-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Convicted Felon Spouse
- Thread starter Rick Roma
- Start date
Usually yes, the chief will determine the household to be unsuitable for firearms, fearing that felon spouse might get access to them.
I would think it would depend on a couple of factors...
Whether or not said chief is a douchebag, and...
Whether or not the applicant puts the cards on the table beforehand and demonstrates that they understand what the risks and requirements are.
Regardless this is the type of thing it's probably worth calling a gun lawyer for- for "strategic" advice.
-Mike
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
just my .02
A couple of ways:
- If the person is on probation, required to register, or any other "strings attached" to their "freedom", the local PD is informed . . . I've seen the notices in our dispatch area when I was working for the PD.
- Conditions for release may tie strings permanently on what/who is allowed in the home.
- Nothing legally prevents a PD from running a background check on others who live in the home.
- You'd be shocked to know how much info the local PD knows about the residents of their town, including those that have never been arrested for anything.
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.
I know that the douche towns (eg, Brookline, Watertown, etc) would gleefully run BG checks on anyone else they know who lives in the house of the applicant. I would think in most cases you are right, but in others, it can be an issue.
-Mike
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
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.
It's worth noting that some of these prosecutions have failed, but even when the feds fail the accused still loses a lot. This is all you can do really- try to protect against the problem to begin with. There have even been cases where the feds have tried to bag the PP and their partner because the partner had a gun in the house that was completely unknown to the PP. All you can really do is lock everything up in safe(s) and assert that the PP doesn't have a means of opening it. If we want to go FR it would probably be wise to use things with combinations instead of keys so that if the key got left around, the feds can't assert that the PP had "constructive possession" of the firearms by virtue of access to the key.
-Mike
Good. Let us know how it turns out.
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.
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.
He was concerned about a felon living with a LTC holder. FWIW.
Thanks for making my point.
What the law says about rights and not blaming the innocent for the acts of the guilty may be one thing, but the reality is oftentimes very different and as long as MGL allows "suitability" and "chief's discretion" in their decision-making. Since my first chief was a personal friend and I was in his office very frequently (typically a few times/week as minimum) and we'd chat about things Masonic, town gov't, and a lot of local stuff including people/issues in town, I pretty much got to understand how he thought (and he was 100% RKBA, a Marine who served in 2 WWII & Korea and had personal shooting trophies in his office). Also the officers in the station would discuss people/things in front of me with abandon, so I learned a lot of things that were never public. [In contrast, under our current chief, since I left the PD, I do not go into the station even 1x/year on average and this includes the need to get my and my Wife's LTC renewed!]
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,546
- Likes
- 33,594
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.
Last edited:
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.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,546
- Likes
- 33,594
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.
dcmdon
NES Member
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.
Who ever mentioned the applicant voluntarily disclosing this information? Obviously that's not going to happen. She will fill out the app 100% legally and honestly and go from there. If the chief conducts an interview that may be a different story because as we all know they can ask whatever they want then.
