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***
According to Massachusetts law, any individual who is the subject of a restraining order issued pursuant to G.L. c. 209A will have their Firearms Identification (FID) card or Firearms License to Carry (LTC) suspended as long as the restraining order is in effect.
IANAL, but I believe the answer is "legally, yes. And legally, no."
That is to say, your Chief of Police can deny you your LTC for any reason whatsoever (altho after 2014 law updates he must be able to articulate a reason, and explain himself to a judge if you push for a bench trial.)
The statutory ban is gone, however, one PD had a policy of "If you have had a court ordered RO, and had a chance to appear in court, the fact that the RO expires does not change the fact that the courts found you were a violence threat and no LTC will be issued to you by this department". The court upheld it.Seems like once the restraining order is gone, the suspension is gone.
Plan ahead. I have a letter in my safe granting a certain FFL permission to take possession of my guns form the PD, and and arrangement with that FFL that he is "on call" to do a pickup. Said letter would be delivered to the PD with any guns surrendered. While some PDs will go to length to make sure the thefthouse gets the guns, most just want them out of their property room. I know of multiple cases where someone who lost an LTC was able to bypass the bonded warehouse by using a designated FFL.In most cases the guns are long gone to a bonded warehouse and sold off or the fees are so high that you can't retrieve them, but only if you get your LTC back.
True, and this precedent was pre that change. That being said, the argument still exists "A court found you were a public safety threat", with the counter being "the court also found that threat was over". And you are correct - the courts still act as if Moyer was the binding precedent, even though the law and standard has changed.Correct as far as what the law says, but the courts are not holding them to the clearly articulated risk to public safety that the law requires. They are still specifically enforcing the previous "broad discretion" (i.e. anything) standard that existed pre 2014.
Don't forget that if you ever lose your LTC, it is perfectly legal for you to simply move them to another state. As long as you are not a PP.
If you move them to somewhere like NH, VT, or ME, where no license is required to possess anything, then there is no law prohibiting you from keeping them there. No matter what the PD says.
MA PD have no legal authority over firearms you keep in another state. You may piss them off. And they may never re-issue you a LTC again. But if you don't think you will ever get it back anyway, then this is a viable option.
I know of a CT PP holder who became the subject of a protective order. He sent the guns to a FFL out of state. The CT cops kept insiisting that he provide DPS-3 forms as proof of the transfer. He just kept repeating "I am in full compliance iwth the protective order and all associated CT statutes".
It was gorgeous.
Careful what you tell people, an RO makes you Fed PP https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf
Sort of... Only covers "intimate partners". Spouse, partner, child, parent, etc.
POs/ROs for alleged stalking, harassment, assault (sexual or otherwise) of a stranger, coworker, neighbor, etc do not make one a PP.
Careful what you tell people, an RO makes you Fed PP https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf
Doesn't matter if temp or perm.What about a temporary restraining order, not the full kind ?
An ex-parte TRO is not a federal disqualifier, but is a state disqualifier.What about a temporary restraining order, not the full kind ?
So strange a concept to still exist... a restraining order demands NO evidence
I guess most of you didn't actually READ what I posted.
My FIRST TWO sentences were:
Don't forget that if you ever lose your LTC, it is perfectly legal for you to simply move them to another state. As long as you are not a PP.
So again. As long as you are not a (federally) prohibited person or prohibited in the state where the guns are stored, then there is NOTHING illegal about moving your firearms to a different state to keep them out of the hands of either a FFL or the PD.
Len, can you point me to the part of MGL C. 269 S. 10 that you are referring to. My eyes glazed over trying to parse it all out and I haven't found anything applicable.
Len, can you point me to the part of MGL C. 269 S. 10 that you are referring to. My eyes glazed over trying to parse it all out and I haven't found anything applicable.
Failure to Surrender: Failure to surrender LTC, FID, Machine Gun License or weapons or ammunition in accordance with the provisions of this section are punishable under c.269, §10(i).
OK, Len, time for a trick question.
My local gun club has an armory with a bunch of 22 target rifles and a few M1As. About 6 people +/- have access.
If someone is 209a'ed do they have to surrender these guns because they have access, or is having their access removed enough?
The club has a standing policy that anyone who loses their LTC has their card key turned off for the armory until they get it back.
IANAL, but I believe the answer is "legally, yes. And legally, no."
That is to say, your Chief of Police can deny you your LTC for any reason whatsoever (altho after 2014 law updates he must be able to articulate a reason, and explain himself to a judge if you push for a bench trial.)
IANAL, but I believe the answer is "legally, yes. And legally, no."
That is to say, your Chief of Police can deny you your LTC for any reason whatsoever (altho after 2014 law updates he must be able to articulate a reason, and explain himself to a judge if you push for a bench trial.)
When the gun laws were last rewriten in MA, an early draft had "de novo" added to the hearing requirement. Unfortunately, this was killed in the back room and we never heard who had it pulled.Missed it the first time I replied. Not a bench trial, it's an administrative hearing. Hearsay is admissible and there is no cross examination/questioning. In fact the CoP may not say anything, they can just go with what they have submitted or the department's lawyer may do the talking. Makes it very difficult to address a specific concern, if they even bothered with one. And really doesn't matter because the judge will side with the CoP regardless.
If you can prove the chief did not feel he had a valid reason to deny or revoke, you win.