• 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.

Mass LTC Holders with FLRB Reliefs Will Be revoked !

Rob Boudrie said:
Bingo!!! We have a winner.

Best bet would be an OUI with FLRB relief for a plaintiff who wants an LTC but has never owned guns.
Click to expand...
Of the 400 or so people with flrb relief don’t we know if anyone like that exists ? I mean not to sound like an ass but isn’t there a way to find that out ? Like send out a notice or something to past flrb plaintiffs ? Sorry I’m sure that has already been thought of
 
Roof gunner said:
Of the 400 or so people with flrb relief don’t we know if anyone like that exists ? I mean not to sound like an ass but isn’t there a way to find that out ? Like send out a notice or something to past flrb plaintiffs ? Sorry I’m sure that has already been thought of
Click to expand...
I fear most people as i did were first rejected AGAIN ar an ffl afrter reinstatement and then turned to private sales. Thanks again to comm2a for the ceist and desist letter to the DCJIS... wonderful work!
 
Roof gunner said:
Of the 400 or so people with flrb relief don’t we know if anyone like that exists ? I mean not to sound like an ass but isn’t there a way to find that out ? Like send out a notice or something to past flrb plaintiffs ? Sorry I’m sure that has already been thought of
Click to expand...

Seriously? The whole point of getting flrb relief is so you can buy a gun. Why would someone go through all that and then not even touch a gun? They are looking for a unicorn. They will need to find another way to challenge it. Or if they can still get someone flrb relief, they can manufacture a plaintiff.
 
42! said:
Seriously? The whole point of getting flrb relief is so you can buy a gun. Why would someone go through all that and then not even touch a gun? They are looking for a unicorn. They will need to find another way to challenge it. Or if they can still get someone flrb relief, they can manufacture a plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Bad as that is without it nobody would be stupid enough to come forward. You take a lawsuit to federal court, and the feds show up day one to arrest them for felon in possession violations. Now the lawsuit is off as the feds are going to hang "We won't send you away forever on these charges if you drop the lawsuit and never bother us again" on them and they will make a deal. Otherwise the feds would be happy enough just putting them away on a charge they admit themselves by starting the lawsuit in the first place.
 
Seriously? The whole point of getting flrb relief is so you can buy a gun. Why would someone go through all that and then not even touch a gun?
Click to expand...
A ideal plaintiff would be someone with an OUI (after it became a 2.5 year offense) who has never owned a gun but wants to join the brotherhood of the armed.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
A ideal plaintiff would be someone with an OUI (after it became a 2.5 year offense) who has never owned a gun but wants to join the brotherhood of the armed.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought they also had to have been granted flrb relief.
 
42! said:
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought they also had to have been granted flrb relief.
Click to expand...
It's part of the chain.

If we find such a person, the OUI will render them a prohibited person. The next step will be to apply for FLRB relief, then bring an appropriate action. Comm2a would not insist the person have FLRB relief before coming to us.
 
How is the weed thing able to take off the way it has being a federal no no ? Hey maybe a weed conviction could help us flrb guys ??
 
Roof gunner said:
How is the weed thing able to take off the way it has being a federal no no ? Hey maybe a weed conviction could help us flrb guys ??
Click to expand...
The weed thing is an excellent parallel.

The state issues weed selling licenses that provide protection from state, but not federal, prosecution. This is exactly what an LTC issued to a federally prohibited person does.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It's part of the chain.

If we find such a person, the OUI will render them a prohibited person. The next step will be to apply for FLRB relief, then bring an appropriate action. Comm2a would not insist the person have FLRB relief before coming to us.
Click to expand...
Ok so I did have it right. This is the manufacturing a plaintiff I mentioned above
 
The gall of the EOPS secretary to decide to just ignore a court order just baffles me. I could understand it if he appealed the decisions to a higher court. But to just refuse to obey a court order and force the private citizen to file yet another appeal is disgraceful.
 
