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.
I would think it would depend on a couple of factors...Usually yes, the chief will determine the household to be unsuitable for firearms, fearing that felon spouse might get access to them.
How would they know unless the PD specifically knows the person. There is nothing on the application asking if you live with a felon, there is no background check on a spouse, and there is no law or regulation which prevents an otherwise perfect candidate from getting their LTC because of who shares a roof.
just my .02
Usually yes, the chief will determine the household to be unsuitable for firearms, fearing that felon spouse might get access to them.
could not be further from the truth. -the only remote possibility would be if the applicant (or his address) has an extensive history with the PD... even then... it would be a stretch. having someone who is a PP live you or douche bag relatives is irrelevant. *again, even in the small chance the the house, applicant or occupants is "known" to the PD.... i doubt it.
Would having a convicted felon as a spouse prevent someone from getting a LTC? They are in a green town and would be interested in a FID if the LTC is a no go.....
Beyond the LTC, the new LTC holder with a PP as a spouse should really ensure there is some form of safe (trigger locks not likely good enough) to prevent access to the spouse. This is a burgeoning new area of law and the federal government has already prosecuted a handful of people for leaving guns around on the theory they made them available to the PP intentionally. Put up some plausible barrier between the spouse and the PP.
Thanks for the replies. I'm going to tell her to roll the dice and go forward. Hopefully she doesn't flush the cash for the safety class and the application just to get bad news.
I had a conversation with a LEO about the need for him to have the authority to deny someone based on "suitability". He was not concerned by pot smoking or other "wild" behavior in years past.
He was concerned about a felon living with a LTC holder. FWIW.
You have no idea what you are talking about Obie1.
As stated by TF this is an evolving area of the law. Generally you cannot visit punishment upon a person or deny them the exercise of a fundamental right based upon the transgressions of another.
This is the key point. Until Heller/McDonald, arguing that deprivation of handgun ownership rights was a "punishment" or "deprivation of liberty" would fall upon deaf hears, and the courts would not use that as a basis for a decision. Post Heller, deprivation of gun rights is removal of a constitutionally protected right and thus it is very hard to present an intellectually cogent argument that such a deprivation does not constitute punishment.
Of course, bringing and effective legal challenge requires the right plaintiff. I expect Comm2A would be much more interested in adding the spouse of someone who was convicted for insider trading or and anti-trust violation(*) that the spouse of someone who has a record of a violent felony.
It would also be important for said plaintiffs to be spouses, rather than roommates, as it would make it much harder for the court to argue the loss of rights was only due to the living choice of the plaintiff - unless, of course, the court would argue that an individual had to leave his/her spouse to enjoy his/her constitutional rights.
But, the entire prospect of a solution could be messed up if some nitwit with a violent felon spouse comes along and files an ill prepared or pro-se case. One of the biggest problems Comm2A has is unsympathetic plaintiffs bringing cases that are hail Mary passes to resolve their personal situation, without regard to strategic planning.
* - A curious felony, as while it remains a disability under MA law, is the rare felony that does not make one a prohibited person - which makes me wonder who was owed a big favor back in 1934.
FWIW, it was not a violent crime. She wouldn't give full details but it was some kind of insurance fraud which involved the mail so he was convicted of insurance fraud and mail fraud in Federal Court.
FWIW, it was not a violent crime. She wouldn't give full details but it was some kind of insurance fraud which involved the mail so he was convicted of insurance fraud and mail fraud in Federal Court.
If there is a denial, please contact Comm2A with the details. I can't promise we will be able to directly assist, however, it is very helpful for us to have this information to track.
The applicant would be a fool to volunteer this info. Why bother. If they figure it out and deny him, he's in the same boat as if he had come forward with it. Its not on the form, there's no legal requirement. I'd just move on. But that's just me.
If the person in question really wants to roll the dice and talk about this, then how long ago this happened would be a significant factor.
To quote George Bush: Back when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible"
Its one thing to live within the law. Its another to voluntarily give essential liberties.