I just want to make sure everyone understands, we are an amicus, not the plaintiffs or paying for the case. This case has been around for years and the sjc took this case over ours last year. Our guy protested abortion clinics. This guy beat the crap out of his wife, allegedly as the wife has since recanted. We plan(ned) on taking a suitability case in early 2015. It is very likely the SJC was trying to screw us gun owners in this case. We hopefully just dropped a turd in that punch bowl with our amicus brief. See, the SJC was too busy buying the AGs bill shit hook line and sinker but the LTC is required for possession in the home. The SJC likely took this case to continue to screw with the premise that the right to arms exists outside the home and to shove suitability down our throats just a little harder. This may not be the greatest vehicle for that any longer...
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) clarified "suitability issues" or prohibited persons, on federal form 4473, as follows:
* Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[SUP]
[14][/SUP][SUP]
[15][/SUP]* Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
* Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any
controlled substances.
* Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a
mental institution.
* Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
* Anyone who has been
discharged from the
Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
* Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
* Anyone that is subject to a
court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the
Lautenberg Amendment.)
* Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[SUP]
[16][/SUP]
* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
Holden allegedly "beat the crap out of his wife" but he was never "
convicted" which is the key word in the above next to last bullet. Therefore, isn't the above list deemed acceptable for describing suitability for all MACoPs to follow instead of the arbitrary and capricious BS?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...l4CABw&usg=AFQjCNGKyFve45KV1txSBJSdc3-kzgzxqA