Question 10 on LTC App.

P

Phaedo1982

Question 10 tripped my buddy up when applying for his Class-A LTC. Apparently, there was an incident when he was 17 years old where he was apparently charged with providing alcohol to persons under 21, which is ironic because he, too, was under 21. He went to court and the case was thrown out and never went to trial.

He didn't even think of mentioning it, but it apparently showed up in the initial background check done by the PD and was told that he would have to reapply again (pay another $100) and that the officer would have to speak with the chief regarding the matter.

The local PD was the one who brought the "charges" on him over twelve years ago, so I think that something in their internal files prompted the halt on the application.

But I can't figure it out; the officer told him that she'd have to "...check with the Chief to see if he should apply again for an LTC." What would she have to check on? Why wouldn't he just resubmit the app. with answering yes to Question 10?

Also, my buddy doesn't remember the exact dates, etc., as to when he appeared in court, as it was over a decade ago.
 
Well, since he lied on the application, the chief can do any of the following:

- charge him with perjury,
- deny him as an "unsuitable person",
- make him file a new application after denial (make sure he does NOT lie about being denied on the new . . . and ALL subsequent applications) and pay another application fee,
- could allow him to correct the current application with no additional fee.

I know someone who is a LEO that lied on his renewal application about being previously arrested (he claimed that he "forgot" that he spent a night in jail), lost his LTC and was deemed "unsuitable" for a number of years. He was allowed to re-apply a few years later and it was issued.
 
Tell him to CORI check himself.

+1. That's what I did. I was pulled over a few times in my younger years. I could have sworn that one of the offenses was "criminal" (as opposed to "civil"). You can never be too sure when it comes to filling out an LTC application.
 
Providing alcohol to minors is a criminal offense. and LenS is right, falsely answering question 10 can then become a suitibility issue. It is up to the issuing agency if they want to hold it against you. It does not matter if charges were dismissed because question 10 deals simply with appearing at court as a defendant in a criminal matter
 
Also, if they deny his original application and make him reapply, he needs to answer the "have you ever been denied" question that shows up on many state's applications with "Yes" and an explanation. Should be obvious, but then again so should the original answer to 10 have been.

Ken
 
The whole section which asks about arrests, charges and convictions is kind of weird to me.

It's a kind of self-awareness and/or memory test. We all know that they are going to check your record anyway. Why do you have to list it in the first place?

If you have NON-disqualifying entries and you mention them you're okay. If you don't mention them you then become disqualified.

No one wants to be snide with the applications officer (including me), but isn't the temptation to answer questions like #10 with "Sure -- you can look it up."

More seriously, it would be honest to write, "There was an underage alcohol incident around 1988, my Dad's lawyer took care of it, and I don't remember the details." Is that accesptable to "green towns"? It does satisfay the "signing under penalty of perjury" bit.

What I found annoying was after taking the time filling out the form in ink, I had to answer all the questions again, as the officer typed them in to the online application. I wanted to say, "Why did I spend the time in the first place?" or "You can type it off the form." (Of course I didn't).

In the end it's all just part of the long list of hurdles and gotchas that Cheryl Jacques and her friends have erected to keep you from defending yourself.
 
Case tossed out...no issue. like never being charged...lets not over anilyze this....been down this road.

No. There is an issue. Question 10 reads:

HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED IN ANY COURT AS A DEFENDANT FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE (EXCLUDING NONCRIMINAL
TRAFFIC OFFENSES)?

He appeared in court, but he answered no. He lied on the form.

The bottom of the form reads:

I DECLARE THE ABOVE FACTS ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE ANSWER(S) WILL BE JUST CAUSE FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF MY LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS AND MAY BE USED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO M.G.L c. 140, §§ 129 AND 131.

He can be denied as a result. He can also face criminal charges as a result.
 
Some shakey advice these past few posts.

Newbies and others with questions, go to the Laws thread here on the forum. All the answers are there.
 
Case tossed out...no issue. like never being charged...lets not over anilyze this....been down this road.

ISOTOX, thank you for your service. I appreciate what you are doing.

On the other hand though, the info you are giving is incorrect. I don't know what happened in the cases you are aware of, but not listing ANY court appearance as a defendant MUST be listed, or else it opens up the UNSUITABLE decision of a local chief of police.

