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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS April Giveaway ***Ruger 10/22***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by cma, Jun 7, 2018.
There's an article in February's issue of Shooting Illustrated on pages 74&75 about this.
Thanks for the lead. Going to look for it now. Thank you
And speaking for myself I'd just like to say again how much I appreciate the good work you guys are doing for us.
Fixed it for you.
My guess is the majority of funding for the Comm2A projects comes from the NES community.
Wow. "No, don't ignore the court order send us the paperwork and we will ignore the court order"
Does Comm2A notify us when our membership dues is due? What about GOAL? I know the NRA and NHFC will send me an email and a bill when my dues is due.
I get a "bill" from the NRA every other week
Comm2A does not. Our fundraising machine isn't that evolved and most of our members are on a monthly plan. We send out an email or letter when someone becomes a member that has the start and end dates on it. Other than that, we don't come after people for more money when their membership expires.
If you have a question, email us at info - at - comm2a.org and we'll let you know when your membership expires.
Anymore victory’s today ?
The unofficial win count is up to 13 with no district court losses. Attorney Jason Guida just won one against Boston, notable because Boston actually put up a fight. Another attorney not affiliated with Comm2A also won this month against the Sunderland PD. We're trying to compile a full list of all appeals we know about, not just the ones backed by Comm2A. Some of the judges are starting to write really good decisions too, not just scribbling 'reversed' in the margins of the petition. Also, the PDs (except for Boston) are not showing any interest in fighting us, and many are willing to submit to joint proposed orders with us.
The Commonwealth's tactics have also evolved to deal with out wins. They're now restoring licenses for these folks, but ONLY if there's a court order. So, if the state has restored your rights via the FLRB, you still have to sue your police department to actually get your license.
The FLRB is meeting again as required by law. Again, you can thank Attorney Guida for forcing the board to perform their statutorily required duties. However, they are denying petitions. The ATF's interpretation of Logan has rendered petitioners 'unsuitable'. (?)
We would not be able to coordinate this effort and support these folks without the support we get from NES members and other gun owners. Keep it up folks.
Nice to hear they are restoring licenses that are court ordered but im sure planning on denying any renewals that will come as our licenses expire.
Again, I’m one not chosen to appeal yet. My license wasn’t revoked, I was told we’ll just let it expire. I have been in touch with one of the attorneys mentioned here when the letter first came out. At what point do I make calls again and look at getting myself an appeal? Or do I just wait til this is done at the federal level?
Im in the same situation..I don’t think there is anything to appeal until it’s either revoked or not renewed.
Very clever on the state's part. It seems like that tactic moots the cases of the people who already had FLRB relief and sue, and prevents the ideal plaintiff from coming forth. Given that you were looking for someone who had FLRB relief but hadn't touched a firearm since the disqualifying offense, and they're denying any new petitions, is the only path to challenging this ultimately to find the right plaintiff, apply for relief with the FLRB, and then appeal the petition denial under c. 30A?
Sounds like a very long road ahead.
If and when that time comes, Comm2A should be your first call. We're pretty much taking all comers at this time, not just the 12 or so we originally budgeted.
It was always going to be a long road even before this change of policy. The first step on that journey is restoring the status quo. Ironically, our battle with the state may work to our advantage in the long term. But it's still a long road.
What is interesting here is that the FLRB and GCAB are treating the ATF as a quasi-judicial body and treating its opinion as if it is a judicial finding - even when multiple state courts have actually stated that firearms ownership is a civil right and has been restored.
The current FLRB position is interesting as it ignores the findings of multiple MA courts instead choosing to rely on the non-judicial opinion of a federal LE agency.
Pretty much all arguments that gun ownership is a right that is not civil in nature break down on close examination. Argue that rights are constitutional or civil but not both and you have proof that voting is not a civil right. Check case law and you will be hard pressed to find anything that defines the difference between a civil and a non-civil right. Read Logan carefully and you will find that it is not a finding enumerating a complete list of civil rights (Logan mentions voting, holding public office and serving on a jury), but rather dicta citing examples of civil right. Using the feds interpretation of Logan fair housing access is a right but not a civil one.
And, of course, there is the clear legislative intent that state-level full firearms rights restorations be recognized by the feds.
What is interesting about the new FLRB findings against applicants is that they often opine at great length about how each factor favors the applicant (truthfulness, rehabilitation, lawful behavior in years since the minor crime, etc.) and make it clear the denial is being hung solely on the hook of the BATFE opinion.
My theory (and it is only that) is that this position of the feds was the result of someone saying "gotta do something bout that" when California instituted a procedure in which certain first offense domestic violence convicts could apply for a restoration of gun rights.
If the state decided that a triangle has only two sides, it would take years to get the mistake corrected.
Ive been wondering what may have precipitated this, it seemed odd that they were going after such a small group of non violent reinstatements. Was it just a case of the low hanging fruit? Did they not like the fact that the body that had convicted was not the one reinstating?
My appeal was heard in jan 2017.. my reinstatement letter came in early march.. i reapplied immediately and my license was not approved until late july after many trips to my local pd (who were very supportive) and not until i made call after call to DCJIS with and without my towns licensing officer. It was like pulling teeth to get it issued which made me wonder about something like this going on behind the scenes. Months later this goes down to not much surprise so I assume i was one of the last ones to successfully navigate the process.
There is an interesting dichotomy.
When the system likes the clear legislative intent, it ignores the actual wording of the law and relies on such intent. Bump Stocks are a great example - one shot per one pull of the trigger, reclassified as NFA full autos because of the legislative intent.
When Congress passes a law that the feds will recognize a recognition of civil rights, it seems pretty obvious that there was no legislative intent to deny persons with a lesser deprivation of rights access to such restoration. Since the system did not like the legislative intent, it shifted to the precise wording of the law. I have heard there is one court that even took the position that since only one right is restored, it is not a restoration of "rights" (plural).
One more, West Boylston this time. The hearing and decision both came today. Basically, they're all coming down to the chief and plaintiff agreeing to an order and the judge signing it.
Another interesting "intent vs. wording" -
Persons in the US on a non-immigrant visa may not possess a gun unless they have a match invite or hunting license. The current work-around is an Alaska small game hunting license, which according to the letter of the law triggers the exemption even if the visaee has no intent to actually go to Alaska or hunt. There is current rumblings regarding changing the interpretation of the law to match intent rather than wording.
Ok so I went to bed feeling pretty good about knuckle draggers post about our licenses being renewed then woke up the next day to a bunch of negative news. Been silent thinking about this. I’ve been going threw this now for 11 years and have spent THOUSANDS on trying to get and stay legal. So let’s say Jason gets me legal again in the next month or so , just saying with all the court orders. My ltc was set to expire in about a year. Does that mean once it expires it will not ever be renewed again ?? I have paid Jason GLADLY to work a miracle for me , we even sued the police chief and won ! Watching the judge smack down the chief and my ex wife was the greatest day of my life next to my kids being born ! And at the end of this flrb mess I’m going to owe him another pile of money. Again , GLADLY ! But now I’m starting to feel like I’m shoveling shit against the tide if I’m reading and understanding this new stipulation with the ATF. So confused
Nice article on this in this months shooting illustrated page 74
I see that’s been posted.. late to the party as always..
God I hope not. You, and the others, have been though a lot
I’m not going anywhere bob. I chew spikes and spit brads
I know. But all this BS and the dollars it costs to fight it still sucks.
Yep. I’ll cross that bridge when I get there. I’m not going to stress about it. I think I feel a disturbance in the force !
Separate names with a comma.