Do I need to disclose dimissed misdemeanors in Ca, when applying for LTC in Ma.

[OnNoff]

I had some misdemeanors dismissed in the state of California. now I live in Massachusetts and am applying for LTC.

Do I need to disclose this information? Im assuming not because i had these dismissed through the courts.
Should I disclose this? because it would show up on a background check anyway...

Will this disqualify me from getting my LTC?

 

[drgrant]

If it's dismissed it doesn't count statutorily, that said, if there are questions on any license application about you being a defendant, you need to be honest about it, because they -will- find out, and they will hold it against you if you lie. This can even be a crime in and of itself (perjury) in some cases. I forget offhand if MA's app asks this or not, but a bunch of other states do. Do not believe any BS you've heard about "sealed records" and the like. There is no such thing in regards to law enforcement based background checks.

-Mike

 

[Kevlar]

Welcome to NES!

I had some misdemeanors dismissed in the state of California. now I live in Massachusetts and am applying for LTC. Do I need to disclose this information? Im assuming not because i had these dismissed through the courts. Should I disclose this? because it would show up on a background check anyway...

Yes, if you have ever "appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense", it must be disclosed (via question #10 on the application), regardless of the eventual disposition.

Will this disqualify me from getting my LTC?

Not statutorily, but there is always the possibility of a suitability denial.

 

[rlee]

When I applied and and reported an incident from 1969, the licensing officer told me that reporting it had no effect on the application, but not reporting it would have had a significant effect.

 

[OnNoff]

Welcome to NES!



Thanks,
Great forum members! extremely quick responses.

 

[OnNoff]

Looks like im answering YES to #10(the defendant question).

Do not believe any BS you've heard about "sealed records" and the like. There is no such thing in regards to law enforcement based background checks.

-Mike

your right on that, thus the reason asked

Im located in Worcester btw.

 

[fencer]

Welcome to NES.

Worcester can be tough. Best of luck.

 

[OnNoff]

Welcome to NES.

Worcester can be tough. Best of luck.

If this is the case, would an FID be easier to get?
I would rather save the $100 if chances are high for denial.

This would mostly be for home and family protection(long gun stored at home), although having no restrictions would be great.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is a problem with English comprehension, so let's review question 10:

10. Have you ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?

Now, let's think about the plain English meaning of the words "ever" and "any".

"Ever" does not mean "since I moved to MA" or "since I turned 18". "Any" does not mean "any MA court". Both are absolute terms.

That said, you should apply for an LTC/A. You are not statutorily disqualified and there's absolutely reason you should not get it. (Unless of course you're using your own personal definitions for words like "any" and "ever".)

 

[KMaurer]

If this is the case, would an FID be easier to get?
I would rather save the $100 if chances are high for denial.

This would mostly be for home and family protection(long gun stored at home), although having no restrictions would be great.

I'd say go for an LTC. With an FID you won't be able to possess any handguns even in your home. Most CLEOs don't deny LTCs on suitability unless they've got a slam dunk reason, which your old dismissed misdemeanor charges won't provide. Instead, they simply restrict your LTC to "Sporting Purposes", "Target & Hunting" or something similar. That way you can't appeal to the district court, since they didn't deny you.

Ken

 

[AF83]

If this is the case, would an FID be easier to get?
I would rather save the $100 if chances are high for denial.
.

Not sure about Worcester but here in Taunton it is $100 for either. When i went to renew my FID the officer said to me i would need a check for $100 dollars. I said to them i did not want my LTC only my FID. Their reply was it was still $100 dollars. So i took the necessary classes and applied for my LTC.

I'd double check those costs.

 

[MisterHappy]

The price is the same.

I think that the implication was "If I'm going to be denied for an LTC, but can get and FID should I just go for that?"

 

[mark056]

Do not believe any BS you've heard about "sealed records" and the like. There is no such thing in regards to law enforcement based background checks.

-Mike

Yup, you can take that statement to the bank.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That way you can't appeal to the district court, since they didn't deny you.

