I have had my ltc in mass since July of 2012. Yesterday I was revoked stating that a DUI in 08 makes me ineligible to have my license, it's been 3.5 years I've had it, I am compiling infomation and letters of recommendation for reinstatement of my ltc, the reason my licsene issue came up in the first place is a new chief and the gun clerk that filed my license in the beginning have personal issues and chief was looking for a reason to fire fire clerk, (that's not public info). So do I have a chance from the review board, should I lawyer up?
-
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.
Do I stand a chance
- Thread starter Dts99
- Start date
IANAL, but you need one. Was the DUI in Massachusetts? If it wasn't, you might stand a chance. If it was in Massachusetts, you are likely screwed. 
I don't remember the date it became so, but DUI in Massachusetts is a lifetime disqualifier. It is one of the many, many "misdefelonies" that are potentially punishable by 2.5 years in jail. Good luck.
I don't remember the date it became so, but DUI in Massachusetts is a lifetime disqualifier. It is one of the many, many "misdefelonies" that are potentially punishable by 2.5 years in jail. Good luck.
Statutory DQ for life as of 5/1994 OUI convictions thru MA courts. BTW, this makes you a Fed. PP, so moving out of state won't help either.
Atty Jason Guida might be able to help IFF you aren't a PP.
Atty Jason Guida might be able to help IFF you aren't a PP.
Sounds like the new chief has a good case for firing that clerk....
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
"(That's not public info)"......you just made it public info, so nice job there. Were you found guilty of the OUI? If so, you're boned as the review board relief for firearms ownership is not recognized federally because it isn't s full restoration of rights (you didn't lose your rightful vote with it).
In short: guilty = completely ****ed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In short: guilty = completely ****ed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every courthouse is computerizing old records at different rates, it may not have been in the system when he applied.
Were you convicted of that DUI? Or did you receive a Continuation Without a Finding? Go to the court where you appeared and get a copy of your court records from the clerk, so you know exactly what the charge was and exactly what the disposition of the case was.
If you were convicted, then you are SOL - you are a federally prohibited person and can not possess firearms or ammunition. If you received a CWOF, then you are not a prohibited person.
Last edited:
Goliathan
NES Member
It blows me away that such a convoluted, patently unconstitutional loophole has existed for as long as it has. That you can get an FID 5 years out but still be federally prohibited *because* of the Mass law is pretty much a slap in the face from the MA legislature. And the fact that it screws you over even after you move out of state... it just boggles my mind.
It makes me hope that I've misunderstood the law, but I'm not sure I have.
No, you don't. You are a prohibited person under federal law. If you possess a firearm or ammunition, you are violating the federal felon in possession law (yes, that is the case, even though you were convicted of a misdemeanor).
You have no chance of getting your LTC back.
What if before 94 ?
A first time DUI before 1994 is not a statutory disqualifier because the possible sentence was shorter.
This really is a law that needs to be changed. Talk about excessive punishment, especially when compared to other states.
For the life of me, I can't understand why any crime without violence would be included in a PP status. But the law was poorly written and thus we have this. There have been a few federal cases in pennsylvania defeating a PP status for a few crimes, so there is some progress there.
I hope one aspect that is fixed sooner than later via legislation or by court ruling is to remove that PP status from any non violent conviction or plea
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Not s snowballs chance in hell unfortunately.
Now the real question is: did the LO give you the permit when they shouldn't have on purpose, or did they misstheredflag saying you should be denied?
At this point, regardless, the LO screwed up. You were the reason, not the excuse. Learn the difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know how the eff he managed that.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
But isn't a review board reinstatement not federally recognized?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wish it could be, but I think it would be an uphill climb. Going to the legislature to ask them to reduce the punishment for drunk drivers would be a hard sell. The fact that it would be to help gun owners who are convicted of drunk driving would make it an even harder sell.
- - - Updated - - -
That is my understanding.
Individualist
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,663
- Likes
- 4,366
How many DUI's, especially first time offenders, actually result in 2.5 years of incarceration? Zip I would imagine. Unless they are using it to pile on the charges and sentence for other crimes. What is the real world sentence? These inflated sentences need to be deemed inappropriate and illegal. One would think that protecting a core Constitutional Right would carry a hell of a lot more weight and require a very significant reason to deny that right. Much more than some arbitrary, non-related, non-violent misdemeanor with inflated theoretical sentences. Otherwise, what next - speeding ticket, jay walking, spitting on the sidewalk?
Soapbox warning...
My opinion is that if the courts feel you are safe enough to walk (or drive) the streets and you do not have to be incarcerated, then you are a free citizen and should have the rights of every other free citizen. If you are a threat to yourself or others, you should be locked up, and your rights be suspended. Lock up the damn criminals. Keep them locked up until they are no longer a threat, and let law abiding citizens live in a free and safe society as our founders intended. However, the politicians don't want to take ownership for enforcing THAT!
Soapbox warning...
My opinion is that if the courts feel you are safe enough to walk (or drive) the streets and you do not have to be incarcerated, then you are a free citizen and should have the rights of every other free citizen. If you are a threat to yourself or others, you should be locked up, and your rights be suspended. Lock up the damn criminals. Keep them locked up until they are no longer a threat, and let law abiding citizens live in a free and safe society as our founders intended. However, the politicians don't want to take ownership for enforcing THAT!
Doesn't matter, unfortunately. The felon in possession law concerns the possible sentence, not the actual sentence.
I agree. However, given that you will get close to 0 D votes for this, and many of the "law and order" Rs won't like being "weak on crime" I would say the chances are still pretty slim.
Sorry OP. To those who know more - are muzzleloaders still an option?
Similar threads
