Comm2A wins in MA state court against the FLRB

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

I don't have the cite, but I remember one case where the district court upheld an LTC revocation for an OUI without a guilty finding since "evidence of guilt still exists".

 

[huskyal02_R1]

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,

https://comm2a.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Capano-v.-Dunne.pdf

Thank you very much for your hard work. I just joined Comm 2A to show up support.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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.

So the Massachusetts misdafelony would go away? I know people who would like to apply for LTCs but may have had some issues in their youth. People always worry about the rejection.

 

[sig shooter]

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

I agree that it’s a terrible selfish decision to drink and drive. However, I don’t support taking anyone’s rights away.

 

[granitestater]

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.

Charged is still innocent until proven guilty. Guilty is when gun rights are lost. And if you dont like the whole suitability thing then dont live in Masss

 

[nstassel]

P

Charged is still innocent until proven guilty. Guilty is when gun rights are lost. And if you dont like the whole suitability thing then dont live in Masss

So you feel that only guilty people have the risk of being found guilty? Like I said, naive.

 

[CrackPot]

P
So you feel that only guilty people have the risk of being found guilty? Like I said, naive.

And self righteous. You forgot that. People that believe in the system have only viewed it from a distance

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

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

Few are going to argue that getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while intoxicated is trivial. I certainly won't.

But, simple OUI absent other issues is a misdemeanor in every state, including Massachusetts. Where Massachusetts departs from the norm is that we have a potential maximum punishment of 2-1/2 years in jail for a first offense where no one was harmed and where no property is damaged. That's pretty severe. And on one ever actually serves time for a first offense for simple OUI. And when 'simple' OUI has costs to other parties, the consequences are much more severe.

Should that alone result in someone losing some or all of their enumerated rights? OUI is not a violent offense. It is not the same as vehicular homicide or any other charge attendant to something more than OUI.

 

[AHM]

People that believe in the system have only viewed it from a distance

"Proned-out is one step-function away from a curb-stomping".

 

[Rob Boudrie]

An interesting difference between OUI and vehicular homicide is that one makes a decision to commit the former. Driving after drinking is something one chooses to do, not something that happens to the individual.

ANYONE can commit vehicular homicide without any element of intent, choice, mens rea or scienture. It is a true "there but for the grace of the FSM go I" kind of crime. Sunlight in the eyes, someone stepping out into traffic, a second's lapse in judgment, falling asleep at the wheel, medical episode that does not leave a confirming biological footprint (fainting as opposed to a heart attack and the like) can all result in a vehicular homicide charge and quite possibly conviction. The system wants to balance the scales and make someone pay.

Add in that the driver is unlikely to have the presence of mind to realize someone may have been killed, and understand the desire of the system to hold someone accountable, the driver may make some spontaneous utterances that are later used against him/her in trial - as in "You told the officer you nodded off, and now you expect us to believe you passed out from some medical episode?". The officer asking if you need an ambulance and looking out for your welfare is the same person tasked with gathering evidence used to prosecute you. It's a natural setup for the classic Reid-Inbau technique.

I was a passenger in a fatal car accident. It took weeks for the police to release the report to me since the DA's office had to determine if someone could be charged. And this was a case where the police had concluded that the driver who was killed was 100% at fault. Still, by procedure, a scavenger hunt looking for someone to prosecute.

Just remember Chief Wiggim's classic line

Back on topic - a fundamental problem is the MA system's systematic de-facto policy of the courts not recognizing the lifetime removal of a basic constitutional right as punishment.

 

[SFC13557]

Well done!

Seeing this reminded me it has been a while as well... Donation sent.

me too!

 

[Mike-Mike]

BRAVO!

 

[drgrant]

Charged is still innocent until proven guilty. Guilty is when gun rights are lost. And if you dont like the whole suitability thing then dont live in Masss

This isn't a suitability issue though. Post May-27-94 first offfense OUI convictions sourced in MA make you a federally prohibited person, a problem you cannot move away from.

 

[nstassel]

Just remember Chief Wiggim's classic line

This gem?

 

[teamRR]

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

What everyone else said, plus realize most OUI's are on the far end of minor, .08 may technically be impaired for one person and virtually undetectable/unnoticeable until a test is rendered for another.

