• 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.

Lawsuit filed against FLRB

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
Suit claims panel breaking law by not meeting quarterly


The state board that determines whether people convicted of minor misdemeanors should have a shot at getting a firearms license has not held a meeting or hearing in more than seven months — a mysterious delay that violates state law and has prompted a lawsuit by its former attorney.
 

CrackPot

NES Member
Rating - 100%
62   0   0
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
4,352
Likes
4,915
Location
Worcester County
First and foremost, GO JASON!

Unfortunately even when we win we lose. The state spends our money responding and possibly fighting/defending. We "win". The judge tells them to behave. Nothing changes. Maybe a defendant gets a monetary award of our money from the state? Until you throw people in jail or make them personally liable I don't see this actually changing.

We know that towns that get sued for slow LTC processing lose, fix it for a short time and then revert to bad behavior. The losers are the residents of that town, the ones getting slow rolled and the whole town funding the lawsuit. The people not doing their job just keep getting paid to do nothing, slowly.

Ok, I am cynical
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
6,767
Likes
1,810
Location
Imprisoned in the PRM
Correct me if I'm wrong... FRB members are NOT prosecutors, judges, or LEOs, so no immunity, no? CAN general purpose bureaucrats be held personally liable for violating the law?
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
15,036
Likes
8,389
My guess is the board will meet. They will vote in his favor and then the chief will deny it. But things like this need to be done to hold the .gov accountable. After all this I hope he get his license.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
There are at least three threads on this topic, so I'll call this one the master thread and won't link to all the others. The mods can merge if they're so inclined.

The FLRB is required by law to meet at least once each quarter. They haven't been doing that - perhaps because they see their work as futile. The federal government does not consider FLRB relief a full restoration of one's civil rights. Successful FLRB petitioners are still prohibited persons in the eye's of the federal government. Attorney Jason Guida had a number of FLRB petition pending, and sued the FLRB over their failure to meet and consider petitions as required by law. Guida is correct, state law is very clear. The board has resumed meeting.

EOPSS has now 'instructed' licensing authorities to revoke firearms licenses issued to people with FLRB relief. EOPSS is actually sending police chiefs a lists of names of people how have been granted relief and who now have LTCs or FIDs because those people are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms.

There's a clear conflict here between state and federal law. This isn't uncommon in a federalism system of dual sovereignty. Think marijuana and immigration, two areas where the states and the federal government are frequently not on the same page. However, in this case a bureaucrat has decided that federal law should prevail. This isn't much different than if EOPSS told the State Police to enforce federal marijuana laws. Without input from the legislature or the courts, EOPSS has decided to ignore state law and just do the ATF's bidding.

As far as we know, most police departments are ignoring these instructions for now and will wait until people with FLRB relief try to renew their licenses, at which point the FRB will refuse to process them. However, we've identified at least four and possibly six departments who are proactively revoking licenses.

Needless to say, this is a front burner issue for Comm2A. FLRB cleared individuals should contact us as soon as they hear from their PD or before they apply for a renewal: Questions / Help - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org)
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
920
Location
Merrimack Valley
There are at least three threads on this topic, so I'll call this one the master thread and won't link to all the others. The mods can merge if they're so inclined.

The FLRB is required by law to meet at least once each quarter. They haven't been doing that - perhaps because they see their work as futile. The federal government does not consider FLRB relief a full restoration of one's civil rights. Successful FLRB petitioners are still prohibited persons in the eye's of the federal government. Attorney Jason Guida had a number of FLRB petition pending, and sued the FLRB over their failure to meet and consider petitions as required by law. Guida is correct, state law is very clear. The board has resumed meeting.

EOPSS has now 'instructed' licensing authorities to revoke firearms licenses issued to people with FLRB relief. EOPSS is actually sending police chiefs a lists of names of people how have been granted relief and who now have LTCs or FIDs because those people are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms.

There's a clear conflict here between state and federal law. This isn't uncommon in a federalism system of dual sovereignty. Think marijuana and immigration, two areas where the states and the federal government are frequently not on the same page. However, in this case a bureaucrat has decided that federal law should prevail. This isn't much different than if EOPSS told the State Police to enforce federal marijuana laws. Without input from the legislature or the courts, EOPSS has decided to ignore state law and just do the ATF's bidding.

As far as we know, most police departments are ignoring these instructions for now and will wait until people with FLRB relief try to renew their licenses, at which point the FRB will refuse to process them. However, we've identified at least four and possibly six departments who are proactively revoking licenses.

Needless to say, this is a front burner issue for Comm2A. FLRB cleared individuals should contact us as soon as they hear from their PD or before they apply for a renewal: Questions / Help - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org)

I may get chewed out for saying this, but... doesn't state law say you can't issue to a federal PP, and (effectively) require revocation if someone becomes one? If it's state law being enforced, there's no commandeering issue.

MGL c. 140 §131 says "no such license shall be issued [if possession of a firearm] would be in violation of state or federal law," and "[a] license issued under this section shall be revoked [...] upon the occurrence of any event that would have disqualified the holder from being issued such license[.]"

Full sections:
The licensing authority shall, within 40 days from the date of application, either approve the application and issue the license or deny the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial in writing; provided, however, that no such license shall be issued unless the colonel has certified, in writing, that the information available to him does not indicate that the possession of a firearm or large capacity firearm by the applicant would be in violation of state or federal law.
A license issued under this section shall be revoked or suspended by the licensing authority, or his designee, upon the occurrence of any event that would have disqualified the holder from being issued such license or from having such license renewed.
 

robmcd

Instructor
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
434
Likes
172
Location
Berkshire County, MA
The ATF has advised the FRB that they will no longer honor decisions made by the Board. The FRB sent a letter to all Chiefs which included lists of persons affected and requested that they revoke the licenses. I heard that about 250 people are affected. A friend of mine has already been notified.
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,007
Likes
1,524
Location
South Central MA
Keep up the good work Comm2a! The mental gymnastics behind the "you cannot restore civil rights because they were not lost" and the misdemeanor-felony gray area absolutely needs to be addressed.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,410
Likes
1,603
Something I always thought about...these lawsuits that are brought up against state of MASS which are ruled on by MASS judges. Isn't the employer of these judges ultimately the state of MASS, and isn't that a conflict of interest?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,410
Likes
1,603
Be careful, if you resort to insults during a conversation, then it means you don't have anything substantive.

Thanks
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
676
Likes
920
Location
Merrimack Valley
Something I always thought about...these lawsuits that are brought up against state of MASS which are ruled on by MASS judges. Isn't the employer of these judges ultimately the state of MASS, and isn't that a conflict of interest?

No, because there is a longstanding history of institutional independence in the judiciary, to allow them to rule based on the law and not based on personal or political considerations. They can't get any benefit or get paid more by ruling for the state, and they don't get fired for ruling against it.

Unfortunately, the MA judiciary prefers to use that precious independence to make sure fentanyl dealers, violent criminals, and illegal gun traffickers are released with a slap on the wrist. Reining in the actions of the state against its law abiding gun owners is not on the agenda.
 

Fixxah

NES Member
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
31,278
Likes
11,390
Location
Outskirts of Tiot.
No, because there is a longstanding history of institutional independence in the judiciary, to allow them to rule based on the law and not based on personal or political considerations. They can't get any benefit or get paid more by ruling for the state, and they don't get fired for ruling against it.

Unfortunately, the MA judiciary prefers to use that precious independence to make sure fentanyl dealers, violent criminals, and illegal gun traffickers are released with a slap on the wrist. Reining in the actions of the state against its law abiding gun owners is not on the agenda.
Follow the money. Those mentioned above have none except for the dealers just trying to support their families while helping kill addicts. You on the other hand, have skin to give. Baol set at $250,000 because gunz. Next...
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,486
Likes
4,758
I have a feeling this is how this will end:

"Call to order.
Roll call/attendance. (here!)
Reading of last meetings' minutes. (10 seconds)
Any old business? (none)
Any new business? (none)
Do I have a motion to adjourn? (motion made)
Second? (seconded)
Meeting adjourned. (gavel)"

They are now meeting. /endofdiscussion?
 

oldguy68

NES Member
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,795
Likes
3,773
Location
Non-ya
Heck, they charge us for and make us show a need for our 2nd Amendment right.
Why do any of these tyrannical actions surprise us?

The whole state trooper stealing thing is just another lesson about giving too much power to any state agency!
Can you say Police State?
 
Last edited:

oldguy68

NES Member
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,795
Likes
3,773
Location
Non-ya
But...You can possess marijuana in MA in violation of Federal Laws..Hmm..
And marijuana isn't even protected by the 2nd Amendment..Hmmm...
The right to keep and smoke a joint shall not be infringed...LOL[rofl]
That falls under the right of being a free man!

Becuz guns...:mad:
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
The revocation letters I've seen so far simply state that the licence holder has been convicted of a disqualifying offense without mention of their FLRB status. It's basically the same letter they would have received had they NOT gone before the board.

But...You can possess marijuana in MA in violation of Federal Laws..Hmm..
And marijuana isn't even protected by the 2nd Amendment..Hmmm...
The right to keep and smoke a joint shall not be infringed...LOL[rofl]
That falls under the right of being a free man!

Becuz guns...:mad:
You're exactly right. This is NO DIFFERENT than if the DEA told the Cannabis Control Commision not to issue retail cannabis license because that would be in violation of federal law. The state used to defend and support it's law regarding the FLRB, even under Deval Patrick's administration. The no longer do that.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,410
Likes
1,603
Good luck getting a fair ruling. In MASS, the 3 branches of government are all in bed together. Their paycheck comes from the same entity. It WAS very easy for judges to become partisan.
 
Top Bottom