New laws dig up old dirt to deny MA LTC renewals?

[Xak]

Heard a rumor that under the new law (which one I have no idea, but I assume within last 4 years or so) old offenses like being arrested for fighting or misdemeanor marijuana are cause for mandatory denial of LTC renewal with NO grandfather clause.

That would be to say you were issued a LTC with the chief knowing full well you had a misdemeanor several years ago, but when you go to renew you may be denied and the chief has no say about it.

Any truth to this?

 

[Scrivener]

What "new law?"

Do you mean Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998?

If so, you are in for a very belated rude awakening. Yes, that IS true and has been for well over half a decade.

 

[TomH]

They can deny for any reason they like according to the law.

 

[drgrant]

Yes- they can dig up past skeletons and use them against
you...

And that goes both in the statutory sense (what scrivener is talking
about, GCA 1998) and a not-so-statutory sense.

The DQ's specified by MA GCA-98 are pretty specific. Any
disqualification beyond whats specified in the law is probably something
which is being done by the police chief of that locality.

I think by far one of the biggest source of denials though is probably
people lying on the forms for not filling the app out correctly. EG, they
had an old DUI conviction (before the cutoff date, forget what it is offhand)
that they forgot to "declare" on the renewal, or they had a 209A against
them from some bad ex wife or something. (which may have been
vacated, but not announcing it is grounds for denial, and possibly worse).

-Mike

 

[LoginName]

Normally, if that's the situation (old arrest record, misdemeanors, minor infractions, etc), a person being denied a 1st time or renewal of an LTC can file for a hearing with the Firearm Licensing Review Board and have the conviction(s) waived as reason for denial.

The Firearm Licensing Review Board

The FLRB is now in operation. They have the authority to review only misdemeanor convictions. Further, there may be more than one conviction, but all convictions must arise from a single incident. The FLRB may not review convictions for a felony; or, an assault or battery on a family or household member, or person with whom there is/was a substantive dating relationship, as defined by G.L. c. 209A, § 1; or, a crime involving use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or a crime regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances.

In addition, an individual may not apply for review until after the passage of five (5) years since conviction or release from supervision, whichever is last occurring. The FLRB will review criminal histories as part of the petition review process.

People looking for a review have the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are eligible and suitable to possess an FID or LTC. The petitioner will have the opportunity to appear and/or submit documentary evidence. The FLRB will not provide legal advice to petitioners.

If the FLRB determines that the petitioner is a suitable candidate for an LTC relative to the misdemeanor conviction(s), the application process and final decision of whether or not to issue a license remains with the local police chief.

Applicants are required to fill out a petition to the FLRB on a form supplied by the Criminal History Systems Board (and available on-line at CHSB/FRB). The petition is filled out, notarized and mailed to CHSB along with a copy of their completed FID/LTC application and a check for $100.

However, if any "controlled substances" violations are the involved, the person is screwed...

It is important that you understand that the FLRB has the authority to review only misdemeanor
convictions, and that the FLRB may not review convictions for:
a) an assault or battery on a family or household member, or a person with whom you have had
a substantive dating relationship, as defined by G.L. c. 209A, § 1;
b) a crime involving use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or
transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed;
or
c) a crime regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances.
In addition, the statute specifies that the FLRB may not review a petition if the petitioner:
a) has a disqualifying felony conviction;
b) has multiple misdemeanor convictions, unless the offenses arise from one incident;
c) was denied a license to carry on the basis of suitability rather than a disqualifying conviction
(the District Court is the appropriate forum for appeal in this case); or
d) is disqualified for a reason other than a misdemeanor conviction, such as having an active
warrant or restraining order.

The FLRB will not grant a hearing for denials based on the CLEOs discretion, and even though the board authorizes the issuance of the LTC, there's nothing stopping the Chief from using the violations as a reason for denial based on "suitability".

 

[Xak]

So those are violations that are up to his discretion, not mandatory that he must deny renewal?

 

[drgrant]

So those are violations that are up to his discretion, not mandatory that he must deny renewal?

You missed it. Any conviction/arrest mentioned in the law is an automatic
immediate disqualifier- it's statutory, and not a choice of the
chief. Anything outside of that scope (eg, he doesnt
like the way your breath smells) is purely the chief's issues and not
within the scope of the law.

The FLRB hearing can provide relief from some issues (eg, a post 94? (I forget
when the cutoff was) DUI ) but the chief still has ultimate authority, regardless.

Basically there are two tiers of discretion- the LAW (statutory disqualification)
and the discretion of the chief (which can be virtually anything he wants it to be).

-Mike

 

[Xak]

So, is this something new that has taken effect within the last 4 years? I'm talking about renewing a Class A LTC. If it were statutory you wouldn't have gotten a LTC in the first place, correct?

 

[Xak]

What "new law?"

Do you mean Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998?