Welcome to our Forum, Brother Vet
 
I had a similar problem. I had a traffic incident when I was younger and I didn't realize it was a criminal thing, I thought it was civil. The COP had me write a letter explaining why I answered the question incorrectly and added it to my file. I got my unrestricted LTC 2 weeks later.
 
I DECLARE THE ABOVE FACTS ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE ANSWER(S) WILL BE JUST CAUSE FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF MY LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS AND MAY BE USED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO M.G.L c. 140, §§ 129 AND 131.

Doesnt that aded comment mean exactly that? To the best of my knowledge? I could understand getting in trouble if that line wasnt there and you were supposed to pull your own CORI check, but they basically are saying just answer as best as possible.

I would think its similar to people answering in court "i can not remember at this time" to avoid perjury. They are not answering a definative yes or no, just saying they cant remember.

Seriously, how can someone fault a person for forgetting a underage drinking arrest from 40 years back without pulling a CORI check.

They will deny you for being wrong though, right?

I agree wrt memory as people do forget stuff, specially from 40 years ago.

However the very next part which you did not put in bold states "I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE ANSWER(S) WILL BE JUST CAUSE FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF MY LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS AND MAY BE USED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING" it doesn't say if you forget your in the clear. it says ANY FALSE ANSWER.
 
I had a similar problem. I had a traffic incident when I was younger and I didn't realize it was a criminal thing, I thought it was civil. The COP had me write a letter explaining why I answered the question incorrectly and added it to my file. I got my unrestricted LTC 2 weeks later.


same here (not an accident though (or alcohol or drugs or sexual)) only dismissed and i put it down anyway. i figured if it was civil it wouldn't matter and if it was criminal i would have it down as required.
 
Googled it. Can't lay hands on a summary form. And, darn it, I left my MGLs in my other pants.

If anyone can point me to the info, that would be helpful.

criminal (although i'm sure its not all of them):

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-law/massachusetts/

heres a site that talks about the differences http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

OK couldn't find a list for the civil but this might help:

"Criminal law, one of two broad categories of law, deals with acts of intentional harm to individuals but which, in a larger sense, are offences against us all. It is a crime to break into a home because the act not only violates the privacy and safety of the home's occupants - it shatters the collective sense that we are secure in our own homes. A crime is a deliberate or reckless act that causes harm to another person or another person's property, and it is also a crime to neglect a duty to protect others from harm. Canada's Criminal Code, created in 1892, lists hundreds of criminal offences - from vandalism to murder - and stipulates the range of punishment that can be imposed. Since crimes are an offence against society, normally the state or Crown investigates and prosecutes criminal allegations on the victim's behalf. The police gather evidence and, in court, public prosecutors present the case against the person accused of the crime. For someone to be convicted of a crime, it must be proven that a crime was committed and, for most offences, that the person meant to commit the crime. For instance, striking another person is the crime of assault but it is only a crime if the blow was intentional.

Civil law deals with disputes between private parties, or negligent acts that cause harm to others . For example, if individuals or companies disagree over the terms of an agreement, or who owns land or buildings, or whether a person was wrongfully dismissed from their employment, they may file a lawsuit asking the courts to decide who is right. As well, the failure to exercise the degree of caution that an ordinarily prudent person would take in any situation may result in a negligence claim. Depending on the circumstances, a person may be held responsible for any damages or injury that occurs as a result of their negligence. Family law cases involving divorce, parental responsibility for children, spousal support, child support and division of property between spouses or common law couples represent a large portion of the civil law cases presented to the courts. Challenges to decisions of administrative tribunals, allegations of medical malpractice and applications for distribution of the estates of deceased persons are other examples of civil cases. The party who brings the legal action is known as the plaintiff or applicant, while the party being sued is the defendant or respondent. The courts may dismiss a case, or if it is found to have merit, the courts may order the losing party to take corrective action, although the usual outcome is an order to pay damages - a monetary award designed to make up for the harm inflicted. The state plays no role in civil cases, unless the government launches a lawsuit or is the party being sued. Parties retain a lawyer - or may choose to represent themselves - to gather evidence and present the case in court.

Differing standards of proof: More evidence is needed to find the accused at fault in criminal cases than to find the defendant at fault in civil ones. To convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must show there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and, in most cases, that they intended to commit it. Judges and juries cannot convict someone they believe probably committed the crime or likely is guilty - they must be almost certain. This gives the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt and makes it less likely an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Civil cases, in contrast, must be proven on a balance of probabilities - if it is more likely than not that the defendant caused harm or loss, a court can uphold a civil claim."

PLEASE NOTE the info comes from websites and not the MGLs
 
Last edited:
I also got into some trouble when i was like 15. I got busted for vandalism. I'm 28 now and have been on my best behavior since I was 15. I asked same thing to officer while filling it out couldn't get a straight answer so called the chief and he said better to mention it than to not so you don't look like your hiding something. So i mentioned it in the notes. 2 months later i had my LTC no restrictions.
 
I also got into some trouble when i was like 15. I got busted for vandalism. I'm 28 now and have been on my best behavior since I was 15. I asked same thing to officer while filling it out couldn't get a straight answer so called the chief and he said better to mention it than to not so you don't look like your hiding something. So i mentioned it in the notes. 2 months later i had my LTC no restrictions.


Congratulations!! while my case was dismissed and i don't think it mattered for my LTC, i only got LTC-A with sporting restriction - has more to do with where i live.
 
So you're not sure whether that time you appeared in court for a traffic offense was criminal or civil, or whether you should mention some little things from long ago that were either dismissed outright or CWOF. Other than getting professional legal advice (possibly at some cost), you've got a choice. You can play it extra safe from a legal point of view (i.e., answer "yes" and explain) or you can take the easy way out (i.e., answer "no" and hope it doesn't matter or they don't find out). Before you make your decision, consider that an LTC is issued at the chief's discretion. Which course of action do you think makes you look more "suitable"?

In my own case, I've got a couple of those little indiscretions from the dark ages. Based on some good advice I got from a friend, I've gone ahead and mentioned them in the appropriate places for every security clearance and CCW application I've ever done. The result has been that I've held an LTC ever since I moved here, had a concealed carry license when I lived in California (far from easy to do), and held both military and civilian clearances at levels higher than I can name. I'm quite certain that my history would have worked out very differently had I decided to keep quiet about those "insignificant" matters. Of course, YMMV.

Ken
 
I DECLARE THE ABOVE FACTS ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FALSE ANSWER(S) WILL BE JUST CAUSE FOR DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF MY LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS AND MAY BE USED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO M.G.L c. 140, §§ 129 AND 131.

Doesnt that aded comment mean exactly that? To the best of my knowledge? I could understand getting in trouble if that line wasnt there and you were supposed to pull your own CORI check, but they basically are saying just answer as best as possible.

I would think its similar to people answering in court "i can not remember at this time" to avoid perjury. They are not answering a definative yes or no, just saying they cant remember.

Seriously, how can someone fault a person for forgetting a underage drinking arrest from 40 years back without pulling a CORI check.

They will deny you for being wrong though, right?


like everything law related, its a gray area that will ultimately hurt you.
 
Seriously, how can someone fault a person for forgetting a underage drinking arrest from 40 years back without pulling a CORI check.
I believe I can remember every time I've been stopped for a moving violation, going back to 1976. The two times I appeared in court for moving violations are etched into my brain, even though those were in 1976 and 1978.

I would imagine that being arrested and appearing in court for a criminal matter would be even more memorable.
 
I believe I can remember every time I've been stopped for a moving violation, going back to 1976. The two times I appeared in court for moving violations are etched into my brain, even though those were in 1976 and 1978.

I would imagine that being arrested and appearing in court for a criminal matter would be even more memorable.

+1.... I would remember every time I was arrested
 
As a former police chief once told me . . . he found it very unbelievable that someone I know "forgot about spending a night in jail" once upon a time. He declared the individual "unsuitable" . . . and so would I (and I don't know why this person spent a night in jail)!

Having been in jail cells as part of my job as a LEO, I can tell you that there is no way that I would ever have forgotten if I wasn't free to walk out of it when I felt like it! I found it unnerving just being in a cell even though I wasn't being detained. One Boston Marathon, the Hopkinton PD was so over-run with LEOs that they told us to use the urinals in the cells . . . even though I knew that the cameras were turned off, I found the experience very disconcerting!
 
I also got into some trouble when i was like 15. I got busted for vandalism. I'm 28 now and have been on my best behavior since I was 15. I asked same thing to officer while filling it out couldn't get a straight answer so called the chief and he said better to mention it than to not so you don't look like your hiding something. So i mentioned it in the notes. 2 months later i had my LTC no restrictions.

+1 It pays to ask the Chief or LO what needs to be addressed before you file the app. If you truly forgot then say so.
 
Back
Top Bottom