Offenses while a minor

[Rob Boudrie]

The real question is why doesn't the DPRMA allow for criminal records to be annulled, like NH?

You answered your own question.

 

[In God We Trust]

I applied for my permit for the first time when I was 40. The chief gave me some crap about a felony I had that was DISMISSED from when I was 14.

I got my LTC because the charge had been dismissed of course, but I had to write a letter explaining the circumstances. I live in a very green town also.

Nothing ever leaves your record

 

[Gaffer]

At the risk of showing a snooty attitude that is why I try to impress on young people that choices have consequences. Many have not considered that until pointed out to them. If one looks closely at those who have gotten into trouble you will find choices that were of severe consequences, maybe not immediately but down the road time wise. The sooner a child learns that the better. That is why handing out sports prizes is so bad and everyone a winner; it creates losers later, certainly snowflakes and crybabies.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Motion to remove the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the United States of America, a la California.

Do I hear a second?

 

[MisterHappy]

Kids are stupid. That's why they're still kids.

Seriously, there is a Juvenile Justice System for a reason - a kid that contravenes the law in a non-violent act of dumbassery should not have their future ruined. Like the cop in the MWDN article linked above. I'm sure the cop is a fine, upstanding member of society. But, were he not a cop, and "authorized to carry on the badge," He'd be SOL, as he's not allowed to get an LTC per state law. Like a lot of people that did nothing that actually caused anyone harm, but still have a record.

If it were more-widely known that a juvenile conviction (or even court appearance) will be on your record until you are dead, there would be a bit more outcry. In a couple of years, people that got jammed up for weed will be pissed that they have a record for the mota that they're buying legally (at least per MGLs).

You can tell the 7-year-old that he does not deserve a trophy because someone beat him in a race, and to suck it up, but that does not mean that he won't go to the wrong party in high school, and get grabbed up with a bunch of other people, and be screwed. "Choices have consequences" is too abstract for most kids, and some adults.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If it were more-widely known that a juvenile conviction (or even court appearance) will be on your record until you are dead, there would be a bit more outcry.

Part of the problem is that many of these former juveniles WERE told that the plea they copped would "disappear" when they turned 18. The addition of a firearms prohibition is an ex post facto consequence. Even today, I suspect some attorneys fail to advise their juvenile clients and parents/guardians thereof of the consequences.

Compounding this is that the juveniles do NOT get to make their own decision regarding taking a plea vs. going to trial. A 10 year old is ineligible for a public defender if his parents have assets, but also has no authority to order his parents to "liquidate some of the retirement money, I will not take the plea and will go to trial".

Plus, as Atty Langer noted in his filing, the purpose of the juvenile justice system is intended to be rehabilitive, not punitive.

And, to top it off, SCOTUS denied cert on this issue.

Make no mistake about it ... the real goal is to make as many people possible "prohibited persons". If the leftists could make a parking ticket a PP offense, they would.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Being punished "a second" time"?

In 1971, when I was 16, a group of kids were approached by the Police and patted down. I think 2 out of 8 kids had weed on them and as I remember a few pills (forget what they were)

So the 2 were charged with possession of a drug, and the other 6, myself included, were charged with being present where drugs were found.

The being present law was BS and dropped not to long after I was charged with it.

Anyway, at that time it was on the books. So I went to court and the Judge says to my Lawyer, he has no prior records, and no need to give him one now, so I got 6 months with out a finding.....and that was that....or so I thought.

Being a minor, and having no conviction, I never spoke of or discussed the matter again. I also never disclosed in on any of my FID card applications as I truly believed I didn't need to.

So under Deval Patrick he orders the DA to spend millions of dollars to go over DECADES of records with the explicit intent to deny gun licenses to anyone they could find.

So, 44 years later I apply for my latest FID card. My record is clean, maybe 2 speeding tickets at the most, and as always, I made no mention of the 1971 case.

