Mass LTC Holders with FLRB Reliefs Will Be revoked !

[Rob Boudrie]

To wit: NES: Stuck with an FID? You might be a federally prohibited person,
especially @OfficerObie59's reply #110 of 19-Jul'12.

The Falmouth PD FID Cardholder-Federally Prohibited Person Notification memo has moved to here.


There's at least one more way:
get the President to pardon you from being an FPP.

I don't think the president can issue a pardon for a state conviction.

 

[AHM]

I don't think the president can issue a pardon for a state conviction.

I totally agree, but he can keep a convict from being an FPP.
Not a total solution in a state with a parallel law,
but moving out of state would fix that.

 

[42!]

I totally agree, but he can keep a convict from being an FPP.
Not a total solution in a state with a parallel law,
but moving out of state would fix that.

I don't recall there being a presidential exception in what makes a PP. Assuming @Rob Boudrie is correct that he can't pardon.

For for everyone's sake let's keep the definitions clear PP is Fed, Disqualified or unsuitable is MA, NH doesn't care what you do

 

[Rob Boudrie]

For for everyone's sake let's keep the definitions clear PP is Fed, Disqualified or unsuitable is MA, NH doesn't care what you do

A big issue is the MA misdafelonies that are under the jurisdiction of MA courts but render one a federal PP.

 

[308rifleman]

I’m told not to buy a gun at a gun store because of the NICS check but private sales are ok

Still..be extremely cautious! Bury and I mean bury out of state all heirloom and sentimental firearms, like the ones that pappy or grandpappy passed down to you. Then, go the private sales route. Cash on the barreltop as us southerners call it. Many gun shows down south. Interesting offerings. Remember one thing: Money talks...bulls**t walks! Use your head and be careful!

 

[308rifleman]

So my friend just returned my guns to me. What’s going to happen when I transfer them back into my name ? Can I expect another visit ?

Did they go through an FFL from you to your friend? Or did you just put them in your trunk of your car,, drive to your friend's house and stick them in his safe? At that point, no federal or state record of stransfer. Just a friend helping a friend.

 

[308rifleman]

Wow, so nice of them. Now with that out there, I’ve been researching this without any luck. How does somebody appeal being a federally prohibited person?

Because they can! A lot of these cops are sick, power-hungry scumbags. Think of the little shit tattletales that we all had to deal with in school or the miserable, friendless, no-life office snitch who runs to the boss to report you if you are five minutes late from lunch.

 

[Roof gunner]

No , back in the beginning of all this the police came to my door and took them. My friend did legal ownership transfer into his name.

 

[42!]

No , back in the beginning of all this the police came to my door and took them. My friend did legal ownership transfer into his name.

Since you can't go through a dealer, you're limited to 4 a year (or is it 5 I always forget). Depending on the size of your collection it could take a few years.

 

[AHM]

I don't recall there being a presidential exception in what makes a PP.

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, §2, Clause 1:

The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons
for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.​

 

[Mesatchornug]

Since you can't go through a dealer, you're limited to 4 a year (or is it 5 I always forget). Depending on the size of your collection it could take a few years.

4 per year. On transfer 5 you are considered to be in the business of selling firearms.

Interestingly (tangent) this is the same standard as for automobiles (in my understanding).

 

[AHM]

4 per year. On transfer 5 you are considered to be in the business of selling firearms.

Interestingly (tangent) this is the same standard as for automobiles (in my understanding).

 

[42!]

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, §2, Clause 1:

The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons
for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.​

Keep following the quotes back to where I originally mentioned a pardon.

 

[teamRR]

This is a real old thread where Im sure its been stated but the entire problem could be solved if MA just fully restored all rights in such situations, ie via expungement/annulment/whatever-ma-wants-to-call-it. Other states have it, bars can be set as high or low as the state wants. A combination of every crime being > 2 years and a lack of federally qualifying relief for the convicted causes this whole problem...

It just doesnt make any sense that the state is ok with restoring gun rights, which they legally dont have to, but have no reasonable provision for full restoration.

 

[AHM]

Keep following the quotes back to where I originally mentioned a pardon.

Where's the joy in that?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It just doesnt make any sense that the state is ok with restoring gun rights, which they legally dont have to, but have no reasonable provision for full restoration.

The state thought it was enabling full restoration.

 

[42!]

The state thought it was enabling full restoration.

Does this come down to the state restoring a "right" but the fed requires a restoration of "rights"? Honestly asking if this BS is just a matter of using the correct word. And if this is all that's the problem, how difficult would it be to change the wording used by the FRB?

 

[JJ4]

The state thought it was enabling full restoration.

