Comm2A wins in MA state court against the FLRB

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
143
Likes
1,058
Comm2A is pleased to announce that we have won a case in Suffolk Superior Court on the issue of FLRB failing to grant proper hearings for rights restoration. The FLRB was denying outright all requests for restoration on the basis that federal law prevented recipients of the restoration from lawfully possessing firearms. This has been firmly rejected in almost a dozen cases Comm2A has quietly been taking on the issue. We have supported, through attorneys Jason Guida (@MassachusettsFirearmsAttorney) and Keith Langer, a host of cases culminating in 3 appeals cases to the Superior Court. See link for text of the courts well reasoned opinion in Capano v. Dunne. Comm2A will not rest until this issue has been litigated to completion. The absurdity of the FLRB's position, and the ATFs, on this issue needs to be addressed. A prerequisite to firearms rights restoration does not, and never was, the need to lose your voting, public office, and juror rights.
Read the memorandum of decision in our recently won court case here,

 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,672
Likes
4,773
Location
My forest stronghold
I cannot emphasis enough the level of effort that Jason Guida has devoted to this issue. And the issue is much, much bigger than the FLRB.

The FLRB's refusal to do their job has been a roadblock to the bigger issue of how people lose a fundamental, enumerated right over a relativity minor offense that carries an absurdly severe potential penalty. The FLRB essentially prevented these folks from challenging the larger issue against the federal government.

Guida still has a few hurdles before him, but hopefully this will stick and we can move on and take it to the feds.
 

CATI

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
425
Likes
504
Great job. Curious about this case, Just so I can understand better

The state now will just not outright reject these cases as I assume they did before?
They will still be federal prohibited persons?
So now it is possible to get the right in MA back but you still would not be licensed federally? AKA no license for these people
Next step is going after the federal side?

Below is from the case.


In its findings of fact, the Board opined that each Plaintiff had taken responsibility for hisoffense, rarely drank alcohol at present, was responsible in his use of firearms, and had presented credible testimony that “suggested a favorable determination of suitability.” The Board 4nonetheless concluded that it could do nothing to change the fact that the Plaintiffs would remain prohibited from carrying firearms under federal law, which, in turn, rendered them unsuitable to possess firearms under Massachusetts law

In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost

In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,913
Likes
2,612
Great job. Curious about this case, Just so I can understand better

The state now will just not outright reject these cases as I assume they did before?
They will still be federal prohibited persons?
So now it is possible to get the right in MA back but you still would not be licensed federally? AKA no license for these people
Next step is going after the federal side?

Below is from the case.


In its findings of fact, the Board opined that each Plaintiff had taken responsibility for hisoffense, rarely drank alcohol at present, was responsible in his use of firearms, and had presented credible testimony that “suggested a favorable determination of suitability.” The Board 4nonetheless concluded that it could do nothing to change the fact that the Plaintiffs would remain prohibited from carrying firearms under federal law, which, in turn, rendered them unsuitable to possess firearms under Massachusetts law

In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost

In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost
No federal court has held that MAs restoration doesn’t meet the federal law. Only the ATF believes this. That doesn’t per se make one a prohibited person.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
198
Likes
206
Location
New Hampshire
I cannot emphasis enough the level of effort that Jason Guida has devoted to this issue. And the issue is much, much bigger than the FLRB.

The FLRB's refusal to do their job has been a roadblock to the bigger issue of how people lose a fundamental, enumerated right over a relativity minor offense that carries an absurdly severe potential penalty. The FLRB essentially prevented these folks from challenging the larger issue against the federal government.

Guida still has a few hurdles before him, but hopefully this will stick and we can move on and take it to the feds.

OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
 

Boghog1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
18,280
Likes
4,449
Location
Live Free or Die
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
Let's see what other things we could do to strip rights away, did you speed ever, speeding is dangerous and kills people everyday. If you have ever had a speeding ticket you should be declared unsuitable.
 

CrackPot

NES Member
Rating - 100%
62   0   0
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
4,300
Likes
4,631
Location
Worcester County
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
OUI is pre-crime absent bodily injury or property damage. You can be convicted of OUI for sleeping it off in the backseat of your car if you have your keys with you.

It should not be a crime let alone something that takes away your rights. I would also charge someone who kills while driving drunk with first degree murder...

Keep up the fight @Comm2A
 

MagGus1820

NES Member
Rating - 50%
1   1   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
5,708
Likes
6,856
Location
South Shore
OUI is pre-crime absent bodily injury or property damage. You can be convicted of OUI for sleeping it off in the backseat of your car if you have your keys with you.

