Questions about getting gun license in lowell ma

I'm going to give you the worst advice you will ever get.

If I was told that I was a Prohibited Person, and could not legally own or buy a gun for self-protection.
I'd buy a stolen Glock 19 with full-size mags and never look back...

The system isn't fair, and neither am I.

~Enbloc
 
I have a buddy who has a battery charge from when he was in a fight when he was 19 years old. Even though he has had a LTC for 25 years, the last time he tried to renew he was denied because they added all the old records to the the computer data base.
Sounds to me like you have a buddy with a battery conviction.
 
I have a buddy who has a battery charge from when he was in a fight when he was 19 years old. Even though he has had a LTC for 25 years, the last time he tried to renew he was denied because they added all the old records to the the computer data base.

There is a lawyer on NES that has, IMO, worked magic reopening cases. Might not matter because he had to have said he had no convictions on the form, and he did.
 
A CWOF is not a conviction, technically it's a dismissal.
It is the only form of dismissal that counts as a conviction for some purposes - for example, it is a predicate offense if one is subsequently convicted of OUI in a subsequent case, and it is treated as a conviction for CDL purposes.[/quote]

It doesn't matter what anyone is charged of...it matters what they're convicted off
Not here in MA when it comes to gun licensing.

-----------------------------------

Will the dispensary back your desire to be armed on the job, or do they find the risk of having to replace you if you are killed cheaper than risking litigation if you defend yourself? It can be difficult to use work as a justification if the employer responds with "we have a no weapons for all employees policy" if the LEO asks.
 
Last edited:
Must have been awhile ago.....dwi in mass is 2 years first offense so pp automatically
People often include a CWOF as "got a dwi in MA" since it comes with penalties and those without a basic understanding of how MA courts would think they are convicted because the pay a fee and are sentenced to an alcohol re-education program.
 
Will the dispensary back your desire to be armed on the job, or do they find the risk of having to replace you if you are killed cheaper than risking litigation if you defend yourself? It can be difficult to use work as a justification if the employer responds with "we have a no weapons for all employees policy" if the LEO asks.
Plenty of businesses would dump an employee
who even asked about carrying on the job.

Will the dispensary consider OP unsuitable for even pursuing the question?

(It goes without saying that you get dropped like a hot potato
if you have to defend yourself on the job -
whether or not there is an existing policy).
 
Last edited:
Where in legal history was someone successfully able to argue that your rights can be restricted after youve paid your debt to society. Even convicted felons have the right to defend themselves. If theyre a danger they should be in jail. The automatic nature of this bs is really odd. Shouldnt lawyers argue and a judge or jury decide your punishment?
 
Not unsealed for NICS, but they will see the charges; if it’s sealed they cannot see the disposition of the case, and will “delay”.
I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that sealing blocks the general public, not state or fed LE. If they were denying on the charges alone, when the case is sealed, I'd be delayed every time. And I've never gotten a delay.
 
I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that sealing blocks the general public, not state or fed LE. If they were denying on the charges alone, when the case is sealed, I'd be delayed every time. And I've never gotten a delay.
Interesting, guess there’s not as absolute a formula as we’d hope/anticipate?...
 
Where in legal history was someone successfully able to argue that your rights can be restricted after youve paid your debt to society. Even convicted felons have the right to defend themselves. If theyre a danger they should be in jail. The automatic nature of this bs is really odd. Shouldnt lawyers argue and a judge or jury decide your punishment?

The nostrum of PP/lautenberg/extrajudicial punishment is loved by statist f***s because they just get to keep it there and screw people without the idea of that punishment being exposed to "full course" due process.

For example a woman gets into a slapfight with her husband in public and throws an ice cream cone at
him or something. Kopsch come and arrest her for battery or whatever even though husband doesnt want to press charges. So they go to court judge things the whole thing is stupid, but DA wants her to suck for a misdemeanor battery plea and a $200 fine. So she does. Gavel goes down and now that woman is a prohibited person because of her misdemeanor DV conviction cuz lautenberg bullshit, and the judge has no direct control over this entire secondary level of punishment, unless the courts want to get
creative and steer around that garbage by making her suck for other garbage (Eg, make her pay a fine for disorderly conduct or some BS like that etc. )

I also have a theory that antis wanted this prohibited person shit in GCA68 so they could just start tacking on "undesireable" people down the road and make them prohibited persons at the drop of a hat. Gun owners making too many waves? Well just make "known political dissidents" to be prohibited, etc.

-Mike
 
I'm going to give you the worst advice you will ever get.

If I was told that I was a Prohibited Person, and could not legally own or buy a gun for self-protection.
I'd buy a stolen Glock 19 with full-size mags and never look back...

The system isn't fair, and neither am I.

~Enbloc
^^^^ This! After all that's what the criminals do again, again, again .........
BTW, by way of another thread, be sure to wrap that Glock grip in electrical tape, so you can go full house bad.
 
I would not tough that job with a 4" 686 or a Glock 17.

MJ is still federally illegal. If you are involved in a shooting, the feds could go after you for being armed during a drug crime

Also, did the employer give you a contract guaranteeing full indemnification for all legal, consultant and expert witness fees arising from any use of force while you are on the job? If not, run unless they are paying enough to make it worth the risk.

It doesn't matter what anyone is charged of...it matters what they're convicted off,
By statute yes, but do not underestimate the roll of suitability.
 
I would not tough that job with a 4" 686 or a Glock 17.

MJ is still federally illegal. If you are involved in a shooting, the feds could go after you for being armed during a drug crime

Also, did the employer give you a contract guaranteeing full indemnification for all legal, consultant and expert witness fees arising from any use of force while you are on the job? If not, run unless they are paying enough to make it worth the risk.

By statute yes, but do not underestimate the roll of suitability.

Yup, even a dismissal can make you "unsuitable"
 
Back
Top Bottom