• 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.

Denied LTC for 1995 DUI

Linskys surety of peace argument is a huge stretch. I think it's funny that society is afraid of licensed gun owners who probably have the cleanest records around. Under his argument we could require personal insurance for ebt cards and welfare housing.
 
So let me get this straight. Since this dude got a DUI in 1995 in MA, he can now no longer own any firearms in any state forever? That just cant be right.
 
ace7644 said:
So let me get this straight. Since this dude got a DUI in 1995 in MA, he can now no longer own any firearms in any state forever? That just cant be right.
Click to expand...

It's not "right" but it is true.
 
ace7644 said:
So let me get this straight. Since this dude got a DUI in 1995 in MA, he can now no longer own any firearms in any state forever? That just cant be right.
Click to expand...
True. The funny part of this is that Massachusetts is actually on our side in this issue. The FLRB can restore someone's 2A rights as far as state law goes, but not under federal law. I know for a fact that the state isn't any happier about this than we are.

On the other hand a potential 2 1/2 year sentence for a first OUI offense is a little excessive - especially when it is never imposed and most first time offenders get there driver's license back in 6-12 months.
 
I just re-read a large portion of this thread... and I'm just as sick as I was the first time I read through it.

Is anyone, or any group(s) actively pursue legislative change to this bogus law? Seems to me like this should be a pretty easy win...
 
TLB said:
Ms Steed needs some jail time after a tattoo artist puts "dirty cop" in block letters on her forehead.
Click to expand...

I'd toss her in the day room of the LA County jail for a bit. Wouldnt that be sweet. There has to be a special place in hell for dirty cops [devil2]
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
True. The funny part of this is that Massachusetts is actually on our side in this issue. The FLRB can restore someone's 2A rights as far as state law goes, but not under federal law. I know for a fact that the state isn't any happier about this than we are.

On the other hand a potential 2 1/2 year sentence for a first OUI offense is a little excessive - especially when it is never imposed and most first time offenders get there driver's license back in 6-12 months.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the best way for the state to address this would be to adjust the penalty to less than 2 years for first offense. Since no one serves a day in jail anyway the 2.5 year max is a joke.

Not that I'm advocating drinking and driving - but a lifetime ban constitutes curel and unusual punishment in my mind. Especially considering we let DUI offenders who have killed people get off with probation!
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Seems to me the best way for the state to address this would be to adjust the penalty to less than 2 years for first offense. Since no one serves a day in jail anyway the 2.5 year max is a joke.

Not that I'm advocating drinking and driving - but a lifetime ban constitutes curel and unusual punishment in my mind. Especially considering we let DUI offenders who have killed people get off with probation!
Click to expand...

Seems like a better way would be to just eliminate it altogether and just punish people sufficiently for the actually damage of property and injury to others. But hey, why do that when you can pass more laws, collect more taxes and curb more freedom in the name of safety all while not solving the problem?
 
A Massachusetts OUI (MGL 90-24) conviction on or after 5/26/94 is a Federal prohibitor, as it is a misdemeanor carrying a potential penalty in excess of two years incarceration (18 USC 921(a)(20)(B)).
Click to expand...

what if the actual offense occurred before that magic cutoff date?
i.e. busted for dwi in february 94 but the courts don't wrap things up until september of 94?
 
xtry51 said:
Just gonna point out that it doesn't take you actually drinking for a cop to charge you with it.

Is that alcohol I smell sir?....

Hell, plenty of diabetics with low sugar have been mistaken for drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Nor does it take actual driving to get a DUI. Sitting behind the wheel with the key in the ignition, in the off position, is enough for a DUI.
 
It's ok though because while he was busy getting wasted with the only senator to be kicked out of US Congress in recent history, Thomas Dodd (Father of the next CT senator Chris Dodd) and reading original Nazi law books Dodd purchased he managed to co-write CGA '68 which stopped all gun crime in America remember?

[rolleyes]
 
what if the actual offense occurred before that magic cutoff date?
i.e. busted for dwi in february 94 but the courts don't wrap things up until september of 94?
Click to expand...

The sentencing that applies is generally that of the date of the crime, so an offense prior to the cutoff date would not be subject to the new increased penalty.

As to reducing it below two years - all you have to do is find a bunch of legislators who are willing to go on record as being soft on DUI.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
The sentencing that applies is generally that of the date of the crime, so an offense prior to the cutoff date would not be subject to the new increased penalty.

As to reducing it below two years - all you have to do is find a bunch of legislators who are willing to go on record as being soft of DUI.
Click to expand...

This probably wouldn't actually be that hard. Start following around legislators until you find the ones that drink. Then start reporting drunk driver sightings on them constantly. I bet you could get a third of them arrested in six months if you had the people willing to put the time in.

Every time you report them make a second call to a news agency tipping them off.
 
Jason Flare said:
Putting the key in the door constitutes DUI in MA.
Click to expand...

richc said:
Nor does it take actual driving to get a DUI. Sitting behind the wheel with the key in the ignition, in the off position, is enough for a DUI.
Click to expand...
Not true. You have to prove operation in Mass. Keys on the ignition with the vehicle on would be proof. Not the above.
 
In the speakers panel. They recommend you are a PP if more than 2 OUI in a five year period. So no the look back could be 20 years. For a crime that by statue doesn't make u a PP. I hope this doesn't make it in.

Sbr
 
SBR said:
In the speakers panel. They recommend you are a PP if more than 2 OUI in a five year period. So no the look back could be 20 years. For a crime that by statue doesn't make u a PP. I hope this doesn't make it in.

Sbr
Click to expand...

In MA you are a prohibited person if you are convicted of a first DUI.
 
M1911 said:
In MA you are a prohibited person if you are convicted of a first DUI.
Click to expand...

Correct and that will NOT change (Federally PP) even if MA gun laws change. It would require a change in "Melanie's Law" to lower the sentence for OUI and that will never happen in MA . . . that's a political "third rail" disaster to even suggest lowering the sentence (that is never given out anyway)!
 
LenS said:
Correct and that will NOT change (Federally PP) even if MA gun laws change. It would require a change in "Melanie's Law" to lower the sentence for OUI and that will never happen in MA . . . that's a political "third rail" disaster to even suggest lowering the sentence (that is never given out anyway)!
Click to expand...

MA and/or the feds fixing the whole interlocking mess of rights restoration would do it to. Not that that's really any more likely.
 
lancecolonel said:
what if the actual offense occurred before that magic cutoff date?
i.e. busted for dwi in february 94 but the courts don't wrap things up until september of 94?
Click to expand...

The verdict had to be rendered by May 27 1994, IIRC. Anything after that is felony land.

-Mike
 
M1911 said:
Is it the date of the verdict that is relevant or the date of the offense?
Click to expand...

The sources I've read had all said "conviction". Of course there's the ex post facto issue.... but I have no idea how that pans out in court. (eg, is it legal for them to charge you with something, then change the punishment before you get tried?)

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
12
Views
350
Laura
Laura
Going to reapply for my FID/LTC back after it being revoked about 10 years ago.
Replies
17
Views
441
AMV
A
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
0
Views
164
RockStar
R
LTC references
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
LTC Received
Replies
21
Views
840
G4Y4HK
G
Back
Top Bottom