Federally PP With FID Card and People Who Have Gone Though The FLRB..... Thoughts?

[Brandon1317]

Just wanted to get peoples thoughts on this issue...... The fallowing is a response to another topic.

• You will be eligible for a FID card and that is it not a LTC, but yes you will be "prohibited" under federal since the feds dont recognize the restoration. That is because there was a court cause that basically said that since Mass doesn't restore your full gun rights (to have long guns and handguns outside of your house) the feds don't have to recognize the partial rights that are restored by the state. Of course the funny thing with that ruling really is even if you have a clean record there is no guarantee that you will even get a LTC since it is up to the local chief so I'm not really even sure that makes any sense. Bascially under federal law there are a couple different ways to have your rights restored and that is either a Pardon,expungement or having civil rights restored (Right to sit on a jury, right to vote and right to hold office). In Mass you would have all those civil rights restored after 7 years so technically you should have your firearms restored since Mass allows it but that is where the case I mentioned comes into play.
  
  Even going though the FLRB and getting your rights restored though them would still make you Prohibited under federal law. That is because you don't lose any of your civil rights for misdemeanor convictions and that leaves you with no relief under federal law since you never had your civil rights taken away and they cant be RESTORED as required.It actually makes more sense for them to review felony convictions because if they did restore your rights they would be restored under federal law to. Funny!!
  
  So weather you get a FID card or have your rights restored though the FLRB you are still prohibited under federal law there is no difference. There are some simple fixes to both really. One is to take away your civil rights for certain misdemeanors that can have a jail sentence over 2 years and that would solve the FLRB problem and the other is to allow a people with a felony to get a FID after 7 years and allow them to have long guns or handguns and the final decision is still up to the local police chief to issue a LTC who will probably deny it any way.
  
  From what I have seen on here and other places is the ATF has said they will not prosecute any one cleared by the FLRB! So how could they prosecute any one with a FID card then since it is the same differnce.
  
  For right now I would suggest getting the FID card since that would make you legal under state law. You wouldn't be able to purchase a gun from a dealer since they are federally licensed but you could buy though private sale with a FA-10 since only the state handles those. And have your wife get a LTC or FID and that way atleast she is good under state and federal law just in case. keep the guns in a safe with a digital lock that only "she has the code to" if you know what I mean. That way if for some odd reason you get a visit from the fed's the guns are under her control since you dont have access to it even though it is in the same home. You would need to get caught with a gun within your control to really be charged with possession like in your car or bag or underneath your pillow but if it is in a safe which she only has a code to then they can't prove you have access to it. Worst case you need to use a gun to protect your family then it is what it is and if they want to try to charge you they can.
  
  I'm not a lawyer but I have done a lot of research on this and have gotten some legal advice from a Lawyer. One thing I will say is alot of the "gun lawyers out there suck" there is a only a couple that know what they are doing. Some one should have filed suit against the state by now for even issueing the FID card to certain people since in the law it says they will only issue if YOUR NOT PROHIBITED UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW so when you are they shouldn't be issuing the license even though it is a shall issue.​
  
  
  
  
  http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2097066&noquote=1http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2097066http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2097066
  
  
• Also I have never seen a case of some prosecuted for Felon in posseion under federal law from this state with a FID card unless there was another crime invloved which lead to them finding firearms.
  http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=2097102
  
  

[h=3][/h]
[TABLE="class: cke_editor"]
[TR]
[TD="class: cke_contents"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[OB1Kenobi]

do a search for GSG. he's posted numerous threads about this in the Mass Laws section, all of which were very informative btw.

 

[drgrant]

Also I have never seen a case of some prosecuted for Felon in posseion under federal law from this state with a FID card unless there was another crime invloved which lead to them finding firearms.

I haven't heard of it in MA but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened elsewhere. Awhile ago GOA or one of those orgs wrote a story about some guy in (TN? I forget) who was living with his parents. Basically this guy was on parole or something, and he had committed some felony which made him a PP.... and somehow or another the locals found out that his parents owned guns, and tipped off the feds about it, then BATFE came along, trashed their house and tried to string the guy up on FIP charges by trying to bloviate that the guy had access to guns because he lived in the house. In the end I don't think it flew, but don't think that they won't attempt to prosecute someone for it. FIP is a fast ticket to federal prison, so if you are a PP, (particularly one who has tried to straighten their life out) you're going to want to steer clear of that. Remember that police can find guns as a result of unintended consequences or exigent circumstances, and not just actual criminal acts.


-Mike

 

[appraiser]

They are arresting cops on gun charges in MA these days , I wouldn't risk that a civilian wouldn't be hung out by state, local, or federal officials for illegal possession if it was me, FID or not.

 

[Brandon1317]

I haven't heard of it in MA but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened elsewhere. Awhile ago GOA or one of those orgs wrote a story about some guy in (TN? I forget) who was living with his parents. Basically this guy was on parole or something, and he had committed some felony which made him a PP.... and somehow or another the locals found out that his parents owned guns, and tipped off the feds about it, then BATFE came along, trashed their house and tried to string the guy up on FIP charges by trying to bloviate that the guy had access to guns because he lived in the house. In the end I don't think it flew, but don't think that they won't attempt to prosecute someone for it. FIP is a fast ticket to federal prison, so if you are a PP, (particularly one who has tried to straighten their life out) you're going to want to steer clear of that. Remember that police can find guns as a result of unintended consequences or exigent circumstances, and not just actual criminal acts.

-Mike

I totally agree but if some one else is properly licensed to have the guns and they are secured it would be almost impossible to prosecute. They wouldn't be able to prove the PP had access to them, they could try but as you mentioned it doesn't fly. Not to mention that the PP has FID card and is properly licensed under state law. I live in Lawrence and we need to have guns around here!!

 

[drgrant]

I totally agree but if some one else is properly licensed to have the guns and they are secured it would be almost impossible to prosecute. They wouldn't be able to prove the PP had access to them, they could try but as you mentioned it doesn't fly. Not to mention that the PP has FID card and is properly licensed under state law. I live in Lawrence and we need to have guns around here!!

I agree with that (the securing guns part) but my point was more along the lines that people who are prohibited persons shouldn't fall into the falsehood that "having an FID" is an immunity blanket against prosecution, because frankly the feds will not give a rats ass about an FID if they think that the person is federally prohibited.

Every gun lawyer in this state worth his salt will tell you that a PP who happens to have an FID card is a felony trap waiting to happen.

-Mike

 

[Brandon1317]

I agree and that felony trap also goes for any one who has had there rights restored though the FLRB which gun lawyers help you do so these gun lawyers may want to take a step back to see what really restores your gun rights under federal law!! And it's not the FLRB. The promise of ATF not to prosecute is worth nothing.

 

[Brandon1317]

Really at the end of the day the Feds should allow the states to decide who has there rights restored.

 

[drgrant]

I agree and that felony trap also goes for any one who has had there rights restored though the FLRB which gun lawyers help you do so these gun lawyers may want to take a step back to see what really restores your gun rights under federal law!! And it's not the FLRB. The promise of ATF not to prosecute is worth nothing.

Well, it all depends on how that mechanism works. If the state relives from disabilities that make the person a prohibited person, then technically speaking the person is no longer a prohibited person and the FIP issue is a matter of mootness. Awhile ago one of the folks from Comm2A had a thread about this particular issue but I can't find it at the moment.

-Mike

 

[Brandon1317]

Well right from the Caron case the court said that one of the three restoration methods needs to be satisfied , the only one besides a pardon that would work in this state is the restoration of civil rights which involves sitting on a jury,voting and holding public office. The problem with that method is that for misdemeanors those rights where never taken away and there for can not be restored since they were never taken away. The FLRB only deals with misdemeanors. The Caron case is the same case that dealt with the all or nothing approach to restoring gun rights.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Even going though the FLRB and getting your rights restored though them would still make you Prohibited under federal law. That is because you don't lose any of your civil rights for misdemeanor convictions and that leaves you with no relief under federal law since you never had your civil rights taken away and they cant be RESTORED as required.It actually makes more sense for them to review felony convictions because if they did restore your rights they would be restored under federal law to. Funny!!

This is the position of the federal government, as expressed by their pleading in a case in CA. Whether or not this turns out to be the case in the long run remains to be seen. At the present time, the "civil rights were never taken away" is a position one side has taken on a controversial issue; not an adjudicated fact.

Remember, the state of MA, in Fletcher v. Haas, took the position that the 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure do not apply to non-citizens (yes, the commonwealth attorney really made this claim). Just the fact that the state, or feds, makes an argument in a case does not establish it as fact.

It would be reasonable to conclude that a federal court might conclude that firearms ownership is indeed a civil right in the post-Heller world, and as results the FLRB restoration is indeed a restoration of civil rights.

, the only one besides a pardon that would work in this state is the restoration of civil rights

A federal decision that gun ownership is a civil right may do it as well. Some states allow felons to vote, and under the logic of "all civil rights must be taken", it would be impossible for even a convicted felon in such states to have them restores.

From what I have seen on here and other places is the ATF has said they will not prosecute any one cleared by the FLRB!

Even if true, it's a hell of a chance to take - and gives the govt ammunition to use felon in possession against any such person if (s)he falls into governmental disfavor.

Also, the > 2 year misdemanor will show up in the form of a NICS denial that the feds will consider "correct".

The promise of ATF not to prosecute is worth nothing.

1. There is no promise
2. The entry the FLRB relievee is prohibited will remain in NICS despite a favorable FLRB decision.

 

[Brandon1317]

I agree, the ATF will not prosecute thing I saw on here. The ATF has said they don't consider your firearms rights restored when the FLRB restores them. Some have gotten though the fed check and some have not so again the state has created another potential felon trap. A simple solution is a act of congress to allow states to decide how to restore firearms rights.

 

[01SVTvert]

I haven't heard of it in MA but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened elsewhere. Awhile ago GOA or one of those orgs wrote a story about some guy in (TN? I forget) who was living with his parents. Basically this guy was on parole or something, and he had committed some felony which made him a PP.... and somehow or another the locals found out that his parents owned guns, and tipped off the feds about it, then BATFE came along, trashed their house and tried to string the guy up on FIP charges by trying to bloviate that the guy had access to guns because he lived in the house. In the end I don't think it flew, but don't think that they won't attempt to prosecute someone for it. FIP is a fast ticket to federal prison, so if you are a PP, (particularly one who has tried to straighten their life out) you're going to want to steer clear of that. Remember that police can find guns as a result of unintended consequences or exigent circumstances, and not just actual criminal acts.


-Mike

They prosecuted based upon the father leaving out the keys to the gun locker on a peg in the kitchen to which the PP had access to... Guns were locked up was the defense, but leaving the key in the open got them jamed up and I do not know the resolution of the case.

 

[terraformer]

http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20101122_0001004.WPA.htm/qx

US v Melissa Huet. 3rd circuit said no dice. The possession of firearms, even unlocked ones, do not constitute "making available" or a "transfer" by a by a lawful spouse/paramor/roommate when a PP is in the home. Period. The US AAG did not appeal.

 

[terraformer]

They prosecuted based upon the father leaving out the keys to the gun locker on a peg in the kitchen to which the PP had access to... Guns were locked up was the defense, but leaving the key in the open got them jamed up and I do not know the resolution of the case.

This was in TN? What year or any other info you have would be great. I can try to dig up the case but pacer doesn't allow text searches so I need to figure out the party's name first.

 

[Brandon1317]

One thing to keep in mind is that the feds can only step with charges if the firearms crossed state lines. So if the firearm was made in that state and then sold in that state the Feds can't do anything if state allows you to possess the firearm.

 

[alignguy]

I am really confused here. Am I reading correctly if your right to vote, serve on a jury or become a politician are all considered reinstated rights if you have ever lost them?? I am awaiting a reply from a local police chief to let me know if I am federally eligible to apply for a FID and a LTC A or B. The way I have been reading these laws is that if you were convicted of a felony then you probably will not get federal clearance so the FID would be useless. I was incarcerated back 20 years ago for a few things I won't go into but I did lose my right to vote and serve on a jury because I was locked up. I have since ( 3 weeks ago) was called into jury duty and I know my right to vote has been restored. Are you guys saying that those things COULD make me federally eligible and allow me to get a LTC? I have not read the case law on the case you were talking about but if I am reading it correctly, it sounds as if I would be at least eligible and open to debate by the chief??? Any glimmer of hope would be awesome......One of the biggest reasons I am going through all of this is because I believe after 20 years since I got out, was let off parole 2 years early, same job for 20 years, married to same woman for almost 17 years and have not had a drop of booze for almost 7 years....What else do I need to do to get my right to bear arms restored??? People can and do change!!!!! Thanks for letting me rant!!!

 

[Brandon1317]

No, you will not be able to get a LTC. You can get a FID card but you will still be prohibited under federal law. Those are the ways to have civil rights restored but the courts have said since Mass doesn't fully restore your gun rights then gun rights aren't restored under federal law. It is all or nothing either you can have any gun or no guns not a partial restoration as Mass currently does. It makes no sense and Mass knows about it but does nothing to correct the problem. Some one needs to change something.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One thing to keep in mind is that the feds can only step with charges if the firearms crossed state lines. So if the firearm was made in that state and then sold in that state the Feds can't do anything if state allows you to possess the firearm.