So weeks go by and turn into 4 months, no answer and no return of my phone call. So I go down to the Police station and ask to see the license officer. 15 minutes later he comes out and tells me I may be denied on 2 counts.

1. On microfilm, they found the 1971 case.

2. On my application, as always, I made no mention of it.

So I explain that I never disclosed it as I honestly believed I didn't need to. And I was a minor as well as there was NO conviction for a law that was removed shortly after I was charged with it. They said the micro film was too difficult to see clearly, and if the drug in question was heroin then I could still be denied as being present where heroin was found is still a denial offense today. I said don't be silly, you think the Judge would continue without a finding if it was heroin? Crazy...Then he says, no matter, we can still deny as you failed to disclose on your application.

I said if at the time of my case it wasn't a reason for a FID denial why is it now? Is this not adjudication of my case a second time, i, e, double jeopardy? No comment.

At that point I thought to myself, this guy doesn't want fairness.....he wants my FID card......at 60 years of age, they were going to take away my FID card.

So I said "I think I need a Lawyer" and left.

I also called my State Rep and spoke directly to him. Told him exactly what I wrote here. He said "this sounds ridiculous" give me some time to ask about it.

So 2 more weeks go by and I get a call that my card will be renewed. Crazy, and I get to do it again in 3 more years.

To me, the State is doing all it can to take gun rights away from anyone they can, for any reason they can drag up.

My gut tells me the crap I went through was not not an isolated one.

Sorry for the long post.

Well, even though it was dismissed, you still needed to mention it, so the LEO was right on that account (I don't agree that it should be that way, by the way). I'm glad it got sorted out.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Motion to remove the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the United States of America, a la California.

Do I hear a second?

DO I HEAR A SECOND?

 

[Lank]

You answered your own question.

Hi Rob, not sure I did.

As a card carrying member of the hoi Polloi here in the Republic, I am incapable of understanding the complex though-nature of a typical prosecutor.

Please help me understand? What is the judicial philosophy of eternal damnation?

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Rob, not sure I did.

As a card carrying member of the hoi Polloi here in the Republic, I am incapable of understanding the complex though-nature of a typical prosecutor.

Please help me understand? What is the judicial philosophy of eternal damnation?

Sorry Rob, I missed post #36!!!!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Hi Rob, not sure I did

You question noted we are in a "Democratic People's Republic". In general, the use of the term "democratic", "people's" or "republic" (even more so when both are used) indicated a govt prone to screwing over the people. Note the former DDR (German Democratic Republic), the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, or the People's Republic of China.

I guess I forgot to add a to my post.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It is a longshot, and will take competent coun$el, but if one has a disqualifying juvenile record, there is an outside chance the case can be re-opened, and disposed of in a non-disqualifying manner, if you can make a credible argument about ineffective assistance of counsel.

Arguments would include:

1. Counsel incorrectly advised me the record would disappear and have no adverse consequences on my adult life.

2. I wanted to go to trial but was denied that choice by my parents who coerced me into copping plea that was not voluntary. I was told I would not be afforded legal counsel for a defense not involving a guilty plea.

The problem is that these arguments, however valid, are likely to fall on deaf ears once the court learns that the "adverse consequence" is the inability to own a gun when everyone knows that only evil, Republican, mis-guided citizens wish to be armed.

In any case, don't waste time with such an argument without very good counsel like Langer or Guida on your side.

 

[firestorm]

It is a longshot, and will take competent coun$el, but if one has a disqualifying juvenile record, there is an outside chance the case can be re-opened, and disposed of in a non-disqualifying manner, if you can make a credible argument about ineffective assistance of counsel.

Arguments would include:

1. Counsel incorrectly advised me the record would disappear and have no adverse consequences on my adult life.

2. I wanted to go to trial but was denied that choice by my parents who coerced me into copping plea that was not voluntary. I was told I would not be afforded legal counsel for a defense not involving a guilty plea.

