Question 10 on LTC Application

Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
931
Likes
175
Location
Essex County, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Pretty vague, just asks if I've "ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense." I initially answered no, but felt compelled to change my answer during my interview in Methuen yesterday. I've had to appear in front of a magistrate twice for youthful indiscretions, but nothing serious (no drugs/violence/etc.) I didn't know that that was the same as a defendant, which is why I answered no. The officer told me it was, even though I have no idea if either time a charging document was filed with the court. I know I was never indicted, and neither time were my rights read to me so I don't even know if I was actually arrested. In both instances my hearing was continued without a finding, so essentially a slap on the wrist. My father in law, retired LOE, said my answer was truthful since I was never charged with a crime, but this all happened back prior to 1994 so I don't remember. The officer yesterday didn't say anything and still took my prints and photograph but that may mean nothing.

I guess my question is, do some of these Green towns - which Methuen appears to be - look for reasons to deny someone their LTC-A? Who has the final say, Methuen or the State Police? If I was never convicted of anything, do they still have grounds to deny my license? I know this is all legalese so I'm not going take anything that's said as gospel, but in anyone's opinion, being knowledgable about the MA licensing process, am I screwed here?
 
Last edited:
The FRB reject an application for a statutory violation, but will not apply suitability. The local PD will reject for a statutory violation or if they consider you unsuitable - which is a very broad brush.

Answering "NO" to question 10 based on linguistic gymnastics (like asserting that a CWOF does not require a yes answer) is bad form, as it will very, very frequently be seen as an untruthful answer and generate a denial for what would otherwise be an approved application.

When in doubt, an office visit with Langer, Cohen or Guida is a wise investment. It costs a bundle to have any of these actually appeal or negotiate with the PD on your behalf, but 30 minutes of office advice comes at a reasonable cost.
 
Thanks, Rob. That was my rationale for changing my answer prior to the interview starting. I had to sign a form which basically said CWOF and juvenile cases were not sealed and had to be listed. I didn't want to appear to be trying to pull a fast one over on them, so that's why I changed my application. So if I read you right, I should past muster with the FRB since I was nver convicted of anything, but MPD could still deny me as "unsuitable" if they feel I was dishonest on my application. About right?
 
I was arrested in New Haven in 1989 (ish) for breach of peace. All charges were dismissed before we actually went to court. So i wasn't sure either.

I live in a green town and trusted the licensing officer. So I told him. My point was something like, "If you are going to deny me based on suitability from a dismissed breach of peace arrest 25 years ago, when I was in college, then you weren't going to give me a LTC anyway.

I still feel that way. My licensing officer has proven to be very fair. There was no reason to split legal hairs.

If, however, I was in a town like Everett, where the scumbag Chief Steven Mazzie looks for any excuse to deny or simply "lose" your application, I'd probably answer NO to question 10.
 
If you ever were called to any court house to talk to a Magistrate, TELL THEM.

Very Simple.

The LO will usually appreciate your honesty.
 
One thing that is relevant is where any prior arrest was made.

In CT if you are found innocent or charges are dismissed, they must BY LAW destroy all records of the arrest and trial, including computer records.

Throw 25 years of time into the equation and there is very little chance something like my arrest will come up. And, it did not. When they ran all the checks, nothing came up for me.

Sec. 54-142b. Whenever in any criminal case prior to October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, was found not guilty of the charge or the charge was dismissed, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased by operation of law and the clerk or any person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence or any information pertaining to any charge so erased; provided nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition for erasure with the court granting such not guilty judgment or dismissal, or, where the matter had been before a municipal court, a trial justice, the Circuit Court or the Court of Common Pleas with the records center of the Judicial Department and thereupon all police and court records and records of the state's attorney, prosecuting attorney or prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

Link: CHAPTER 961a* CRIMINAL RECORDS
 
The FRB reject an application for a statutory violation, but will not apply suitability. The local PD will reject for a statutory violation or if they consider you unsuitable - which is a very broad brush.