You can appeal, but the deck is HEAVILY stacked against you. Some very good attorneys who specialize in MA firearms law will use terms like "longshot" and "wasting your money" when you have a meeting with one of them to discuss a restriction appeal.

You have a better chance appealing a RI non-resident denial to the AG's office, where the hearing is conducted by the person who denied you, than you do in a MA district court.

The courts do not universally find that one "cannot appeal" a restriction. Some of it depends on how the case is presented and if you have competent legal counsel. Try it yourself, and you may find yourself muttering "but, but..." after the licensing officer states you were issued an LTC, the judge asks if that is true, and says "case dismissed".

I read the decision for a resident who appealed a restriction imposed by the Boston PD in district court. It was clear from reading the decision (which ran quite a few pages as the appeal was competently brought by a respected attorney, and generated a detailed formal decision) that the court accepted the concept of an appeal, and proceeded to rule on the merits. The short form: Balancing the public safety concerns of a dedicated professional and recognized expert against a random citizen, and coming down on the side of public safety.

 

[SClaflin]

You can appeal, but the deck is HEAVILY stacked against you. Some very good attorneys who specialize in MA firearms law will use terms like "longshot" and "wasting your money" when you have a meeting with one of them to discuss a restriction appeal.

You have a better chance appealing a RI non-resident denial to the AG's office, where the hearing is conducted by the person who denied you, than you do in a MA district court.

The courts do not universally find that one "cannot appeal" a restriction. Some of it depends on how the case is presented and if you have competent legal counsel. Try it yourself, and you may find yourself muttering "but, but..." after the licensing officer states you were issued an LTC, the judge asks if that is true, and says "case dismissed".

I read the decision for a resident who appealed a restriction imposed by the Boston PD in district court. It was clear from reading the decision (which ran quite a few pages as the appeal was competently brought by a respected attorney, and generated a detailed formal decision) that the court accepted the concept of an appeal, and proceeded to rule on the merits. The short form: Balancing the public safety concerns of a dedicated professional and recognized expert against a random citizen, and coming down on the side of public safety.

Very accurate information (as usual). Standing is not an insurmountable hurdle. At least in the post-McDonald era one can make a second amendment argument; however, courts have a problem understanding what the term "bear arms" means. Typically, it is far more effective, and cost-efficient, to make your case to the Chief.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

courts have a problem understanding what the term "bear arms" means.

One of Gura's pleadings makes a very interesting point. Heller states that nothing in the decision should be construed as preventing bans on carry in "sensitive places" such as schools. If it was the court's intention that "bear" was limited only to possession in the home, it would have stated that nothing should be construed as preventing ban on carry outside the home, rather than specifying only "sensitive places". Unless, of course, you accept the premise that all places are sensitive in which case the qualifier is redundant.

 

[SClaflin]

One of Gura's pleadings makes a very interesting point. Heller states that nothing in the decision should be construed as preventing bans on carry in "sensitive places" such as schools. If it was the court's intention that "bear" was limited only to possession in the home, it would have stated that nothing should be construed as preventing ban on carry outside the home, rather than specifying only "sensitive places". Unless, of course, you accept the premise that all places are sensitive in which case the qualifier is redundant.

It's a great argument based on the Court's dicta. Just the other day I was reading a law review article by Calvin R. Massey who said the same thing:

Is the idea of sensitive places so illimitable that it permits the banning of firearms in all public places? If this is so, it would permit the banning of firearms in national forests where hunters have for years lawfully stalked game with high powered rifles or shotguns. This reading would reduce the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to the right to possess an operable firearm in your own home for purposes of self-defense. Perhaps that is all Heller actually did, but if that is so there was no need to refer to sensitive places as venues from which firearms could be excluded. It would have been sufficient to note that the only place in which the Second Amendment right operates is one's own home.

60 Hastings L.J. 1431, 1438-39 (2009).

 

[buketduder]

I would speak with an Attorney...I was arrested and told the "charges" would go away when I completed probation.....completed probation..couple years late went to get CT Pistol Permit...contacted attorney...he said NEVER disclose your arrest and legally I can say I have never been arrested or been a defendant......I did not..got permit...and have a couple from other states...never had an issue.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I would speak with an Attorney...I was arrested and told the "charges" would go away when I completed probation.....completed probation..couple years late went to get CT Pistol Permit...contacted attorney...he said NEVER disclose your arrest and legally I can say I have never been arrested or been a defendant......I did not..got permit...and have a couple from other states...never had an issue.