The problem is that these arguments, however valid, are likely to fall on deaf ears once the court learns that the "adverse consequence" is the inability to own a gun when everyone knows that only evil, Republican, mis-guided citizens wish to be armed.

In any case, don't waste time with such an argument without very good counsel like Langer or Guida on your side.

Is firearms licensing the only possible adverse consequence? How about a background check such as to work at a nuclear plant or get a federal LEO job? Who is to say you don't aspire to one of those but are prevented from even trying due to knowing that your record will be an issue?

 

[42!]

Kids are stupid. That's why they're still kids.

Seriously, there is a Juvenile Justice System for a reason - a kid that contravenes the law in a non-violent act of dumbassery should not have their future ruined. Like the cop in the MWDN article linked above. I'm sure the cop is a fine, upstanding member of society. But, were he not a cop, and "authorized to carry on the badge," He'd be SOL, as he's not allowed to get an LTC per state law. Like a lot of people that did nothing that actually caused anyone harm, but still have a record.

If it were more-widely known that a juvenile conviction (or even court appearance) will be on your record until you are dead, there would be a bit more outcry. In a couple of years, people that got jammed up for weed will be pissed that they have a record for the mota that they're buying legally (at least per MGLs).

You can tell the 7-year-old that he does not deserve a trophy because someone beat him in a race, and to suck it up, but that does not mean that he won't go to the wrong party in high school, and get grabbed up with a bunch of other people, and be screwed. "Choices have consequences" is too abstract for most kids, and some adults.

You're right on all counts except one. The cop, the FPD LO, is an a$$ that can't correctly read printouts from from the PD's own system and denies as unsuitable based on a single CWOF on an otherwise spotless record. He wants forgiveness for his disqualifying conviction but holds everyone else to a higher standard.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, even though it was dismissed, you still needed to mention it, so the LEO was right on that account (I don't agree that it should be that way, by the way). I'm glad it got sorted out.

The problem here is that kids in my generation were told by the judge that the record gets sealed at age 21 and they NEVER had to disclose that they were in court after that. Sadly the 1998 law changed all that, ex post facto. A fair judicial system would overthrow the ex post facto punishment for life in a heartbeat . . . but it doesn't exist in MA and due to "gunz" there is no way in hell that they would find for the plaintiff in any such case.

Motion to remove the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the United States of America, a la California.

Do I hear a second?

SECOND!!

 

[KBCraig]

Cop can still carry "on the badge". Federal law LEOSA protects cops in this regard. He can carry anywhere in the United States, including New York City.

But as a Mass resident without an LTC, what is he going to carry?

- - - Updated - - -

The charges will show up, but since there was no conviction (the conviction was vacated) it shows up as dismissed. The chief could still deny you as unsuitable.

Being Mass, the chief could deny him as unsuitable if he'd never even been arrested, based on any number of subjective factors.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

but it doesn't exist in MA and due to "gunz" there is no way in hell that they would find for the plaintiff in any such case.

We tried - Chardin v. Police Commissioner of Boston. The court held that the denial of gun rights is not a punishment, but a "burdensome regulatory measure".

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/465/465mass314.html

...The Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence "make clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies only to punishments. It does not apply to equally burdensome regulatory measures that may be characterized as cruel and even unusual." Opinion of the Justices, 423 Mass. 1201 , 1238 (1996). It is axiomatic that G. L. c. 140, § 131, is a regulatory statute, and that its prohibition on the issuance of a license to carry firearms to an individual who has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of a felony is not a criminal penalty. See Dupont v. Chief of Police of Pepperell, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 690 , 694 (2003) ("statute governing who may carry firearms is not punitive"). Therefore, the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is not applicable to Chardin's circumstances. [Note 23]

5. Conclusion. General Laws c. 140, § 131 (d) (i), does not infringe on Chardin's right to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the county court where the single justice shall enter a judgment denying the petition.

 

[HARRYM]

Hmmmm....well, I "think" FID cards came into being in 1968 in MA? So when I applied for mine at age 18 in 1973 would my continued without a finding, being present case, at age 16 have been a disqualifier at that point in time? I'm not sure it was even a question on the application?

Either way if the "law" "evolves" over time creating new judgments against those who have already been judged......how is that not double jeopardy under the 5th "or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"

Of course I also fully realize I live in a State that ignores the 2A anyway.

 

[Spanz]

the basic problem here is that here in MA, the "right to bear arms" is not seriously considered to be a constituional right. if someone gets denied, it is a case of "too bad for them, guns are bad and NOBODY should have them anyway".....

sounds like a move to VT is in order.

 

[308rifleman]

Is firearms licensing the only possible adverse consequence? How about a background check such as to work at a nuclear plant or get a federal LEO job? Who is to say you don't aspire to one of those but are prevented from even trying due to knowing that your record will be an issue?

Depends if they want to make it an issue. When I applied, I fully disclosed my BCD from the Corp when I was still in my teens. Licensing officer did not believe that it was the result of refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine back in the late 1990s. He was Air Force and told me that they would not do such a thing, has to be more to the story, etc. Well, I made a quick trip home, retrieved the paper work and let him have a look for himself. I received the firearms license. Guess he got an education that day! Key thing, though, I did not hold back any details and was completely honest in my explanation during the interview.

 

[firestorm]

Depends if they want to make it an issue. When I applied, I fully disclosed my BCD from the Corp when I was still in my teens. Licensing officer did not believe that it was the result of refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine back in the late 1990s. He was Air Force and told me that they would not do such a thing, has to be more to the story, etc. Well, I made a quick trip home, retrieved the paper work and let him have a look for himself. I received the firearms license. Guess he got an education that day! Key thing, though, I did not hold back any details and was completely honest in my explanation during the interview.

I was more thinking that if you want the relief, maybe a reason to have it rubbed out other than guns would get you further. Basically please vacate this stuff because it is going to prevent me from passing a check to go to work in sensitive places. Not bothering to tell them that it would also fix your gun problem.

 

[MisterHappy]

You're right on all counts except one. The cop, the FPD LO, is an a$$ that can't correctly read printouts from from the PD's own system and denies as unsuitable based on a single CWOF on an otherwise spotless record. He wants forgiveness for his disqualifying conviction but holds everyone else to a higher standard.

Never (AFAIK) met the dude. I'll take your word for it.

This double standard sounds like a Comm2A angle.

 

[42!]

Never (AFAIK) met the dude. I'll take your word for it.

This double standard sounds like a Comm2A angle.

edit: better left unsaid.

 

[KBCraig]

. . . . my BCD from the Corp when I was still in my teens. Licensing officer did not believe that it was the result of refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine back in the late 1990s.

Not only was it dangerous, it was pointless. If you had gotten anthrax, you wouldn't have been a danger to the unit, because it is rarely spread from person to person.

As for the LO, he was Air Force, so he had no idea how the military works.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I was more thinking that if you want the relief, maybe a reason to have it rubbed out other than guns would get you further. Basically please vacate this stuff because it is going to prevent me from passing a check to go to work in sensitive places. Not bothering to tell them that it would also fix your gun problem.

The system has a way of smelling when it is being bullshitted.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Comm2A has been looking at the juvenile issue very hard for a very long time. The list of people who are adversely affected by this is very, very long and includes a number of LEOs including Lieutenants in two large police departments. It's also very sad. One more than one occasions, I've listened to guys who are almost in tears tell me that they just want to take their grandkid hunting.

We've done a lot of preliminary work in this area, but the issue just isn't ripe yet. There are some significant challenges to addressing this problem. First and foremost is the precedent set by the SJC's decision in Chardin. Chardin is controlling all the way up the line until you get to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this project keeps getting bumped to the back of the queue as more realistic projects move forward. We'll have a small flurry of projects hitting the courts early in the new year. My hope is that once those cases are launched we can come back to this.

