Denied LTC for 1995 DUI

[Harvey T]

My son had a DUI twenty years ago. Since that one time, he has lived a clean, problem free life. He was initially denied a LTC based on the DUI. He appealed, did the paperwork, and appeared before a board. He did it himself...no lawyer involved. He had been quoted $3500 from the lawyer with no guarantee. His appeal was granted, and he currently holds an LTC. If you have not had any problems (legal) since that one DUI, etc. you have a chance.

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

I want to call YOU an A****** for having such a strong opinion but lacking the 25 bucks to go green. Pay up or STFU

I barely read any of this thread but I just really want to call you an ******* because it's such a common thing for other people's wives or children to be killed by a drunk driver. I don't care how long ago it was you're a piece of garbage.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My son had a DUI twenty years ago. Since that one time, he has lived a clean, problem free life. He was initially denied a LTC based on the DUI. He appealed, did the paperwork, and appeared before a board. He did it himself...no lawyer involved. He had been quoted $3500 from the lawyer with no guarantee. His appeal was granted, and he currently holds an LTC. If you have not had any problems (legal) since that one DUI, etc. you have a chance.

It sounds like your son appeared before the FLRB and did well.

BUT... has he tried to buy a new gun yet? The federal position is that at FLRB relief does not restore his gun rights at the federal level, since it did not restore voting rights, and therefore he did not have "his civil rights restored". I have seen the paperwork from NICS clarifying that a MA DUI conviction, even if relieved by the MA FLRB, will NOT result in removal of the convict from the NICS prohibited person list.

 

[dgrafton]

Rob,
Does that mean the state is issuing LTCs to people that are pp federally? To go along with issuing FIDs to federally pp? This state is screwed up:/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Rob,
Does that mean the state is issuing LTCs to people that are pp federally? To go along with issuing FIDs to federally pp? This state is screwed up:/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's exactly what he's saying.

 

[92G]

if someone is a federal PP but they possess an LTC-A, can they lawfully acquire a gun via FTF-EFA10?

 

[WatchCityCPA]

if someone is a federal PP but they possess an LTC-A, can they lawfully acquire a gun via FTF-EFA10?

Absolutely not, and the state will report the purchase to the feds because while it is legal under state laws, federal laws are broken.


EDIT:
See post 96 where OfficerObie59 provides this link:

http://www.falmouthpolice.us/docs/Federally Prohibited Person Notification Form.pdf

The police clearly states that they will report any purchase to the ATF due to the federal PP status.

 

[MA_Shooter]

if someone is a federal PP but they possess an LTC-A, can they lawfully acquire a gun via FTF-EFA10?

The FID-PP trap.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I barely read any of this thread but I just really want to call you an ******* because it's such a common thing for other people's wives or children to be killed by a drunk driver. I don't care how long ago it was you're a piece of garbage.

. You are the problem with this world. Maybe the .gov should ban alcohol wait that failed once. I know ban cars.

Please go put your helmet on and get you box of crayons and your coloring books..STFU

 

[M1911]

Stop the personal attacks.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Rob,
Does that mean the state is issuing LTCs to people that are pp federally? To go along with issuing FIDs to federally pp? This state is screwed up:/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget that FID cards have lawful purposes outside of simply buying and possesing non-large cap long guns and ammo--specifically, buying black powder components and buying and possessing pepper spray.

I don't dispute that we could potentially address better ways to prevent the FID Trap for people despite those lawful activities, but to make the other argument right now plays right into DeLeo's Committee's hands in their avocation of eliminating the 5 year look-back.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Absolutely not, and the state will report the purchase to the feds because while it is legal under state laws, federal laws are broken.


EDIT:
See post 96 where OfficerObie59 provides this link:

http://www.falmouthpolice.us/docs/Federally Prohibited Person Notification Form.pdf

The police clearly states that they will report any purchase to the ATF due to the federal PP status.

The link states:

Please note that after issuance of this FID Card, this Department will contact ATF at any time we become aware of your possession of modern firearms or ammunition in violation of federal firearms laws.

I don't think that the FRB has set things up to check every EFA-10 to see if someone who holds an LTC is NICS prohibited.. Note they said "any time we become aware....". In any case, ignoring one's federal PP status because there is no one to stop a private sale is a risky activity.

 

[Double Tap]

My son had a DUI twenty years ago. Since that one time, he has lived a clean, problem free life. He was initially denied a LTC based on the DUI. He appealed, did the paperwork, and appeared before a board. He did it himself...no lawyer involved. He had been quoted $3500 from the lawyer with no guarantee. His appeal was granted, and he currently holds an LTC. If you have not had any problems (legal) since that one DUI, etc. you have a chance.

It sounds like your son appeared before the FLRB and did well.

BUT... has he tried to buy a new gun yet? The federal position is that at FLRB relief does not restore his gun rights at the federal level, since it did not restore voting rights, and therefore he did not have "his civil rights restored". I have seen the paperwork from NICS clarifying that a MA DUI conviction, even if relieved by the MA FLRB, will NOT result in removal of the convict from the NICS prohibited person list.

...but he would NOT be a PP if the conviction was prior to 5/27/94 though, correct?

 

[OfficerObie59]

...but he would NOT be a PP if the conviction was prior to 5/27/94 though, correct?

Correct, but there would be no reason to go before the FLRB if it was.

 

[SBR]

...but he would NOT be a PP if the conviction was prior to 5/27/94 though, correct?

It is by the date of offense not date of conviction. As long as arrest was prior to 5/27/94. Conviction could be after the date but offense had to be after date

 

[OfficerObie59]

It is by the date of offense not date of conviction. As long as arrest was prior to 5/27/94. Conviction could be after the date but offense had to be after date

True that, props for the clarification.

 

[Metalriot]

Amen everybody makes mistakes. I bet 90% of the parole we all know have gotten behind behind the wheel when they shouldn't have. But it's also the difference between getting behind the wheel black out dunk and getting behind the wheel after having a beer or two (which would still get you an oui). I'm not saying you should drink and drive but with that mentality you will be real sorry when your the one making the mistake!