possible firearms license?

[LORD of WAR]

i recently took a friend of mine shooting and he fell in love with the sport...he now wants to get a license but i told him im not sure he'd be able to...he got a dui a few years ago in rhode island...i told him i wasnt positive but im pretty sure he wouldnt be allowed a ltc...he has no prior criminal record other than the dui...we live in a town thats pretty ltc friendly so i wasnt sure...i know a customer of mine lost his ltc because of a dui but was then given an fid card...any advice???

 

[SiameseRat]

I don't think there's a reason he can't apply unless a DUI is punishable by 2+ years in prison. Not having had a DUI or known anyone with one I don't know the punishment. He'll have to list the DUI on his application and then it will be up to the Chief to decide if he thinks your friend is suitable or not. He may get an FID or he may get denied. You may want to have your friend talk to the Chief, let him know his history, let him know he'd like to get into pistol shooting and ask if it's even worth applying.

unless the applicant:

(i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years; (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the 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 (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;

(ii) has been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness, unless the applicant submits with his application an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant’s mental illness and that in such physician’s opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent such applicant from possessing a firearm;

(iii) is or has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless such applicant is deemed to be cured of such condition by a licensed physician, and such applicant may make application for such license after the expiration of five years from the date of such confinement or treatment and upon presentment of an affidavit issued by such physician stating that such physician knows the applicant’s history of treatment and that in such physician’s opinion the applicant is deemed cured;

(iv) is at the time of the application less than 21 years of age;

(v) is an alien;

(vi) is currently subject to: (A) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to section 3B or 3C of chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction; or (B) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction; or

(vii) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.

 

[Len-2A Training]

i recently took a friend of mine shooting and he fell in love with the sport...he now wants to get a license but i told him im not sure he'd be able to...he got a dui a few years ago in rhode island...i told him i wasnt positive but im pretty sure he wouldnt be allowed a ltc...he has no prior criminal record other than the dui...we live in a town thats pretty ltc friendly so i wasnt sure...i know a customer of mine lost his ltc because of a dui but was then given an fid card...any advice???

Yes, he has to check RI law that was in effect when he got the DUI conviction. If the sentence POSSIBLE (Not what he was hit with, just the Possibility of a sentence) exceeds "x" years in jail, he is terminally DQ.

BTW, the person who got the FID card . . . if he ever possesses a gun, he can be hit with a FEDERAL FELONY for possession. Our laws are dumb . . . some can get an FID, but the Feds look at everything as Black or White . . . you MUST have ALL FIREARMS RIGHTS or NO FIREARMS RIGHTS. Therefore the FID isn't valid for anything but OC/Mace as far as the Feds are concerned. I know of some chiefs who have had people busted by the Feds for possession of firearms as a Fed Felony! I would warn your friend.

 

[LORD of WAR]

lens...the other guy wasnt a friend...just a customer when i worked at galyans...he told me he had to sell all of his guns...and after awhile he was allowed to reregister for an unrestricted fid card...

my friend who wants to apply has never done any jail time...he was just held in the drunk tank the night he was pulled over because he couldnt post bail...ill have him talk to the chief in our town

 

[Len-2A Training]

It does NOT matter what he served. The way the law is written . . . what matters is what HE COULD HAVE SERVED! It makes no sense, but most laws are like that!

 

[Weerd Beard]

It does NOT matter what he served. The way the law is written . . . what matters is what HE COULD HAVE SERVED! It makes no sense, but most laws are like that!

At least here.....I was reading New Hampshire's gun laws the other day. I actully felt like I knew MORE about NH Gunlaws rather than when I read the Mass ones, where I feel I know LESS.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[SiameseRat]

in case you haven't read the law that I posted I've gone back and highlighted, as Len and I both said, and as you can see, it doesn't matter if he never served time, but if they could have given him 2+ years then he's disqualified.

Nice, huh?

 

[sdavid]

This person should be able to go through the Firearms Licensing Review Board; here is the link to the application:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/Petition and Instruction Letter1.pdf

 

[Scrivener]

This person should be able to go through the Firearms Licensing Review Board; here is the link to the application:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/Petition and Instruction Letter1.pdf

Only IF the RI incident is a disqualifier! The FLRB is NOT an alternative to district court, contrary to what many think (due, in no small part, to wilfull misinformation on another site).

 

[drgrant]

It's also important to note that, the federal reg is WORSE than MA's
reg.

" (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; "

If his conviction qualifies for this, then he is a FEDERALLY PROHIBITED
PERSON. (And this is true, regardless of wether he served ZERO hours in a
jail cell). It depends on what he was charged with an what RI levies on a
base DUI charge. The only way around this is typically to get ones record
expunged in the state the offense was committed in, or to get a pardon
by the governor there.

Beware of the prohibited person sledgehammer. The feds put people
away for a LONG period of time if they get wind that someone is guilty
of FIP.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Per Federal case law, if there is NO diminution of firearms rights under state law, there is no prohibition under Federal law.

HOWEVER, if - as in Mass. - there is a partial restriction, the FULL Federal ban kicks in.

 

[depicts]

I was under the impression that someone who committed a misdomeanor punishable by more than 2 years, or a felony that was not a violence crime, MUST be issued an FID card after 5 years if there have been no further infractions.

I have an FID card AND a LTC, because once a COP wanted to confiscate my guns since he didn't think he could renew my LTC based on new Federal guidelines. When I reminded him I had an FID, he dropped the confiscation part, but only issued the LTC after I took him to court to challange the Post Facto ruling on a 30 year old misdomeaner.

The law is so entangled here in Mass. I wish I knew someone like Scrivner in those days, but it turned out that I found a very qualified attorney with a great background in firearms law, in Karen McNutt from Boston.

 

[Len-2A Training]

depicts,

Yes, Karen is excellent! I've known her for damn close to 30 years now and have great respect for her knowledge of gun laws.

The law requires issuance of an FID in a case as you stated, HOWEVER possession of any gun (if DQ'd legally from issuance of an LTC) is a FED Felony!

I said earlier the laws are screwy and make no sense. Here's a prime example.

 

[Coyote33]

from an old (6/10/03) post I had:

While on the topic,

It is my understanding that getting an FID in MA when you cannot qualify for an LTC (because of a disqualifier, not discretion) does not qualify you for
firearms ownership under federal law because federal law does not recognize the partial restoration of gun ownership rights. A GAO report I have mentions this.

I have understood this to mean you would not pass a NICS check and would only be able to purchase long guns via private sale in MA. Furthermore, you could potentially be arrested/prosecuted by los federales for illegal firearm
posession.

Wasn't a fellow arrested in Rutland last year by federal agents in such a case?

Anyone know if my understanding/assumption is correct?

"name1"


> > A certain would-be applicant is concerned:

> > "I have been told that the Police Chief in my city will not approve a
> > LTC/FID
> > to anyone who has ever been the subject of a 209A."

> > I suggest that Step 1 is to call GOAL and see if there is any information
> > on the town in question. What this person has been told is probably
> > true, but it may be based on anecdotal information or on one specific
> > individual.

> > Step 2 would be to have the application very carefully and thoroughly
> > prepared, with copies to be time-stamped when submitted. An attorney may
> > be useful at this stage; it is far easier - and cheaper - to prepare a
> > good application than to try and appeal the denial of an improperly
> > prepared one.

> > Note that this is a good idea generally; not just for the individual
> > asking about the 209A issue.

> > Last, an FID is SHALL ISSUE to applicants who are not barred by the very
> > specific criteria set forth in s. 129B. The chief has NO discretion where
> > an FID is concerned, despite the delusions of those in certain towns...


> > ...yet another parent who had his guns > > taken from a furniture-style gun cabinet unbeknownst to that parent by an
> > irresponsible teen offspring, with police involvement resulting. While
> > these cabinets meet the requirements of s. 131L, they do virtually
> > nothing to truly secure your expensive acquisitions from illicit hands.
> > They are also absolutely useless in case of fire.

> > I sold my gun furniture and bought a safe 3 years ago, and I don't even
> > have kids (the cats never showed any interest in my guns). Readers using> > furniture for firearms storage might want to reconsider that decision.
> > The safe will be MUCH cheaper than the legal fees.........

"name2"

 

[Coyote33]

Anyone else know the outcome of that situation in Rutland? Thanks.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's also important to note that, the federal reg is WORSE than MA's
reg.

" (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; "

Except of couse (under federal law) for certain felonies regarding restraint of trade of violation of anti-trust statutes. Kind of makes you wonder who was owed a big favor back in 68.

 

[KMaurer]

Except of couse (under federal law) for certain felonies regarding restraint of trade of violation of anti-trust statutes. Kind of makes you wonder who was owed a big favor back in 68.

You mean by LBJ. Nixon was elected in '68 but like all presidents didn't take office until January of the following year. LBJ had a lot of buddies who would have availed themselves of that exemption.

Ken

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It depends on what he was charged with

Actually, it depends on what the person was either convicted of, or plead guilty to.

 

[drgrant]

Actually, it depends on what the person was either convicted of, or plead guilty to.

True... sorry for the error in nomenclature. Obviously if someone
is acquitted than it doesn't apply, at least not from a statutory
standpoint.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Obviously if someone is acquitted than it doesn't apply, at least not from a statutory standpoint.

The Attleboro chief considers a Continued WithOut a Finding (CWOF) to be a conviction, however!

Wilfull ignorance and arrogant obstructionism under color of law.

Not that I have an opinion.........

 

[Lynne]

Not that I have an opinion.........

 

[dreppucci007]

The Attleboro chief considers a Continued WithOut a Finding (CWOF) to be a conviction, however!

Wilfull ignorance and arrogant obstructionism under color of law.

Not that I have an opinion.........