LTC ineligibility minimum sentencing?

[jblaze]

I agree

 

[drgrant]

This is not accurate. It is quite possible, and legal, for a law change to not apply retroactively.

When something is legalized, it does not undo convictions or penalties for former offenses. I am referring specifically to legislation to legalize; not a finding by a court that a law was invalid (in which case past convictions would likely be voided). For example, the change to CO and WA law did not automatically erase criminal records for previous MJ possession charges.

We did, however, use several arguments in the MJ/LTC cases to prove that the prohibition was an infringement on 2A rights. The fact that the same offense, today, could not be used against an applicant was one of those arguments. Another was the fact that previous MJ use would not preclude one from becoming an FBI agent, Air Mashall, or other federal LEO.

Good to know, I didn't mean to suggest that it erased the offenses, but made it difficult for a gov to apply a prohibition to someone. I always thought such things were predicated on the fact that it was hard for the gov to say "so and so got convicted of .75 oz of marajuana in 1981" but suddenly his kid got the same thing 2 years ago but his kid isn't legally disqualified for committing the same crime".

Isn't there another weed possession case in the mill right now? (involving some guy who got bagged for presumably some tiny amount of weed)

The legal term is " ex post facto", and it works in the other directions. You cannot apply a penalty on someone for something that was legal at the time they did it, but now prohibited. For example, the govt cannot prosecute someone who went to Thailand to child sex prior to the federal law making this outside of jurisdiction activity a US federal crime.

Ex post facto is ignored when it comes to the penalty of gun rights removal. Felons were retroactively punished in 1934, as were domestic violence convicts after the Lautenberg amendment.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Good to know, I didn't mean to suggest that it erased the offenses, but made it difficult for a gov to apply a prohibition to someone.

There is nothing in the law that provides for automatic removal of prohibitions, however, the fact that something is currently not illegal would generally make a court more sympathetic to removal of prohibitions resulting from the conviction.

 

[Whutmeworry]

There is nothing in the law that provides for automatic removal of prohibitions, however, the fact that something is currently not illegal would generally make a court more sympathetic to removal of prohibitions resulting from the conviction.

...sympathetic toward removal of prohibitions on voting and/or holding public office, sure but as was previously stated - on gun rights (a la Lautenberg) - not so much. I give you exhibit A:

 

[EC1]

There is nothing in the law that provides for automatic removal of prohibitions, however, the fact that something is currently not illegal would generally make a court more sympathetic to removal of prohibitions resulting from the conviction.

But then if we're talking Ma courts, I wouldn't hold my breath especially if it gives firearms rights back.