I can not and will not speak to what happens to old/juvie records in CT or CA, but I can speak to what happens in MA. NO records ever "go away" in MA. Many weren't computerized and so some people skated by, but each year they are continuing to computerize older and older records, so that it will catch up with the applicant who lies on the LTC/FID application. It is a DQ in MA to perjure yourself on the form and the PD is free to prosecute for perjury if they so desire.

So if you don't disclose and they find it, your are DOA for getting a LTC. If you disclose and explain it, you stand a decent chance (if old and not a DQ offense with a conviction) of getting your LTC.

The only sure way to tell what a LE agency will find (which is a LOT DIFFERENT from what a CORI check will find) is to pay a personal visit (or pay someone to do it for you) to the court where a case was heard and pull the records on that individual. If there are any records found at all, then the LE agencies WILL KNOW about them too.

Sorry buketduder, but I would not follow your advice if I were walking in those shoes in MA.

 

[SClaflin]

Sorry buketduder, but I would not follow your advice if I were walking in those shoes in MA.

He makes a good point. People with certain records in other states may not have to legally disclose the information. We all know that basically anything that happened in MA needs to be disclosed, but this doesn't hold true for the rest of the country. Some jurisdictions have really beneficial expungement/sealing laws that require all records to be destroyed and allows the person to legally state it never happened. I have no idea if this is the case in CA, nor is there anything in the OP to suggest the charges were anything but merely dismissed.

One does need to consider if it's worthwhile to disclose the information anyways, especially if there is a chance it may come across the Chief's desk. However, I have seen an applicant "caught" legally withholding information pertaining to his expunged out-of-state record, and he was subsequently issued his LTC after sending documentation that showed he did not need to legally disclose the information. This was in a red town too.

There are benefits to either route, but it is certainly worthwhile to determine whether or not disclosure is legally required. Generally, however, Knuckle Dragger summed it up nicely (I think Scrivener would approve).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

contacted attorney...he said NEVER disclose your arrest and legally I can say I have never been arrested or been a defendant......I did not..got permit...and have a couple from other states...never had an issue.

I'll save you the trouble of a legal consult:

1). What the attorney is referring to is the concept of "legal fiction". In certain states, you are entitled to answer "NO" to "have you ever been arrested, charged with or convicted of a crime?
when asked if you have an expunged record. Your statement is untrue in the plain English sense of the word, but considered "legally true", hence the term "legal fiction".

2). MGL is silent regarding the concept of "legal fiction" with regards to firearms licenses, however, the most common reaction you will get if a licensing officer finds out is "you were in fact arrested, you lied, no license". In some cases, the officer may accept your explaination of "legal fiction" and give you a chance to modify your application - but your chances of getting denied, or perhaps even prosecuted for lying on the app, are greater than that of "getting a pass".

3). What the licensing agency will find out is a crapshoot, and it is VERY hard to tell, with certainty, if the licensing authority will find our about a sealed or expunged record from another state. If the sealed record is from MA, consider that a high ranking state employee has a standing offer to PDs to assist in any way possible if they have trouble accessing a sealed record for licensing purposes.

4). The MA system contains much more subjectivity that many other states, and the fact that you got permits in other states, while a positive sign, is not an assurance that an expunged/sealed record will not cause a problem in MA.

5). As SCaflin states, it is a crapshoot. If you withhold information, you need to be certain that you are entitled to the "legal fiction" of doing so.

However, I have seen an applicant "caught" legally withholding information pertaining to his expunged out-of-state record, and he was subsequently issued his LTC after sending documentation that showed he did not need to legally disclose the information. This was in a red town too.

My guess (correct me if I am wrong) is that the fact that you saw this indicates said individual needed to retain the services of counsel, and pushed the cost of his LTC up into the 4 digit price range.