M1911 said:
The gall of the EOPS secretary to decide to just ignore a court order just baffles me. I could understand it if he appealed the decisions to a higher court. But to just refuse to obey a court order and force the private citizen to file yet another appeal is disgraceful.
Click to expand...
This is Mass afterall, disgraceful is SOP. Too bad they know that they will never be sent to jail for contempt of court like a normal citizen.
 
Len-2A Training said:
This is Mass afterall, disgraceful is SOP. Too bad they know that they will never be sent to jail for contempt of court like a normal citizen.
Click to expand...
They should agree to restore licenses I agree. But cjis and frb have not been parties to these orders and Bennett I think is waiting for an order directing him to restore licenses.
 
This is our biggest front burner issue at the moment. We're devoting an unprecedented amount of time, energy, and money to this project.

Bennett is clearly in the wrong here and we're determined to hold EOPSS accountable. Regardless of how someone feels about guns or the Second Amendment, we should all be deeply troubled by the way in which his office has chosen to exercise executive fiat contrary to the rule of law.
 
M1911 said:
The gall of the EOPS secretary to decide to just ignore a court order just baffles me. I could understand it if he appealed the decisions to a higher court. But to just refuse to obey a court order and force the private citizen to file yet another appeal is disgraceful.
Click to expand...
So expensive being legal
 
Pure gold from a recent decision:

(Arata v. Seekonk): "This court finds that when the FLRB restored Aratas right to possess a firearms, it restored a "civil right" within the meaning of Logan."
​
And from McDonough v. McCarthy as police chief of Glocester:

Concludes that while the right to possess a firearm is not a "civil right" under state law, it is under federal law, and thus the FLRB restoration restores his rights at the federal level as well as state.​

This is starting to get real interesting
 
I stand by my original conclusion that the Feds antagonistic attitude towards FLRB relief is a by-product of the CA provision to restore gun rights to first offense domestic violence misdemeanons. In order to prevent the CA relief from being effective, it needed a contorted reasoning based on the premise that gun ownership is not a civil right.

Some things, once repeated enough, become axiomatic (Goebbels pioneered this concept). For example, the concept of "felons should not own guns" has been espoused as dogma for so many years, that is is now unthinkable to restore the gun rights of someone who ran a pump and dump stock scheme or traded on insider info - both non-violent offenses that in no way indicate a predilection towards violent use of a gun. Similarly, we are at the point where restoring the gun right of someone convicted of any level of domestic violence is unthinkable.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Pure gold from a recent decision:

(Arata v. Seekonk): "This court finds that when the FLRB restored Aratas right to possess a firearms, it restored a "civil right" within the meaning of Logan."
​
And from McDonough v. McCarthy as police chief of Glocester:

Concludes that while the right to possess a firearm is not a "civil right" under state law, it is under federal law, and thus the FLRB restoration restores his rights at the federal level as well as state.​

This is starting to get real interesting
Click to expand...
That brings the total up to seven wins and counting. And those are just the ones that Comm2A is backing - there may be others. Jason Guida also has two rehearings tomorrow before the FLRB. The momentum in this case is clearly in our direction.
 
Comm2A said:
This is our biggest front burner issue at the moment. We're devoting an unprecedented amount of time, energy, and money to this project.

Bennett is clearly in the wrong here and we're determined to hold EOPSS accountable. Regardless of how someone feels about guns or the Second Amendment, we should all be deeply troubled by the way in which his office has chosen to exercise executive fiat contrary to the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Right on, but let's also be clear about who the enemy is here. It's not just Bennett and EOPSS. It's Baker. He has to go.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
That brings the total up to seven wins and counting. And those are just the ones that Comm2A is backing - there may be others. Jason Guida also has two rehearings tomorrow before the FLRB. The momentum in this case is clearly in our direction.
Click to expand...
Keep kickin ass Jason !!! good luck tomorrow !!
 

Similar threads

Bad news LTC holders, can't buy ammo at BassPro
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Soon, they will be everywhere.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
RKG
R
Will this work
Replies
9
Views
326
LittleCalm
L
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
259
M1911
M1911
LTC Turnaround Woburn?
Replies
1
Views
170
2-4-5 Trioxin
2-4-5 Trioxin
Back
Top Bottom