It should not be a crime let alone something that takes away your rights. I would also charge someone who kills while driving drunk with first degree murder...

Keep up the fight @Comm2A
This is the situation that shows OUI for what it is: a money-maker for the gov. They even advertise how much they make off of you on billboards. The person in your scenario chose wisely but will be punished for that, which breeds the mentality of people chancing to drive home.
 

Woodsy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
5,963
Likes
3,132
Location
In the north woods likely hunting or trapping
Comm2A is pleased to announce that we have won a case in Suffolk Superior Court on the issue of FLRB failing to grant proper hearings for rights restoration. The FLRB was denying outright all requests for restoration on the basis that federal law prevented recipients of the restoration from lawfully possessing firearms. This has been firmly rejected in almost a dozen cases Comm2A has quietly been taking on the issue. We have supported, through attorneys Jason Guida (@MassachusettsFirearmsAttorney) and Keith Langer, a host of cases culminating in 3 appeals cases to the Superior Court. See link for text of the courts well reasoned opinion in Capano v. Dunne. Comm2A will not rest until this issue has been litigated to completion. The absurdity of the FLRB's position, and the ATFs, on this issue needs to be addressed. A prerequisite to firearms rights restoration does not, and never was, the need to lose your voting, public office, and juror rights.
Read the memorandum of decision in our recently won court case here,

Been following this and you moved mountains here to get this done. Great work.
 

connor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
944
Likes
1,047
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
Is your name Yuri, by any chance?
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
5,290
Likes
3,796
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive

If you actually believe that, you should be pushing for anyone who's ever driven drunk losing their right to drive forever.

Equating drunk driving with "too dangerous to own a gun" is just absurd.
 

Da_lucche

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
2,508
Likes
847
Location
Demokratic People's Republik of Massachusux
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive

Oh please. If you are deemed worthy enough or not dangerous by a court of law to be out on the street, then you should have full access to your inalienable rights.
 
Last edited:

BigGreen2000

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
92
Likes
56
Location
The 413
Please clarify: is this the whole "misdafelony" issue, or is it people getting LTC's revoked for marijuana use (legal at state level vs not legal at federal level)?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,480
Likes
17,175
The ATF position means a NIC check will fail for the individual and an appeal will be denied. We are not (yet) aware of any MA residents prosecuted for felon in possession who had an FLRB relief.

The problem is that the ATF chooses to accept the rights lost mentioned in US v Logan as a complete enumeration of all rights that are "civil" - apparently the 2A, in the agency's opinion, confers a non-civil right. The position is absurd because it states "You cannot get your rights back because you were not severely enough punished".

The implications extend beyond MA. CA has a firearms rehabilitation for first time domestic violence offenders, which is accepted by the state but not by the ATF using the same logic as the FLRB situation in MA. The issue pre-dates the MA FLRB relief issue and, in my speculative opinion, the prospect of restoring DV convicts rights is what originally motivated the ATF position
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,480
Likes
17,175
Please clarify: is this the whole "misdafelony" issue, or is it people getting LTC's revoked for marijuana use (legal at state level vs not legal at federal level)?
OUI == Misdafelony; FLRB restoration of rights not recognized because the subject never lost all civil rights.
 

nstassel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
3,443
Likes
8,504
Location
Middlesex County
Just today I was able to cite the Capano decision (along with Dusseault, Binderup and Dupont) to get a client's FID restored after Pembroke PD followed the BATF Logan interpretation. The Judge was highly critical of FRB saying he believed it to be an abuse of discretion for them to blindly follow a faulty position rather than stand up for residents of the Commonwealth.

I think Capano is really going to get the ball rolling again.
 

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
16,641
Likes
10,466
Location
Northern Mass
Absolutely THRILLED that this has worked out for all of us. It's also very rewarding to see the money we send is being put to such great use.

Thank you!!
 

nstassel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
3,443
Likes
8,504
Location
Middlesex County
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
That's a fairly naive point of view. If a cop decides to charge someone with OUI just because they smell alcohol should a person lose a Constitutional right? If they have a persistent alcohol issue that can be addressed through suitability not disqualification.
 

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
16,641
Likes
10,466
Location
Northern Mass
OUI is not a minor offense. It is very serious. if You ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver you would understand. These drunk people need be stopped before they harm any one. I agree if a person is a drunk they are unsuitable. want to own a gun? dont consume alcohol and drive
How did I miss this in all the excitement

GFY
 
Top Bottom