Has anyone ever been denied an LTC based on an expired 209a?

B

Benjamin

Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
5
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I'm looking to hear stories from people who were denied their LTC and if they were able to fight it and win the appeal. You can PM/E-mail me if you don't want to post it here.
 
there was that dentist in Wakefield who was denied on that reason. He took it to court and lost.

208 orders which are routinely inserted as boilerplate in divorce decrees have the same implications btw.
 
I'm not a lawyer but a restraining order in Massachusetts, also called a 209A protective order, to my knowledge is issued because there is an abuser, so obviously I doubt that anyone will win the case in court.
 
I have had several And this time there are 47 listings on my docket,includeing an E mail from my EX saying to my lawyer saying she will have it removed if I gave her a car and $1200.00.Hummm..Sounds like extortion to me..While I have never had a problem in the past getting it back,I am concerned this time..Guess i will find out July 24,2010
 
Ish said:
I'm not a lawyer but a restraining order in Massachusetts, also called a 209A protective order, to my knowledge is issued because there is an abuser, so obviously I doubt that anyone will win the case in court.
Click to expand...


Ish that has to be the stupidest statement I have ever read on this forum.

You have no clue.

Do you know that the 209A process is used as a weapon in divorce and custody cases. If you don't want your estranged husband to see his children... tell the Judge he yelled at you and you are in fear of your life and imminent danger. 99.9999% of the time the order is issued, and the "defendant" is FUBARED. You can not defend yourself against the charge since it is not a criminal action. Do you know what it takes to get an order appealed? I do. Can you say Supreme Judicial Court, and the grounds for appeal are so limited it can't be done.

Don't assume the defendant is the abuser, I have seen the process abused, ask any cop they will tell you the same thing. The ABUSER is in most cases the plaintiff who is abusing the process.

Now do you want to discuss Lautenberg?
 
Glockaholic said:
Ish that has to be the stupidest statement I have ever read on this forum.

You have no clue.

Do you know that the 209A process is used as a weapon in divorce and custody cases. If you don't want your estranged husband to see his children... tell the Judge he yelled at you and you are in fear of your life and imminent danger. 99.9999% of the time the order is issued, and the "defendant" is FUBARED. You can not defend yourself against the charge since it is not a criminal action. Do you know what it takes to get an order appealed? I do. Can you say Supreme Judicial Court, and the grounds for appeal are so limited it can't be done.

Don't assume the defendant is the abuser, I have seen the process abused, ask any cop they will tell you the same thing. The ABUSER is in most cases the plaintiff who is abusing the process.

Now do you want to discuss Lautenberg?
Click to expand...

+1 Most orders are issued to remove a party from premises or from visitation. The order keeps the party from calling, visiting or communicating in any way except through lawyers or as outlined on the order.

They have been proven not to work against people that are really intent on doing physical harm
 
Ohhhh, I am so sorry to be such stupid as you said your majesty. This stupid guy, the only thing it did was comment about the 2009A. I couldn’t care less about who is or who is not the Abuser, as well as I can tell you many cases in which the abusers are laughing their heads off while the other innocent person is in jail and so forth because the real abuser lie.

For your and gene’s knowledge, I will tell you that better read your state laws before open your mouth. BTW if you are the one with the 209A and you go to court with the same attitude that you responded to my comment, let me tell you that you will never have a CCW License on your entire life.

Here there is some info for you and if you want more just let me know. And please don’t confuse a 209A with Lautenberg amendment firearms.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-209a-toc.htm
 
Ish is concurrently both correct and incorrect. A 209A represents a judicial finding of a threat of possible abuse. It is not a finding that abuse has occurred. There does not have to be any actual abuse - just saying something like "he's never threatened me at all, but I'm concerned the stress of the divorce might get to him and he owns firearms, so I would feel safer with an order in place" is likely to cut it.

So:

1. The finding is about the possibility of abuse - one does not have to yet be an abuser.

2. Everyone knows that they are often bogus and issued as a matter of routine course.

All police departments know about #2. Those that consider the LTC application process a scavenger hunt where the dept looks for any excuse to deny can hang their hat on the fact that "there was a judicial finding you were a threat" and not even consider the possibility of bogosity,

It is very common for PD's to issue, or return, LTCs to persons who have had restraining orders that expire without any violations. Unfortunately, there are towns like Wakefield that simply want any excuse to deny an LTC and will not look at the specifics of an individual situation if there is a 209A history.

The one thing you can do is understand the courts almost never consider any mitigating factors when determining there is a violation. You might get off if you are unconscious and the responding EMT is the party with the order, but even that is "iffy". There was a case where a man with a RO allowing him to drop his child off at an apartment building, but not leave the car, got out to help his kid open the door to the building which was too heavy for him to open unassisted. He was convicted of violating the order.

I have had several And this time there are 47 listings on my docket,includeing an E mail from my EX saying to my lawyer saying she will have it removed if I gave her a car and $1200.00.
Click to expand...

Your case is unusual and you might have a chance with a decent lawyer. One problem is the courts don't view the order as punishment, just an order to not do something you shouldn't be interested in anyhow ... and they could give the proverbial rodent's rectum about your gun ownership rights.

And please don’t confuse a 209A with Lautenberg amendment firearms.
Click to expand...
They are closely related, as Lautenberg means a federal prohibition kicks in once the person against whom the order is issued has a chance to appear in court to fight it (the state prohibition kicks in immediately upon issuanace of an ex parte order).
 
Last edited:
Ish said:
Ohhhh, I am so sorry to be such stupid as you said your majesty. This stupid guy, the only thing it did was comment about the 2009A. I couldn’t care less about who is or who is not the Abuser, as well as I can tell you many cases in which the abusers are laughing their heads off while the other innocent person is in jail and so forth because the real abuser lie.

For your and gene’s knowledge, I will tell you that better read your state laws before open your mouth. BTW if you are the one with the 209A and you go to court with the same attitude that you responded to my comment, let me tell you that you will never have a CCW License on your entire life.

Here there is some info for you and if you want more just let me know. And please don’t confuse a 209A with Lautenberg amendment firearms.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-209a-toc.htm
Click to expand...


Deleted
 
Last edited:
Bill Katt said:
Would a 209A (whether it ran it's course and expired or was thrown out by a judge at first chance) turn up on someone's CORI check?
Click to expand...

Yes

Up until recently, a few years ago, even the judge could not have the record removed from the CORI. If you have an old record and want it removed because it was taken out fraudulently, you are best consulting a lawyer as getting the record removed by a judge is very difficult at best. You are required to prove the order was taken out fraudulently.
 
Last edited:
gene said:
Yes

Up until recently, a few years ago, even the judge could not have the record removed from the CORI. If you have an old record and want it removed because it was taken out fraudulently, you are best consulting a lawyer as getting the record removed by a judge is very difficult at best. You are required to prove the order was taken out fraudulently.
Click to expand...

Hey Gene,

I have finished a bad divorce. How is a 209a served? There isn't a way of sneaking one in there without me knowing?

Fee
 
gene said:
Yes, I had a friend who's ex took one out for no reason because of the divorce and new girlfreind and current wife. He was not aware of it as these are supposed to be delivered by an officer of the court, the police or sheriff.

Sometime later, the ex wife of my freind called the police and said he violated the restraining order. They never contacted him about it for what ever reason and he was not picked up by the police at the time as he surely may have been.

Sometime several years later after his ex wife died by the way, he was stopped for a motor vehicle violation. He was also mouthy to the cop also who went back to his car and checked whatever they check.

Turns out he had a warrant on him years earlier for a 209A violation. Was handcuffed by the cop and hauled of to jail until he could be seen by a judge in orange garb and handcuffs.

He spent the night in jail with no hope for getting out before he went to court.

More than likely, if you have weapons, the police show up at your door, no appointment or advance warning needed and serve the order while they remove your guns and ammo.
Click to expand...


Okay, I get that. So do I have to run a Cori check on myself to check? How do I run a CORI?

Fee
 
Would a 209A (whether it ran it's course and expired or was thrown out by a judge at first chance) turn up on someone's CORI check?
Click to expand...
The LTC question is not "Is a 209A in your CORI?", but "have you ever been the subject of a 209A?". Answering "No", and relying on expungement being complete (departments don't expunge their own records just because a court did) is problematic, as the issuing PD is not likely to accept "I was allowed to answer no since it was expunged".
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The LTC question is not "Is a 209A in your CORI?", but "have you ever been the subject of a 209A?". Answering "No", and relying on expungement being complete (departments don't expunge their own records just because a court did) is problematic, as the issuing PD is not likely to accept "I was allowed to answer no since it was expunged".
Click to expand...

You will also find that up to a few years ago the record remained as part of your CORI even if the judge ordered it vacated and expunged as happened to me.

I assumed vacated and expunged meant "All Gone" until the NH State police told me they saw it on my CORI and asked about it. I explained what happened and he just laughed and said he would put the LTC through.
 
Glockaholic said:
Ish that has to be the stupidest statement I have ever read on this forum.

You have no clue.

Do you know that the 209A process is used as a weapon in divorce and custody cases. If you don't want your estranged husband to see his children... tell the Judge he yelled at you and you are in fear of your life and imminent danger. 99.9999% of the time the order is issued, and the "defendant" is FUBARED. You can not defend yourself against the charge since it is not a criminal action. Do you know what it takes to get an order appealed? I do. Can you say Supreme Judicial Court, and the grounds for appeal are so limited it can't be done.

Don't assume the defendant is the abuser, I have seen the process abused, ask any cop they will tell you the same thing. The ABUSER is in most cases the plaintiff who is abusing the process.

Now do you want to discuss Lautenberg?
Click to expand...

In addition "BITCHES BITE". In support of this statement, My friend was in the midst of a divorce. His X hit him with a bunch of kitchen/fireplace/etc. stuff. Called the local Police. Told the police about a firearm hed had. It was taken period. Had him arrested. A&B/209A/+/ So hes still sitting in jail, the "bitch" calls the police again while hes still in jail telling them hes knocking down her front door. The officer "grins"(no doubt) and answers, But Miss xxxxxx, hes still right here in jail. She replies,................O',(peeking out the window) I see now its my BF. GRrrrrrrrrrrrr. LUCKILY HE'D MARRIED UP, (like most women do) and got a great divorce settlement having fixed everything in her delapitated house. He'd saved reciepts. Another case for A IRONCLAD PRE NUP' de dup, de dup! Cops have a high rate of divorce , they know the crap people pull too.
 
Pomeraniac said:
Reason #5,479 to Stay Single: avoiding 209As.



.
Click to expand...

you do not have to be married to be the subject of a 209A order, if you have dated, lived together, or had a child together, you too can have a 209A order issued against you.
 
I beleive they refer to "Domestic Partners" when issuing these 209 A orders...And they are abused more often than most think...for reasons one would not beleive,such as public assistance,legal aid,etc.
 
To add another question/curve to this thread I'm wondering if all the people denied because of a past restraining order will be able to get LTCs if Heller is incorporated. If it's a constitutionally protected right, you can't be denied without due process yes? no? anyone?
 
To add another question/curve to this thread I'm wondering if all the people denied because of a past restraining order will be able to get LTCs if Heller is incorporated. If it's a constitutionally protected right, you can't be denied without due process yes? no? anyone?
Click to expand...

This is one of many interesting things that incorporation could bring. It would also make it much more difficult for a court to uphold the revocation or denial of an LTC for such actions as exercising one's right to remain silent; being found not guilty of a crime; being suspected of a crime; etc. Many of the current court decisions regarding LTC denial are based on the fact that an LTC is not a right, and denying one is, legally speaking, not punishment but an administrative act.
 
my gripe is after the SOCUS heard Heller, and voted favorably in the gun owners interests, they refused to hear a challenge to Lautenberg.
 
my gripe is after the SOCUS heard Heller, and voted favorably in the gun owners interests, they refused to hear a challenge to Lautenberg.
Click to expand...

Certain cases present a clear dissonance between what the constitution requires and what those in power wish to see as public policy and, as such, are hard to get the court to take up.

The clearest aspect of Lautenberg that would be hard to uphold without some incredible legalistic ledgerdermain would be the ex post facto denial of a constitutionally protected right based on a penalty not in effect at the time of conviction.
 
bolt said:
In addition "BITCHES BITE". In support of this statement, My friend was in the midst of a divorce. His X hit him with a bunch of kitchen/fireplace/etc. stuff. Called the local Police. Told the police about a firearm hed had. It was taken period. Had him arrested. A&B/209A/+/ So hes still sitting in jail, the "bitch" calls the police again while hes still in jail telling them hes knocking down her front door. The officer "grins"(no doubt) and answers, But Miss xxxxxx, hes still right here in jail. She replies,................O',(peeking out the window) I see now its my BF. GRrrrrrrrrrrrr. LUCKILY HE'D MARRIED UP, (like most women do) and got a great divorce settlement having fixed everything in her delapitated house. He'd saved reciepts. Another case for A IRONCLAD PRE NUP' de dup, de dup! Cops have a high rate of divorce , they know the crap people pull too.
Click to expand...

Would someone please translate this into English for me?
 
Pomeraniac said:
Reason #5,479 to Stay Single: avoiding 209As..
Click to expand...

[laugh]

Glockaholic said:
you do not have to be married to be the subject of a 209A order, if you have dated, lived together, or had a child together, you too can have a 209A order issued against you.
Click to expand...

True, but it gets worse. It's up to the judge. [thinking]

From MGL 209A-1:

“Family or household members”, persons who:

(a) are or were married to one another;

(b) are or were residing together in the same household;

(c) are or were related by blood or marriage;

(d) having a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together; or

(e) are or have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship, which shall be adjudged by district, probate or Boston municipal courts consideration of the following factors:

(1) the length of time of the relationship; (2) the type of relationship; (3) the frequency of interaction between the parties; and (4) if the relationship has been terminated by either person, the length of time elapsed since the termination of the relationship.
Click to expand...

Rob Boudrie said:
This is one of many interesting things that incorporation could bring. It would also make it much more difficult for a court to uphold the revocation or denial of an LTC for such actions as exercising one's right to remain silent; being found not guilty of a crime; being suspected of a crime; etc. Many of the current court decisions regarding LTC denial are based on the fact that an LTC is not a right, and denying one is, legally speaking, not punishment but an administrative act.
Click to expand...

Sad that we need them to codify into law that excercising some rights shouldn't result in the theft of others, or that we're innocent until proven guilty. [frown]
 

Similar threads

This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
557
Broc
Broc
Does anyone have
2
Replies
30
Views
907
appraiser
appraiser
Thoughts on an AMT Javalina Longslide in 10mm?
2
Replies
30
Views
605
Kylep427
Kylep427
Ma. gun auction on-line based Worcester, Ma.
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Reptile
Reptile
  • Locked
Massachusetts man arrested for possessing firearms, std-cap mags without an LTC
Replies
5
Views
447
jkelly1229
J
Back
Top Bottom