Answering "NO" to question 10 based on linguistic gymnastics (like asserting that a CWOF does not require a yes answer) is bad form, as it will very, very frequently be seen as an untruthful answer and generate a denial for what would otherwise be an approved application.

When in doubt, an office visit with Langer, Cohen or Guida is a wise investment. It costs a bundle to have any of these actually appeal or negotiate with the PD on your behalf, but 30 minutes of office advice comes at a reasonable cost.

I am in the process of applying now and find myself in a similar situation. Back in the 80's, when you failed to pay a speeding ticket, rather than just denying license renewal; a default warrant was issued for your arrest. Being young and stupid at the time, this happened to me. I had unrelated and otherwise insignificant contact with the police and was arrested on the warrant, finger printed, photographed, and then released on bail. I appeared in court the next day, but only for the original speeding offense. No mention of the default itself was made. I admitted my guilt to the speeding offense and agreed to pay the fine within 30 days. I paid it and that was the end of it.

When beginning the process of applying for an LTC, I self-ordered my CORI report which came back "clean". I understand that a self-review of a CORI report is not all inclusive so I didn't feel comfortable answering "No" to question 10 on the application.

At this point I concluded that a legal consultation was in order to protect both my freedom and future 2A rights in the Commonwealth. I reached out to Attorney Guida for assistance and he was excellent to work with. I live in a "RED" town so I decided to go all in and in addition to the Question 10 issue have him perform a full review and assist with crafting the justification for LTC-A with no restrictions.

With regard to the Question 10 issue, it was concluded that while the court appearance itself may not turn up anywhere, nor even need to be reported; there is the possibility that a thorough background check may unearth the old default warrant. So rather than have the default warrant surface with no context for what it related to, the incident will be disclosed to provide that context in case the warrant shows up. I don't fully understand the variety of criminal background checks, but it was suspected it may turn up in a "law enforcement only" database.

IANAL and my experience above is specific to the circumstances of my life and should not be construed as advice to anyone in a similar situation. The only advice I would give is that if you have even the most remote doubt about Question 10; protect your rights and get legal advice. It is well worth every penny.
 
thanks all, go sound advice. it's all moot now as the application was already submitted. if I get approved by the FRB but denied by the LO, is my appeal to him or the FRB? would it be worthwhile to send a letter to him further explaining the situation or should I just wait and see what happens? Honestly it was such a non-issue back then (20 years ago) that I didn't think it would be an issue now. Hopefully Methuen doesn't take such a narrow view of that question and can contextualize it.
 
thanks all, go sound advice. it's all moot now as the application was already submitted. if I get approved by the FRB but denied by the LO, is my appeal to him or the FRB? would it be worthwhile to send a letter to him further explaining the situation or should I just wait and see what happens? Honestly it was such a non-issue back then (20 years ago) that I didn't think it would be an issue now. Hopefully Methuen doesn't take such a narrow view of that question and can contextualize it.

You won't be statutorily denied from what you stated. If the LO denies it will be on suitability and there really is no appeal process. You can plead your case to the LO but he is under no obligation to even consider it.

Good luck.
 
is my appeal to him or the FRB?
If it is a non-statutory (ie, suitability) denial you can negotiate (or attempt to negotiate) with the issuing agency; file a district court appeal or make a federal case out of it. The FRB does not handle license appeals.
 
