• 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.

Gemme in the role of God again / Worc. man denied LTC renewal

BillB said:
For those interested, this case is in the news again today.
It has now been sent from the Supreme Court back to the lower court.
Click to expand...

On what grounds? What was the lower court's decision previously? Unless we have been paying real close attention we have no idea if that is a good thing or not.
 
BillB said:
For those interested, this case is in the news again today.
It has now been sent from the Supreme Court back to the lower court.
Click to expand...

URL please?

Not to be a dink but it makes it easier to know what you're referring to if we have a source to look at. [grin]

-Mike
 
securityboy said:
(again sorry bout that mods, it needed to be said)
Click to expand...

No problem. I love having to go around and edit people's posts because they knowingly broke the rules. Negative rep left.

ETA:
terraformer said:
We fought a f-ing revolution to get this kind of crap to stop.
Click to expand...

You too. Knock it off.

People, please follow the "no f-bomb" rule.
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
URL please?

Not to be a dink but it makes it easier to know what you're referring to if we have a source to look at. [grin]

-Mike
Click to expand...

I just read it in the (actual) paper....I guess there's a URL too.

The basics....the SCJ said the lower court used the wrong section of the law when reinstating the license. A anti-gun judge looking for a reason to take away a license....using contradicting sections of the law to do so.
 
Last edited:
This would make an interesting Heller case - a court recognized right being denied for a non-conviction. The only issue would seem to be one of incorporation.
 
MassMark said:
These statements are amazing to me. It's a good thing our founding fathers did not feel the need to judge who was or was not "suitable" to carry a firearm. Folks like Paul Revere and scores of others would have been deemed "unsuitable"....It's disconcerting the depths to which some mirror the sheep who seek to eliminate our rights altogether... Massachusetts - the birthplace of revolution, freedom from tyranny and standing up for liberty is lost...
Click to expand...


Umm... Did I say I agreed with it?

I was simply pointing out that this incident is the exact type of incident that the legislators had in mind when creating the "suitability" language.

That is it.
 
At least a cwof or nolo doesn't statutorily prevent you from an LTC, correct?
Click to expand...
I believe it does - hopefully Cross-X, Jcohen or Realtor can comment. A nolo plea is for all practical purposes a guilty plea, but it allows the defendant to avoid saying "I'm guilty". It bears with it all the penal consequences of a guilty plea, including firearms disabilities.

This makes a difference in some jurisdictions where a nolo plea to an offense may not be used as evidence in a civil proceeding in the same manner as a guilty plea, and allows the defendant to continue to claim innocence (which may matter to some people, especially politicians).
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I believe it does - hopefully Cross-X, Jcohen or Realtor can comment.
Click to expand...

“Conviction”, a finding or verdict of guilt or a plea of guilty, whether or not final sentence is imposed.

NOTE: C. 278 § 18 states that “ f a defendant [] attempts to enter a plea or statement consisting of an admission of facts sufficient for finding of guilt [] such admission shall be deemed a tender of a plea of guilty []. In most cases, after there has been such an admission, the defendant’s case will be CWOF for a certain period.

NOTE ON C. 278 § 18: A plea of guilty tendered pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 18, is not the entry of a formal guilty plea and is, therefore, not a conviction. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 45 Mass.App.Ct. 666, 670 (1998). Commonwealth v. Jones, 417 Mass. 661, 663 (1994), is not to the contrary. It treats an admission of sufficient facts as the equivalent of a guilty plea for purposes of G.L. c. 278, § 29D (regarding immigration status). See Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 1202, at 544 (Supp.1999). In Commonwealth v. Duquette, 386 Mass. 834, 843 (1982), the SJC said the following:
“We recognize that the continuance without a finding is a procedure which often serves the best interests of both the Commonwealth and the defendant. The benefit to a defendant is obvious: he may be able to avoid a trial and earn a dismissal of the indictment or complaint, thereby avoiding the consequences of having a criminal conviction on his record. These advantages
would be especially appealing to a first offender or a defendant whose job security or family situation might be threatened by a conviction. The Commonwealth avoids the more time-consuming process of trialand sentencing. Statutes or court rules specifically authorizing practices similar to the continuance without a finding have been adopted in many jurisdictions. It has been suggested that such pre-trial diversion programs reduce the risk of recidivism for first time offenders, enable a defendant to preserve his community and family ties, and help reduce court backlogs.” However, this can lead to an anomalous result when a person applies for either an FID or LTC. What if a person has been arrested for assault & battery on a police officer? assault & battery by means of a dangerous weapon? DV?, indecent assault & battery? breaking and entering? What if the victim sustained serious injury and required medical treatment? If any of these cases were CWOF’d, the defendant would be ENTITLED to receive the FID and could only be rejected for the LTC if the individual licensing authority felt that he or she
was an unsuitable person.
 
gemme_f.jpg


Not amused by this thread - no more NES for ANY of you!!
 
A CWOF Does NOT statutorily prevent you from an LTC NOR do you ever admit guilt.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the consensus among those with law degrees I have spoken to.

I believe that a NOLO combines the absence of an admission of guilt with the prohibition of a conviction. Correction or confirmation welcome - but I'm hoping for something other than proof by assertion (either a cite or a statment from an attorney)
 
Don't like discretionary authority, don't like Chief Gemma but I REALLY don't want Jerry Gallo Jr to be the test case for this in MA
 
but in a CWOF, you have too stand there, listen to the prosecutor read the police report, then you have to tell the Judge in open court that everything they just said about you was true. That is admitting guilt, no if's and's or but's about it.

In return the Judge will impose some fees, and some probation, and if you are a good boy or girl it will be entered as a CWOF.

If you screw up and violate the terms the Judge imposes, OR get charged with another crime, the Judge, at the surrender hearing, can impose a guilty finding and sentence you right there and then because, you have for all intents and purposed plead guilty already.

A Nolo is similar, you admit to sufficient facts ( yes your honor the facts as presented would appear sufficient enough to find me guilty, and I agree not to mount a defense, if the court agrees not to prosecute me, and I will pay reasonable court costs if you dismiss the charges.) This is how I beat every traffic ticket I had from age 18 to 25, until the insurance lobby had the law changed so you could not admit to sufficient facts and have it dismissed upon payment of court costs (usually the amount of the fine) and then since there was no finding of responsibility, they could not surcharge you!
 
I think the problem here is that the latest of the three incidents was in 1997 and his license was renewed twice after that. If the renewal had been denied in 1998, it would be a different story.

We pride ourselves on a government of laws, not of men, and then the state legislature passed idiot laws like this. Go figure.
 
Glockaholic said:
but in a CWOF, you have too stand there, listen to the prosecutor read the police report, then you have to tell the Judge in open court that everything they just said about you was true. That is admitting guilt, no if's and's or but's about it.
Click to expand...

That's not completely accurate. You are only admitting that there are sufficient facts to find you guilty of the charge, not that all of the facts are true. Again, this is not admitting guilt, but as you pointed out, it's about as close as you can come to admitting it without actually admitting it. However, pleading guilty has FAR more repercussions.

As a matter of full disclosure, I have a CWOF on my record and still have an unrestricted LTC.
 
The harsh language that occasionally emerges in this thread aside ... It seems like some Massachusetts residents, having lived like caged dogs their whole lives, have lost sight of what a free country might look like.

Some of my felllow internees in this liberal reeducation camp called the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might not realize that there are still places in this country where Chiefs of Police do not have discretionary authority to deny people their natural rights as recognized in the Constitution of the United States.

In fact, there may even be some places in this country where someone might obtain and own firearms with no government permission required at all.

It's shocking in it's simplicity.

No government has the right to prohibit a man from owning guns who has not otherwise, under law, been deprived of his rights as a citizen.

Once you start splitting hairs over who should own a gun and who should not, you open a door that will never be closed. And it's then not a matter of if, but rather when, YOU will be deemed "unsuitable" to keep and bear arms.

Some of us frogs have grown quite comfortable in the boiling water. Good night, and good riddance to you.
 
theGringo said:
The harsh language that occasionally emerges in this thread aside ... It seems like some Massachusetts residents, having lived like caged dogs their whole lives, have lost sight of what a free country might look like.

Some of my felllow internees in this liberal reeducation camp called the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might not realize that there are still places in this country where Chiefs of Police do not have discretionary authority to deny people their natural rights as recognized in the Constitution of the United States.

In fact, there may even be some places in this country where someone might obtain and own firearms with no government permission required at all.

It's shocking in it's simplicity.

No government has the right to prohibit a man from owning guns who has not otherwise, under law, been deprived of his rights as a citizen.

Once you start splitting hairs over who should own a gun and who should not, you open a door that will never be closed. And it's then not a matter of if, but rather when, YOU will be deemed "unsuitable" to keep and bear arms.

Some of us frogs have grown quite comfortable in the boiling water. Good night, and good riddance to you.
Click to expand...

I love you man.... in a brotherly way of course... Well done...[cheers]
 
I'd like to give that douchebag Gemme a tune up.

Leave your badge at home, Gary. Come on over here where you have no power.
 

Similar threads

LTC Renewal / EFA-10
Replies
15
Views
465
DeadEyeDan
DeadEyeDan
Ltc renewal
2
Replies
30
Views
825
MGnoob
MGnoob
Framingham Man Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Illegally Possessing Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking
Replies
23
Views
471
drgrant
drgrant
Woman allegedly went on Florida highway shooting spree ‘directed by God’ in relation to the solar eclipse
Replies
21
Views
406
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Man shot in the head in NYC subway during rush hour; person of interest in custody - UPDATE POST 16
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom