- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
You answered your own question.The real question is why doesn't the DPRMA allow for criminal records to be annulled, like NH?
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
You answered your own question.The real question is why doesn't the DPRMA allow for criminal records to be annulled, like NH?
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.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.
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.
Motion to remove the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the United States of America, a la California.
Do I hear a second?
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?
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.Hi Rob, not sure I did
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.
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.
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.
Motion to remove the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the United States of America, a la California.
Do I hear a second?
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.
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.
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".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.
...The Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence "makeclear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies only to punishments. It does not apply to equally burdensomeregulatory 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.
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.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.
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.
. . . . 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.
The system has a way of smelling when it is being bullshitted.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.
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.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!
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.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.