Mass LTCs now being suspended over Harassment Prevention Orders

Cap'n Mike

NES Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
1,368
Likes
2,477
Location
Mass
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Worse than Red Flag laws in my opinion, as these appear to be very prevalent and easy to get.



LTCs now being suspended for Harassment Prevention Orders​

ON AUGUST 31, 2022 BY JAGUIDAIN LEGAL UPDATES
Harassment Prevention Orders (“HPO’s”), issued under G.L. c. 258E, operate similar to domestic violence restraining orders in Massachusetts but affect individuals who are typically unrelated and have never been involved in a dating relationship. An HPO can be issued against any person if a court finds that this person has committed 3 or more acts against another person with the “intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” This means that your neighbor or coworker can seek an HPO if he or she feels that you are intimidating them or placing them in fear of harm.
HPOs and the facts surrounding these orders have always been considered by licensing authorities when determining whether an LTC holder is a suitable person to hold the license. While denials and suspensions did occur, often times licensing authorities could read between the lines and differentiate between a legitimate risk to public safety and a frivolous dispute between difficult neighbors. Unfortunately, the recently enacted firearms legislation, Chapter 175 of the Acts of 2022 (effective August 10, 2022), added HPOs to the laundry list of disqualifiers for an LTC. As a result, licensing authorities no longer have the discretion to allow an LTC to remain active after the issuance of an HPO.
Our office has received reports in recent days from LTC holders with valid LTCs receiving suspension notices due to active HPOs. It is possible that police departments are being advised to take action by state authorities as a result of the new legislation.
 
Yes, but there is no blanket prohibition on firearms possession - just a mandated suspension of the LTC. A 258E target can still have an FID and the guns covered by it, but I suspect a near automatic approval of an FID revocation if the chief takes it to court.
 
Worse than Red Flag laws in my opinion, as these appear to be very prevalent and easy to get.
This is not good.

But that link seems to more of a sales pitch for legal services than an informative heads up.
 
Yes, but there is no blanket prohibition on firearms possession - just a mandated suspension of the LTC. A 258E target can still have an FID and the guns covered by it, but I suspect a near automatic approval of an FID revocation if the chief takes it to court.
PDs will confiscate everything upon serving the 258E RO and taking the LTC. I'm willing to bet that most will turn the guns/ammo/mags over to a bonded thefthouse and that's the last that the person will ever see of them. Operationally, it will work the same as the 209A RO is done, regardless of different wording in the law. And I can't see any Mass Marsupial judge ruling against the PD doing so.
 
PDs will confiscate everything upon serving the 258E RO and taking the LTC. I'm willing to bet that most will turn the guns/ammo/mags over to a bonded thefthouse and that's the last that the person will ever see of them. Operationally, it will work the same as the 209A RO is done, regardless of different wording in the law. And I can't see any Mass Marsupial judge ruling against the PD doing so.
Sorry for the hijack but this is something I had been wondering. Since any guns that are “registered” to you will never leave the gun portal database even if you sell them out of state or in state etc, does the PD just come to your door with a list of all guns you’ve ever owned according to the portal database? Is it up to us to provide proof that we no longer own the guns? Just curious if you tell the cops you no longer own X or Y gun, what happens?
 
Sorry for the hijack but this is something I had been wondering. Since any guns that are “registered” to you will never leave the gun portal database even if you sell them out of state or in state etc, does the PD just come to your door with a list of all guns you’ve ever owned according to the portal database? Is it up to us to provide proof that we no longer own the guns? Just curious if you tell the cops you no longer own X or Y gun, what happens?

Good question, I also wonder what about if the firearms are out of state? For example, Granite State Indoor range and others offer lockers for storage of firearms.
 
This is not good.

But that link seems to more of a sales pitch for legal services than an informative heads up.
True
I came across this posted on Guidas Facebook page and haven’t seen anyone else talking about it.
I have no connection to Attorney Guida.
I HAVE seen an increase in HPOs being granted.
 
PDs will confiscate everything upon serving the 258E RO and taking the LTC. I'm willing to bet that most will turn the guns/ammo/mags over to a bonded thefthouse and that's the last that the person will ever see of them. Operationally, it will work the same as the 209A RO is done, regardless of different wording in the law. And I can't see any Mass Marsupial judge ruling against the PD doing so.
But the person will not be committing a crime if they use their still valid FID to buy a low capacity rifle. Assuming, of course, the PD has not proactively petitioned the court to revoke said FID and the person had the foresight to obtain it.

I do know there are cases where PDs just want the guns gone, and will work with a FFL (209A) or designated LTC holder (non-209A) without difficulty. BTSTSG (been there, seen that, shot the gun)

It's going to be an uphill battle just to get the courts to accept the "dangerousness" standard as the applicable law rather than the Moyer "any reason" standard.
 
Good question, I also wonder what about if the firearms are out of state? For example, Granite State Indoor range and others offer lockers for storage of firearms.
Might be time to think about contingency plans in case this gets abused like 209As do. As far as I can tell, 258e is a MA only thing, with no federal prohibition like Lautenberg. If that truly is the case, then sending the guns over the border, such as a storage locker, should be perfectly legal in the border state for the gun owner. So glad I live less than 10 minutes from NH.
 
Worse than Red Flag laws in my opinion, as these appear to be very prevalent and easy to get.
3 or more complaints. 3 or more made by the same person against the same person or 3 or more against the same person by more than one accuser?
 
3 or more complaints. 3 or more made by the same person against the same person or 3 or more against the same person by more than one accuser?
3 or more complaints by the same person against the same person. It could be for something as trivial as walking their dog on your property (I had a Mass neighbor who did that and left the droppings behind).

I know that PDs used the felony threat for not turning over LTC AND all guns/ammo/mags INSTANTLY with 209As and believe that some PDs will do the same here, even if guns are stored at 2nd home in another state (and person is not prohibited in that state).

Time will tell . . .

In any case, the threat that Jason Guida expresses is very real.
 
3 or more complaints by the same person against the same person. It could be for something as trivial as walking their dog on your property (I had a Mass neighbor who did that and left the droppings behind).

I know that PDs used the felony threat for not turning over LTC AND all guns/ammo/mags INSTANTLY with 209As and believe that some PDs will do the same here, even if guns are stored at 2nd home in another state (and person is not prohibited in that state).

Time will tell . . .

In any case, the threat that Jason Guida expresses is very real.
209A triggers the federal Lautenberg law. 258e does not. Soldiers, Marines and police got disarmed by Lautenberg, so its reach is nationwide, as opposed to a law on the state level only.
 
Just another way to get around suitability. The licensing authority has given itself a way to make a suitable LTC holder into an unsuitable one.
They are targeting LTC holders because the Bruen SCOTUS decision was about carrying in public. Most states don't give a shit about rifle/shotgun ownership, including NY (where the whole lawsuit originated). It was all about restrictions on NY state pistol licenses and carrying concealed in public, not some FUDD in possession of his Biden-approved double barrel scattergun.
 
I know that PDs used the felony threat for not turning over LTC AND all guns/ammo/mags INSTANTLY with 209As and believe that some PDs will do the same here, even if guns are stored at 2nd home in another state (and person is not prohibited in that state).
Are PD's treating confiscation orders as search warrants and entering homes if the gun owner says "You may not enter my home, but I will bring the cased guns to the door".

Chances are few confiscees know that surrender orders do not function as search warrants and just let the cops in.
 
There was a recent altercation at my workplace between a belligerent coworker and myself. My manager wanted me to go file a police report for the impending HR involvement. I basically told the officer about the coworker who has been repeatedly aggressive and behaved inappropriately. The officer then told me that it would look like I have grounds to file a 285E, and while he could not encourage me to do so, he expressed that he would find it hard to believe the court wouldn't issue it.

The troubling thing me was that while what I was saying was true, I presented no evidence for my claims, and if I filed one the person who I'm reporting would have all their firearms stolen under threat of force by the local PD. These orders seem like they can be easily abused by a disgruntled co-worker, crazy female member of your household, and so on. Seems like a "take the guns now, screw due process" setup
 
Back
Top Bottom