If so, you are in for a very belated rude awakening. Yes, that IS true and has been for well over half a decade.

So if someone is applying to renew a LTC that was issued 4 years ago they shouldn't have any problem if they weren't denied for any statutory reasons in the first place, right?

 

[drgrant]

So, is this something new that has taken effect within the last 4 years? I'm talking about renewing a Class A LTC. If it were statutory you wouldn't have gotten a LTC in the first place, correct?

No. These statutory limitations have been in place in some form or another
for a long ass time, eg, since 1998. If you got a license post 98, there
shouldn't be any statutory issues, unless you've done something bad since
the last time you got licensed. Of course, the chief can still do whatever
he wants, so if you have some kind of old arrest record or something (even
something that is NOT a statutory disqualifier!) that may still have to be dealt with
when renewing, especially in a different location. (but that is an issue of
dealing with the chief, not of statutory denial!)


-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

NOT true. Their databases are getting better each year and thus if you have some skeletons in your closet, they are much more likely to fall out over time. Then even if they weren't statutory disqualifiers, the chief can use the fact that you perjured yourself on the application form for denial (and criminal prosecution if he so desires).

 

[firtree]

Perhaps it may be time to pay a visit to one of our resident
attorneys. Spend a little bit of money and get expert help.
We'll all be glad to toss out advice and opinions, but you know
what they are worth.

 

[drgrant]

Perhaps it may be time to pay a visit to one of our resident
attorneys. Spend a little bit of money and get expert help.
We'll all be glad to toss out advice and opinions, but you know
what they are worth.

A big +1 to that. Anyone who has "previous life issues" and is trying to
get an LTC in MA should seek competent counsel. Regardless
of how good one knows the law, these guys know the mechanics of the
system better than we do. (and may also have experience dealing with
certain localities, etc. )

-Mike

 

[Xak]

A big +1 to that. Anyone who has "previous life issues" and is trying to
get an LTC in MA should seek competent counsel. Regardless
of how good one knows the law, these guys know the mechanics of the
system better than we do. (and may also have experience dealing with
certain localities, etc. )

-Mike

I guess whatever it was was not statutory and was left to the discretion of the chief when I originally got my LTC 4 years ago. I had answered "no" to one of the questions I should have answered yes to back then and they asked why I answered as such. I told them just what the judge told me, that since I had a pristine record he would seal or eliminate it from my record if I stayed out of trouble for 6 months. The chief explained that you can't hide a sealed record (I think that was the term used for it) when applying for LTC, but felt it was an honest mistake and didn't deny me.

Thanx you guys so much for your help. I did e-mail one of the attorneys for advice. I sure hope I won't need it because I don't think I can afford it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

That is CWOF, and if you do an Advanced Search in the Gun Laws forum for that term, posted by me you will find that the position of many chiefs (including the most authoritative on gun issues) is that CWOF means that you had to "admit to sufficient facts" and thus they interpret that as a "guilty" plea. That was probably not the intent of the mental midgets who wrote this law, but that has been the effect on many.

Many chiefs will deny you for perjuring yourself on the FA25/26 application if you answer "no" regardless of what a judge told you.

 

[Scrivener]

That is CWOF, and if you do an Advanced Search in the Gun Laws forum for that term, posted by me you will find that the position of many chiefs (including the most authoritative on gun issues) is that CWOF means that you had to "admit to sufficient facts" and thus they interpret that as a "guilty" plea. "

The licensing statutes each require convictions, which a CWOF, by its express terms is not. Moreover, not all (most, but not all) CWOFs require an Admission of Sufficient Facts. A chief using a mere CWOF as a statutory basis for denial is susceptible to being overturned. If used as a discretionary disqualifier, he would likely be upheld.

Many chiefs will deny you for perjuring yourself on the FA25/26 application if you answer "no" regardless of what a judge told you.

The statutes do not authorize denial for false answers, but DO authorize bringing criminal charges for them. The RESULT of such a conviction would be a disqualifier; never mind a denial.

That said, the common practice is to deny the app, but not bring charges (although I've seen both done).

 

[Coyote33]

There is now a change in the law:

Other guidance indicates that while a past felony marijuana offense can be used to deny a firearms license, marijuana possession offenses that occur after Jan. 2 are non-criminal, are not to be included in the state criminal offender record system and cannot be used to deny a firearm license.

full article:
Guidelines help interpret pot law

 

[jhrosier]

There is now a change in the law:

Other guidance indicates that while a past felony marijuana offense can be used to deny a firearms license, marijuana possession offenses that occur after Jan. 2 are non-criminal, are not to be included in the state criminal offender record system and cannot be used to deny a firearm license.

full article:
Guidelines help interpret pot law

Right! and it won't count against you for "suitability" either.


BTW, lots of luck filling out the 4473. A drug conviction is still a disqualifier under Federal law.

I can see NICS checks going to an automatic 3 days for everybody.