I had a friend get charged with OUI because he was rear ended sitting there at a red light, police said he was at fault just because they suspected drinking. Luckily for him he sueaked out of it fairly unscathed.. another friend who took a breathalyzer and blew a .05 but still had to plea it out when the police claimed he probably sobered up some before the test was given and the case was aggressively prosecuted.

And regardless the stupid decisions made at 24 years old have no bearing on the person they become at 35, 40, 50 etc etc. There are very few people that never cross a line somewhere in life, it's not the loss of rights I disagree with necessarily but the permanence - people change.

I have lost someone I cared about to drugs and I still wouldn't think the dealer who sold them to her shouldn't have some relief available 20 years later.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And regardless the stupid decisions made at 24 years old have no bearing on the person they become at 35, 40, 50 etc etc. There are very few people that never cross a line somewhere in life, it's not the loss of rights I disagree with necessarily but the permanence - people change.

There are those who were caught for the stupid stuff they did when young and those who were not caught.

Funny thing - as a gun owner without a record, you are probably at a greater chance of killing someone unlawfully with your car than your gun. But, even offenses that indicate your driving poses a risk to public safety do not ban you from driving for life.

 

[teamRR]

There are those who were caught for the stupid stuff they did when young and those who were not caught.

Funny thing - as a gun owner without a record, you are probably at a greater chance of killing someone unlawfully with your car than your gun. But, even offenses that indicate your driving poses a risk to public safety do not ban you from driving for life.

Hah! Yes absolutely I think "probably" is an understatement. That pedestrian that suddenly turns and steps into the road, that driver who cuts you off, never once can I remember anything close to that happening with a gun in my possession - never.

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

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

 

[Broc]

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

Dude, STFU.

Just get the f*ck out of here, go back to your cave.

F*cking trolls.

 

[Broc]

@Comm2A , the lawyers that work with Comm2A and the NES members that donate- THANK YOU!!

Keep kicking a**.

 

[connor]

Charged is still innocent until proven guilty. Guilty is when gun rights are lost. And if you dont like the whole suitability thing then dont live in Masss

Dude your name HAS to be Yuri.

 

[fshalor]

A path is better than no path. This is the wedge in the door to a path.

So the Massachusetts misdafelony would go away? I know people who would like to apply for LTCs but may have had some issues in their youth. People always worry about the rejection.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This issue is not making the misdafelony go away, but having the feds recognize FLRB relief. FLRB relief is only available in certain cases (not involving drugs, only one offense or multiple offenses form a single incident, 5 year wait, I think, etc.) so it is only a partial solution.

This win was critical. If we did not have this win, we would not have a federal case because we would not be able to produce plaintiffs who were fully state qualified to possess firearms and ammo but for the feds denial of FLRB relief. We have the egg. Now we need to go for the chicken. Or maybe we have the chicken and have to go for the egg.

 

[SFC13557]

There are those who were caught for the stupid stuff they did when young and those who were not caught.

Funny thing - as a gun owner without a record, you are probably at a greater chance of killing someone unlawfully with your car than your gun. But, even offenses that indicate your driving poses a risk to public safety do not ban you from driving for life.

correct!

 

[Lucus]

Thanks

 

[falcon123]

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.

Keep in mind that the limit to charge someone with DUI is arbitrary. If you've ever went out to dinner and driven home, you were a drunk driver under the law even if you were perfectly able to drive. Also the same people enforcing these laws are themselves usually the biggest offenders because they are the gatekeepers so are above the law.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Keep in mind that the limit to charge someone with DUI is arbitrary. If you've ever went out to dinner and driven home, you were a drunk driver under the law even if you were perfectly able to drive. Also the same people enforcing these laws are themselves usually the biggest offenders because they are the gatekeepers so are above the law.

Arbitrary but clearly defined. It is possible to have a drink with dinner and be under the .08 limit. It is not possible to have a drink with dinner and know if you are "under the influence" with regard to carry since "guns are more dangerous than cars" (according to the MA court that established there was no implied .08 cutoff for CUI)

 

[falcon123]

I agree that it’s a terrible selfish decision to drink and drive. However, I don’t support taking anyone’s rights away.

We all drink and drive. The issue is that most of us know when to stop.

 

[RumRunner]

We all drink and drive. The issue is that most of us know when to stop.

I usually stop when I get home, hopefully not sooner.

 

[falcon123]

I usually stop when I get home, hopefully not sooner.

I would recommend stopping at stop signs and red lights too.