This.

State: Person X is a PP.
Feds: Ok, got it.
State: Person X is not a PP, we've restored all their rights.
Feds: No backsies.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does this come down to the state restoring a "right" but the fed requires a restoration of "rights"? Honestly asking if this BS is just a matter of using the correct word. And if this is all that's the problem, how difficult would it be to change the wording used by the FRB?

That is the secondary argument.

The primary argument the feds use is that gun ownership is a right, but not a civil one. The recognize only the right to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury due to some dicta in US v. Logan. (and no, dicta is no part of the binding decision)

 

[Boston4567]

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, §2, Clause 1:

The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons
for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.​

The key word there is "against the United States". Not against a particular state.

States are sovereign and a federal pardon has no effect on an offense committed against a state.

 

[AHM]

The key word there is "against the United States". Not against a particular state.

States are sovereign and a federal pardon has no effect on an offense committed against a state.

Luckily the problem to be solved was:

How does somebody appeal being a federally prohibited person?

Note the use of the "F"-word in that question.

 

[Roof gunner]

Waiting.......

 

[teamRR]

This.

State: Person X is a PP.
Feds: Ok, got it.
State: Person X is not a PP, we've restored all their rights.
Feds: No backsies.

No that's not true, literally if you look at a 4473 you see the backsies clause - which is honored via how many states do it, just the MA FLRB process does not qualify because it fails to meet federal standards somehow.

The feds, right or wrong, want to see full restoration granted by the state including firearms, serving jury duty or in public office. I believe the MA issue is they only apply it to firearms and not explicitely to all things.

For instance NH its called annulment, can be granted for many non violent felonies, and is treated like a pardon as far as I know. Now the feds or anyone can always screw up a NICs check by failing to note the backsies part, but at least by law its legit since the state issued the felony and therefore has the ability to take it away.

 

[Roof gunner]

Renewals should be interesting .....

 

[Boston4567]

Luckily the problem to be solved was:

Note the use of the "F"-word in that question.

We live in a country under a system of laws, both state and federal. The provisions of those laws are specific. Federal law specifically defines offenses that make someone a federally prohibited person. One of those definitions incorporates certain types of state offenses as a trigger that makes someone a "federally prohibited person".

The president doesn't get to just decree whatever he wants. The Constitution allows for pardons of federal crimes, not state crimes. The definition of "federally prohibited person" is not in itself a crime that someone can be pardoned from. There is no provision of federal law that gives the federal executive branch any leeway in changing someone's characterization as a federally prohibited person based on a state conviction that renders them a federally prohibited person. Period.

There is a "bail-out" provision that allowed federal felons to petition the ATF for an individualized determination to release them from federal PP status if their status was based on a federal crime, but it has been blocked in appropriations bills starting in the 90's, is functionally defunct today, and never applied to state crimes anyway.

If you want to be released from a federal PP status that's based on a state crime, your only recourse today is judicial review from the state that convicted you, executive clemency from that state, or (possibly) an individual lawsuit in federal District Court based on 2A. The federal executive branch cannot help you.

 

[AHM]

The definition of "federally prohibited person" is not in itself a crime that someone can be pardoned from.

So what you're saying is felons, misdafelons, fugitives, addicts, crazy people, crimaliens, stalkers, and abusers can receive, possess and transport guns'n'ammo with impunity because (excepting in a few places like Mass with state PP laws) That's Not A Crime.

 

[42!]

So what you're saying is felons, misdafelons, fugitives, addicts, crazy people, crimaliens, stalkers, and abusers can receive, possess and transport guns'n'ammo with impunity because (excepting in a few places like Mass with state PP laws) That's Not A Crime.

Where did you get that from his post

 

[AHM]

Light Dawns on Marblehead Dept.​

Where did you get that from his post

You've just enabled me to see the source of the disagreement.
When I wrote:

... get the President to pardon you from being an FPP.​

I intended to write:

... get the President to pardon you from being an FPP in possession of guns'n'ammo.​

 

[Boston4567]

Light Dawns on Marblehead Dept.​

You've just enabled me to see the source of the disagreement.
When I wrote:

... get the President to pardon you from being an FPP.​

I intended to write:

... get the President to pardon you from being an FPP in possession of guns'n'ammo.​

Yes, you can break the law in the hopes that some day if you're charged you'll get a presidential pardon. I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[AHM]

Yes, you can break the law in the hopes that some day if you're charged you'll get a presidential pardon. I wouldn't recommend it.

You're right.
Much more Massprudent to be a member of a protected class;
break the law with impunity, knowing you'll never be charged/indicted.