LTC A/B, or FID with oui/dwi conviction

[wildwest]

Thank you all- I'll pass along the advice on the CORI and contacting the attorney.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No Contest, or an Alford Plea is like a CWOF, it will normally not harm you in the future, except in DWI cases which is a whole other story.

I would suggest your friend get a copy of his CORI report, and the court records that list the disposition of the case to determine EXACTLY what disposition the court entered on the record.

Then I would have him pay for a consultation with Attorney Tassel ( @nstassel here) and follow his advice.

First time DWI cases with no mitigating factors such as vehicular manslaughter, leaving the scene, etc. are routinely "CWOF'd" for a first offense.

You don't get a free pass, all it does is keep you from having a conviction on your record, but as far as the RMV, Insurance companies and others are concerned it is treated as a conviction so you have the license loss, have to go to "Drunk School", pay a hefty license reinstatement fee, extorted payment to the Brain Injury Fund, etc. You also get the pleasure of attending 2 AA meetings.

A OUI CWOF is also considered a conviction for CDL purposes. The SJC ruled thusly because of a federal law that prohibits offenses from being shielded from CDL administrative penalties via the use of "alternative dispositions" that avoid a "conviction".

 

[appraiser]

I would think recent SCOTUS rulings provide an avenue here

You'd think so, but no

The SCOUS decisions, specifically Heller, say that gun rights are for law abiding citizens

Specifically, since MA IMHO intentionally increased the potential statutory punishment for a first time DWI to 2.5 years, creating what we call a "misda-felony" out of a misdemeanor it falls smack into the exclusions the court have said are legal

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” among other “presumptively lawful” regulations"

And that is where MA residents get jammed up. Not only in MA but in every other state, even one with Constitutional Carry in theory.

Personally IMHO the upcoming Rahimi case will have a greater effect WRT restoring gun rights to people who have been fuc*ked over hard

 

[Parker Schreiber]

No Contest, or an Alford Plea is like a CWOF, it will normally not harm you in the future, except in DWI cases which is a whole other story.

A Nolo or Alford plea is always considered as a conviction. CWOF is in theory not a conviction, but at least for now, it can trigger disqualification for a Massachusetts LTC.

 

[nstassel]

A Nolo or Alford plea is always considered as a conviction. CWOF is in theory not a conviction, but at least for now, it can trigger disqualification for a Massachusetts LTC.

A cwof can not trigger disqualification for an ltc as it is not a conviction. The facts may still be considered on the suitability analysis though.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Personally IMHO the upcoming Rahimi case will have a greater effect WRT restoring gun rights to people who have been fuc*ked over hard

I think Rahimi will end up being either a 5-4 loss (most likely) or a very narrowly tailored 5-4 victory (not likely). I can see Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts flipping and siding with the liberals.

I think the Range case out of CA3 will be much more beneficial to the 2A cause.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I think Rahimi will end up being either a 5-4 loss (most likely) or a very narrowly tailored 5-4 victory (not likely). I can see Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts flipping and siding with the liberals.

I think the Range case out of CA3 will be much more beneficial to the 2A cause.

Update: Oral arguments were held this morning. After hearing them, I’m now changing my prediction. I now predict a 7-2 or 8-1 loss against Rahimi. However, the majority opinion will be very narrowly tailored.

 

[aphextwin11]

One other thing that should be added here, as I think it would potentially save some folks a headache should they chose to petition the FLRB any time soon.

I've been told from a very credible source that the FLRB is no longer providing rulings on rights restorations. They are trickling in randoms here and there so nobody can say outright that they've ceased performing their directive, however for all intents and purposes they have overwhelmingly throttled their output and are no longer offering determinations. They will take your petition, hear your case, and it will die there.

They also know that there is no remedy that can be enforced. The statute gives the Board 60 days to issue a decision starting from the date they receive the petition. There is a 30 day window to "appeal" their failure to act. However, they schedule hearings several months after receiving them, time barring a challenge to the delay.

The only remedy available would be to contact your legislator if you fall into this dead zone with the FLRB, or sue them.

Luckily for folks that were thinking about petitioning the board, you can comfort yourself with the predicted dangerousness standard to be set from the rahimi case, and if the range case is granted certiorari, will likely be made even more explicit and will have a direct impact on MA misdefelonies. Time will tell however, and nothing should be interpreted as certain.