relevant, but not precedential observation or remark), into case law. In doing so, they've created an effective means of suppressing the exercise of the Second Amendment. A person simple cannot possess a handgun with an FID card. But the fact that the courts have bought into this fiction means that there is no right to the one license (LTC) that DOES allow someone to possess a handgun in their home.

In 2014 Comm2A clearly brought this error to the attention of the SJC in our amicus brief in Gemme v. Holden:

During oral arguments in Holden, the court asked about this specific issue (Justice Lenk at 2:40). Taken from the transcript:
It is at this point that we believe the SJC realized their mistake. Comm2A raised the FID is okay for handgun possession in our amicus brief and the justices brought it up in oral arguments. However, the Holden decision doesn't deven mention the FID and doesn't assert that Holden should have applied for one. The SJC has not made this claim since, but the AG continues tell courts that this is the law and the court continue to look the other way.
Went back to look at this again, but a lot of broken links here.
 
Top Bottom