The good news is that there is one area where the federal courts seem to be open to moving the ball forward: restoration of rights for folks with non-violent misdemeanors, etc. Comm2A has one of those cases in the 1st circuit and we should have another one in a few weeks.

 

[Koolmoose]

This thread has been mostly about The People's Republik of Massachusetts. Does anyone have any information about NH? My nephew got a couple of DUI's due to adolescent stupid choices. (His fault and responsibilities) He is OK now as an adult in his early thirties, and is one of the few people on the planet for whom I would write a psychological letter of recommendation. I know his situation is hopeless in the Republik, but does he have a chance to become licensed in NH? He is moving there shortly. Thanks!

 

[firestorm]

This thread has been mostly about The People's Republik of Massachusetts. Does anyone have any information about NH? My nephew got a couple of DUI's due to adolescent stupid choices. (His fault and responsibilities) He is OK now as an adult in his early thirties, and is one of the few people on the planet for whom I would write a psychological letter of recommendation. I know his situation is hopeless in the Republik, but does he have a chance to become licensed in NH? He is moving there shortly. Thanks!

were his DUI's in MA? And if so when were they?

 

[swatgig]

This thread has been mostly about The People's Republik of Massachusetts. Does anyone have any information about NH? My nephew got a couple of DUI's due to adolescent stupid choices. (His fault and responsibilities) He is OK now as an adult in his early thirties, and is one of the few people on the planet for whom I would write a psychological letter of recommendation. I know his situation is hopeless in the Republik, but does he have a chance to become licensed in NH? He is moving there shortly. Thanks!

If he's in his early 30s, it's a safe bet that DUIs were after 94. If either was a Mass Conviction, as opposed to a CWOF, he's a felon under Federal Law and can never possess a firearm in the USA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The big problem with Chardin is the SJC logic that a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right via license denial, even if cruel & unusual is a "regulatory burden" and not a "punishment", therefore, not subject to constitutional protections.

Using this logic, the legislature could void Cateano (stun gun case) by requiring a license and then denying issuance of said license. At that point, it would not be a violation of the constitution, but simply a non-punitive regulatory burden.

While the juvenile issue has been decided (only recourse is SCOTUS which denied cert), the concept of "regulatory burden can prohibit protected activities" can be visited in other potential cases. I am thinking of an individual who has been denied because of a specifically protected activity - engaging in unpopular speech; exercising the right to remain silent; being found not guilty at trial; etc. If we can get a federal court to rule that one cannot deny a protected right via "regulatory burden" (imagine doing this with voting, writing letters to the editor, publishing books/blogs, etc) it could then be used to attack Chardin.

This also underscores the importance of bringing a complaint in the correct court. By taking Chardin to the SJC, the stage was set for a hard to reverse adverse precedent from an activist judiciary.

If he's in his early 30s, it's a safe bet that DUIs were after 94. If either was a Mass Conviction, as opposed to a CWOF, he's a felon under Federal Law and can never possess a firearm in the USA.

Possibly not if the MA OUIs were before the age of majority. Also, the OUI CWOF has enough adverse consequences that many people feel "convicted" though such is technically not the case.

 

[Koolmoose]

OK, Thanks folks.
IIRC one was before 21 and one was after. The second offence was after his 21st Bday. I believe, Meghan's law had been recently passed, he was served up as an example, and did 3 months in Billerica. Although we're biased (the second offence was based on him being stopped while driving his dad's truck without the new registration sticker on the license plate, and the stupid S*** had bought some cannibas, and admitted it to the officer), the family thought it was an entire waste of $'s to lock the kid up. Also, he tried to keep the second arrest a secret from his parents until it was too late to intervene. He's been completely good since then, graduated from college and is making over 6 figures in high tech graphic design, so maybe the "Tuff Love" helped. Too bad he is a lifetime PP b/c he really enjoys shooting.