Jack

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Right! and it won't count against you for "suitability" either.


BTW, lots of luck filling out the 4473. A drug conviction is still a disqualifier under Federal law.

I can see NICS checks going to an automatic 3 days for everybody.

Jack

wait a second, what do yo mean "good luck filling out the 4473"? do you mean to someone who has a drug conviction before jan 2 or after Jan 2? If youve never had a drug conviction, etc and you get a ticket for possession lets say in the end of Jan, the form 4473 shouldn't be an issue....right?

in other words, can you clarify your statement?

 

[vellnueve]

Is a civil violation considered a conviction?

 

[JonJ]

Is a civil violation considered a conviction?

It shouldn't be.
I don't have a 4473 in front of me but I don't think it asks about drug convictions. It asks something like if you're addicted or a user.

 

[jhrosier]

wait a second, what do yo mean "good luck filling out the 4473"? do you mean to someone who has a drug conviction before jan 2 or after Jan 2? If youve never had a drug conviction, etc and you get a ticket for possession lets say in the end of Jan, the form 4473 shouldn't be an issue....right?

in other words, can you clarify your statement?

The question on the 4473 is:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?"

IANAL, however it is still unlawful to posess dope. I don't imagine for a second that the Feds have any intention of ingoring illegal drug posession, whether it results in a criminal conviction or not.

We are going from a time when the antis would do almost any thing to curtail legal firearms use, to a time where they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. How do you think a summary conviction for drug possesion will be interpreted in the courts?

Regardless of the consequences of a drug conviction, lying on the 4473 is clearly a felony, and not lying would certainly result in the transfer being denied.
The only upside to the new drug law is that you would not be liable for conviction of the felon with a firearm law.

Also, the passage of this drug law is the final step towards ensuring that noone, nowhere will recognise the Mass. LTC or FID as one is issured to convicted felons (FID) and the other, presumably to drug users.

And you thought that having your name in the Criminal History Systems database was bad enough.

Jack

 

[Coyote33]

Somehow, I doubt most if not all of this ^

 

[06LemansC6]

From the link posted by Coyote33.

http://telegram.com/article/20081230/NEWS/812300582/1116

Other guidance indicates that while a past felony marijuana offense can be used to deny a firearms license, marijuana possession offenses that occur after Jan. 2 are non-criminal, are not to be included in the state criminal offender record system and cannot be used to deny a firearm license.

The guidelines also state “A licensing officer, however, may be able to reject an application (for a firearm license) on the ground that he or she is a known user of controlled substances, has a substance abuse problem, or is suspected to be linked to drug dealing.”

 

[jhrosier]

Somehow, I doubt most if not all of this ^

That's because you have much more faith in the system than I.

Jack

 

[bostonasphalt2]

The question on the 4473 is:


IANAL, however it is still unlawful to posess dope. I don't imagine for a second that the Feds have any intention of ingoring illegal drug posession, whether it results in a criminal conviction or not.

We are going from a time when the antis would do almost any thing to curtail legal firearms use, to a time where they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. How do you think a summary conviction for drug possesion will be interpreted in the courts?

Regardless of the consequences of a drug conviction, lying on the 4473 is clearly a felony, and not lying would certainly result in the transfer being denied.
The only upside to the new drug law is that you would not be liable for conviction of the felon with a firearm law.

Also, the passage of this drug law is the final step towards ensuring that noone, nowhere will recognise the Mass. LTC or FID as one is issured to convicted felons (FID) and the other, presumably to drug users.

And you thought that having your name in the Criminal History Systems database was bad enough.

Jack

depends on how civil infraction is defined and applies to background checks.

 

[appraiser]

There is going to be a paper trail of the civil fine for possession of less than an ounce of THC product, and I have 5 bucks that every Chief in the state will be looking in the databases for these civil fines, and deny issuing/renewing any permits based on suitability.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

What a disaster this law is. Here is one for pondering ... Your the cop...

You see Joe blow walking down the street smoking a joint. What are you going to do?

Common answer: Stop him and ticket him (If he has less than an ounce and for the sake of argument say its a gram)

Ok you are going to ticket him, but what is his name/address/etc?

.....Ask for his ID

He doesnt have it on him and wont tell you his name....No one walking on the street needs ID on them..

Now what do you do?

The answer as i see it? not much you can do..

Thats just one example. The whole thing is a mess.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The answer will probably be "arrest for the misdemeanor of toking in public", assuming the town in question has adopted the proposed local bylaw being proposed by the AG.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

The answer will probably be "arrest for the misdemeanor of toking in public", assuming the town in question has adopted the proposed local bylaw being proposed by the AG.

hm i missed that... Lets say that bylaw hasnt been adapted yet, or the weed was discovered on a terry frisk...

The point of the argument being, if a MV is not involved, how could u ticket a person who refuses or does not have id?