BS.

The feds can use logic like "in so much as the iron ore used to manufacture the gun was transported across state lines" or perhaps "since the gun was manufactured using tools that crossed state lines" to argue that the action falls under the constitutional authority of the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

The feds have already advised Montana FFLs that they will face federal charges if they violate federal laws regarding guns ales, even if the guns sold were manufactured in, and never left, Montana.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Are you guys saying that those things COULD make me federally eligible and allow me to get a LTC?

If you have a felony on your record you are federally banned from possessing any gun or ammo for life, with the only two remedies being a pardon that includes restoration of all gun rights or a BATFE relief from disabilities. Congress has explicitly defunded the relief from disabilities program, and the supreme court has ruled that one cannot appeal a "non processing" of a relief application, so that avenue is closed.

Restoration of voting rights, without explicit restoration of all firearms rights, does not restore gun ownership rights to a felon.

 

[Brandon1317]

I just saw a case that the government couldn't prove the gun as a whole crossed state lines. Since it was made it that state. The Feds did try to say about pieces coming across state lines but the court said it had to be a complete firearm not exactly that wording but similar.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

unintentional dupe deleted

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I just saw a case that the government couldn't prove the gun as a whole crossed state lines. Since it was made it that state. The Feds did try to say about pieces coming across state lines but the court said it had to be a complete firearm not exactly that wording but similar.

Was this at any level that established a binding precedent?

Also, you said "cannot lay a charge", not "cannot convict" - and the fact that you "saw a case" proves that the feds could, in fact, lay a charge (with all that such an action brings).

 

[Brandon1317]

That is correct there is a pending court case that could change that down the road though. It basically would allow the states to restore gun rights and the Feds would have to recognize that.

 

[Brandon1317]

I don't think it was bidding it was just part of a bigger case. The Feds can lay a charge for anything they want so it really doesn't matter. That is why I find it funny that they said they wouldn't prosecute gun owners who had there rights restored though the FLRB even though they say it doesn't restore there gun rights under federal law.

 

[drgrant]

BS.

The feds can use logic like "in so much as the iron ore used to manufacture the gun was transported across state lines" or perhaps "since the gun was manufactured using tools that crossed state lines" to argue that the action falls under the constitutional authority of the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

It's worth noting though that what he's talking about does work on occasion. For example when the feds bagged that ex-con "biker" guy who was known to be shooting at Boston Gun Range, if I remember correctly, they got him for the ammunition but not the FIP charge on the rental gun, because the gun he was shooting was an S&W.

The feds have already advised Montana FFLs that they will face federal charges if they violate federal laws regarding guns ales, even if the guns sold were manufactured in, and never left, Montana.

Yes... but to be sure, you could easily argue that there are a myriad of other "laser tripmines" regarding FFLs handling what the federal government would basically consider to be contraband- there are 100 excuses they could make up to screw that FFL for selling a "Montana" gun.

-Mike

 

[Brandon1317]

The gun shops should be licensed at state level and over seen by each state. It would clear up a lot of issues out there.

The Feds should allow people to pay for a hearing to have there gun rights restored at a federally level since congress will not fund the current program. But that makes to much sense. How about they stop funding themselves.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Feds should allow people to pay for a hearing to have there gun rights restored at a federally level since congress will not fund the current program. But that makes to much sense. How about they stop funding themselves.

The goal was not saving money, but preventing felons from regaining their gun rights. It wasn't a matter of budget cuts causing the feds to discontinue the program, but one of congress de-funding by the exact amount of the program while instructing a cooperative (with congress, that is) agency to accept no such applications.

 

[Brandon1317]

Then why even have the process? They should have certain standards you need to meet first in order to even try restore the rights. The fed definition for a PP covers a lot of people it really shouldn't and in the end it should be left up to each state to decide who is a PP. Expending who is a PP is just another way of the government doing away with the rights of people to bear arms, in the future if you have to many speeding tickets you won't be able to have firearms!

Just a side note I think certain people with a criminal record should have the firearms rights restored as long as there past convications weren't violent and all occurred within a couple years. There should be a waiting period and studies have shown that after 7 years after a convication people are no more likely to commit another crime then some one with no record. So a 7 to 10 year wait seems fair.

 

[drgrant]

Then why even have the process?

Because there people who are NOT prohibited persons who are still barred from getting an LTC in MA. IIRC there are other minor offenses which can DQ you in MA and not necessarily make you Federally ineligible to own guns. .

-Mike