If it is a non-statutory (ie, suitability) denial you can negotiate (or attempt to negotiate) with the issuing agency; file a district court appeal or make a federal case out of it. The FRB does not handle license appeals.

thanks brother. I think I'm just going to make sure there are no questions about youthful indiscretions and hope it all works out in the end. I'd rather get denied for the right reasons then approved for the wrong and have it dangling over my head.

maybe a LTC for 'ol KodiakFan just isn't to be.
 
its-a-trap-akbar-sega-star-wars-vector-trap-demotivational-poster-1219458713.jpg
 
Magistrate or Judge, doesn't matter in this state. What they don't care about is minor traffic violations (i.e. speeding). They definitely do want to know about a CWoF, in fact they will discover it if you don't disclosed it. The fact that he took your prints & picture is a good indicator (I'm Guessing)


Thanks, Rob. That was my rationale for changing my answer prior to the interview starting. I had to sign a form which basically said CWOF and juvenile cases were not sealed and had to be listed. I didn't want to appear to be trying to pull a fast one over on them, so that's why I changed my application. So if I read you right, I should past muster with the FRB since I was nver convicted of anything, but MPD could still deny me as "unsuitable" if they feel I was dishonest on my application. About right?
 
I don't know where you guys took your Firearms Safety Course, but if they did not emphasize the importance of being honest on Question 10 they did you a great dis-service.

The course at Mass Firearms certainly made it clear to me.

My LO came close to laughing at the stuff I admitted to. Isn't that a better outcome than trying to sweep something under the rug ?
 
I don't know where you guys took your Firearms Safety Course, but if they did not emphasize the importance of being honest on Question 10 they did you a great dis-service.

The course at Mass Firearms certainly made it clear to me.

My LO came close to laughing at the stuff I admitted to. Isn't that a better outcome than trying to sweep something under the rug ?

Agreed, which is why I've already called my interview officer to clarify. I didn't think I was a defendant, simple as that. I'm not trying to hide a thing.
 
Its not about being honest. What this discussion is about is the grey area where you were arrested but never defended your self in court

And that's part of my confusion, since I was never cuffed, never read my rights, I didn't think I was arrested. I was brough to police station where my very angry mother came to pick me up at 2am. I didn't think I could be a defendent without being arrested. A fine line maybe but still.
 
And that's part of my confusion, since I was never cuffed, never read my rights, I didn't think I was arrested. I was brough to police station where my very angry mother came to pick me up at 2am. I didn't think I could be a defendant without being arrested. A fine line maybe but still.

You may not think that, but there is NO requirement to arrest in order to charge someone with a crime. If the police are reasonably convinced that you'll show up in court to face the charges on your own, they may do you the favor of "citing" you instead of arresting you. End result is that you are still a defendant in a criminal action either way.

There is no fine line here at all.

Watching too much TV and believing what you see on TV is "real life" is the real issue. [Example: Reading you your rights (per law) . . . NOT required at all if the police aren't going to question you . . . it's not a warning that you are under arrest, it is a warning that when questioned you have the right to be silent and have an attorney present and if you open your mouth everything you say will be used against you.]
 
Last edited:
If the police are reasonably convinced that you'll show up in court to face the charges on your own, they may do you the favor of "citing" you instead of arresting you.
Not only that, but there are a large number of crimes that are "citeable" but not "arrestable". For example, carry of a firearm on one's person on school property is a criminal offense, but not an "arrestable" one - which does not make the offense, or consequences, any less serious.
 
The real problem is that running your own CORI https://icori.chs.state.ma.us/icori...ion?page=1&bod=1360353816074&m=presentLanding will NOT reveal everything that the Police have access to.

And if it's not on the CORI, how serious can it be ?

Well, a friend of my wife's was dating a man, and as some things he was telling her didn't add up, she ran a CORI on him. Unlike doing a CORI on yourself, which is instant on the Web, doing a CORI on someone else takes a MONTH.

In the meantime I did a search of the Boston Globe Archives, online. It turns out this guy was a Juvenile Drug Dealer, who had conducted a Home Invasion and shot another Drug Dealer DEAD over a dispute. He was convicted and went to Prison, but was released after a dozen years or so. He finally admitted it all to my wife's friend. Who broke up with him - WHEW.

And his CORI came back totally CLEAN. But I'll bet whatever database the Police use doesn't show him that way.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom