Sealed records... Any reason why they don't restore your gun rights?

[Brandon1317]

Just curious if there is any stated reson why a sealed criminal record doesn't restore your firearms rights.

When they seal your record they are basically saying they don't think your a danger to any one any more and will not allow most people to see your record but you still can't have firearms but you can say you have no record even when applying for a gun permit.

 

[appraiser]

There is a sealed record, and there is a pardon or expungement

You were convicted, they are being nice enough not to tell some people that you were, but the cops will always get to see your whole file.

 

[drgrant]

A sealed record in MA is a lie. It's a trick they use to get someone to feel better about sucking for a plea bargain. It's only beneficial WRT generic CORI checks run by employers. A sealed record has nothing to do with gun rights. Nothing.

-Mike

 

[Brandon1317]

I know it doesn't have any affect on your gun rights but it should, only a handful of agencies can see it. But almost every one else pulling it see's nothing including places that deal with kids, elderly people and other sensitive issues or items. Even until recently the police had to ask the court to open it but that will change in a few months they will no longer have to ask the courts.

 

[appraiser]

there is no correlation between hiding a "record" from the general public and the fact someone was found responsible, pronounced guilty, or took an Alford plea.

It is like the deal people make with creditors when they are behind and the creditor wants their money.
They will insist the creditor report the account paid in full and satisfactory, so anyone else that sees the report doesn't see you are a deadbeat, but don't expect the creditor to give you another loan. You are still a deadbeat according to their internal documents

 

[Brandon1317]

there is no correlation between hiding a "record" from the general public and the fact someone was found responsible, pronounced guilty, or took an Alford plea.

It is like the deal people make with creditors when they are behind and the creditor wants their money.
They will insist the creditor report the account paid in full and satisfactory, so anyone else that sees the report doesn't see you are a deadbeat, but don't expect the creditor to give you another loan. You are still a deadbeat according to their internal documents

So once you do the slightest little thing wrong you should be punished the rest of your life?

 

[drgrant]

So once you do the slightest little thing wrong you should be punished the rest of your life?

Nobody is talking about that. Most of us here already don't like the prohibited person crap, so please spare us the lecture on it. We're talking about the legal mechanics of how the system works, not what the system should be. The fact of the matter is that a sealed record is a way of the state having its cake and eating it too. 'Tards are lead to believe their records are not viewable by anyone, and that simply is not the case.

-Mike

 

[appraiser]

So once you do the slightest little thing wrong you should be punished the rest of your life?

There are consequences for poor decisions, sorry.

In MA they have made it a quest to make the maximum potential sentence for every misdemeanor 2.5 years as a back door way to prevent people from being to exercise their 2A rights.

Same thing with using marijuana for recreational personal use. I'd be the first person to vote for the legalization of pot trust me, and I don't even use the stuff. But as long as it is a criminal act, the government is going to use as a method to keep you from exercising your 2A rights. It's that reefer madness thing ya know. Want to solve the violence in Mexico and along the border? legalize pot and cultivate it here in the U S of A.

Got a DWI after 10/94? oooops you are screwed. No more hunting for you.

 

[Brandon1317]

I fully understand that a handful of places can see it but it is very limited and is pretty much limited to law enforcement and a couple state agencies. The general public and businesses don't see any of it . So that leaves the other 99% of people that check it unable to see any of the record that was all that was saying.

Side story:

My father who in his younger days had ties to the Winter Hill gang at some point had his record sealed and has a few rifles. One time my mother who is divorced from called the local police to tell them he had a couple guns in the house. The police went to his house ran his info and left. Then ended up calling her back and pretty much told her to mind her own business, they said he has a sealed record and has a FID card and didn't want to bother trying to get the record un sealed since there was no crime involved .
Dont know if he got lucky or just new people in the PD.

 

[Brandon1317]

There are consequences for poor decisions, sorry.

In MA they have made it a quest to make the maximum potential sentence for every misdemeanor 2.5 years as a back door way to prevent people from being to exercise their 2A rights.

Same thing with using marijuana for recreational personal use. I'd be the first person to vote for the legalization of pot trust me, and I don't even use the stuff. But as long as it is a criminal act, the government is going to use as a method to keep you from exercising your 2A rights. It's that reefer madness thing ya know. Want to solve the violence in Mexico and along the border? legalize pot and cultivate it here in the U S of A.

Got a DWI after 10/94? oooops you are screwed. No more hunting for you.

So if you get one ticket for speeding you should lose your lic. then? Of course not but you get my point.. If this continues then within 10 to 20 years guns will be 100% gone.. Every one is worried about what types of guns the state allows people to buy and the suitability issue, well that won't be a issue down the road every one will be a PP.

 

[appraiser]

We don't have these issues in NH.... sorry that you are stuck in MA

 

[Brandon1317]

We don't have these issues in NH.... sorry that you are stuck in MA

Actually moving to NH on the 15th, getting the hell out of here!!

 

[appraiser]

Just do me a favor, leave any trace of MA at the border and assimilate to the NH way of life.

Wait til you see all the neat stuff you can buy, no licenses required !

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A sealed record has nothing to do with gun rights. Nothing.

Actually, the issue is that a sealed record has a LOT to do with gun rights

. But as long as it is a criminal act, the government is going to use as a method to keep you from exercising your 2A rights.

The marijuana thing is an exercise in schitzo govt. Have a misdemeanor conviction from years ago, and your prohibited from an LTC in MA for life, and possibly federally (if it's a 2.5 year misdemeanor). Do this same thing now (small quanity, no evidence of intent for sell) and not only it is a civil infraction, but the fact that you were cited cannot be used as the basis for denial of any state license or benefit.

 

[appraiser]

The marijuana thing is an exercise in schitzo govt. Have a misdemeanor conviction from years ago, and your prohibited from an LTC in MA for life, and possibly federally (if it's a 2.5 year misdemeanor). Do this same thing now (small quanity, no evidence of intent for sell) and not only it is a civil infraction, but the fact that you were cited cannot be used as the basis for denial of any state license or benefit.

Even the civil penalty can get you into a suitability issue, and isn't there a question on the federal form about drug use?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Even the civil penalty can get you into a suitability issue, and isn't there a question on the federal form about drug use?

Yes there is and there is a page on the govt website that explains what they are looking for with the fed check. I'm on my phone or I'd link the page.

EDIT: Here's the FBI NCIS "fact" sheet that explains a little more about the "drug" question.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

 

[drgrant]

Actually, the issue is that a sealed record has a LOT to do with gun rights

I guess my point was is that it isn't sealed from the people that you don't want to see it. "the man". So from a gun rights perspective, a sealed record (in MA at least) is meaningless. It would be nice if it actually meant that it could not be used against you, but that currently isn't the case.

As far as the weed thing goes that only works if an applicant wants to take the red town to court over the issue.... they can still try to use it as a suitability issue and hope the applicant doesn't call them out on it with a lawyer. You know this already but the idea the red towns use is to blunderbuss the piss out of people up front to get them to not even
try. It works most of the time, sadly, because of the realities of the system here in MA.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Even the civil penalty can get you into a suitability issue, and isn't there a question on the federal form about drug use?

Actually, only "sort of". As I understand it, syntatic gymnastics are required and a issuing authority considering a suitability denial based on an item that specifically may not be used as the basis of denial of any license is questionable, even in MA. On the other hand, if the LEO rejects based on "general reputation as a drug user", and makes no reference to the citation that may not be considered, it is hard to raise a defense that a prohibited reason is being used.

Federal law bans "drug users", but does not clearly establish that being a past drug user makes one a PP. The place where this is rearing its head is states with medical marijuana laws, with the feds claiming that holding a medical marijuana card or Rx is proof one is currently a user, a PP, and that a dealer may not knowingly sell to such a person. The federal criteria are actually ambiguous, since it uses the term "conviction" - but a civil infraction is not a conviction, and the charge does not bear the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal conviction does. (For example, I doubt a marijuana ticket could be beat if they PD could not produce a chain of custody from the weed from the point of the citation to a crime lab analysis). I do not know if there has been a formal ruling on the status of a non-criminal drug citation as applied to the federal standard.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

There are consequences for poor decisions, sorry.

In MA they have made it a quest to make the maximum potential sentence for every misdemeanor 2.5 years as a back door way to prevent people from being to exercise their 2A rights.

Same thing with using marijuana for recreational personal use. I'd be the first person to vote for the legalization of pot trust me, and I don't even use the stuff. But as long as it is a criminal act, the government is going to use as a method to keep you from exercising your 2A rights. It's that reefer madness thing ya know. Want to solve the violence in Mexico and along the border? legalize pot and cultivate it here in the U S of A.

Got a DWI after 10/94? oooops you are screwed. No more hunting for you.

I will be right there with you as soon as there is a way to reliable roadside test for driving under the influence of pot like the breathalyzer that is used for alcohol.

So if you get one ticket for speeding you should lose your lic. then? Of course not but you get my point.. If this continues then within 10 to 20 years guns will be 100% gone.. Every one is worried about what types of guns the state allows people to buy and the suitability issue, well that won't be a issue down the road every one will be a PP.

We all agree that the laws are designed with that basic intent. The only way it will be changed is by voting them all out and starting over and at this point there is an increasing part of me that says the only way real change will happen is if there is a big "forceful reset" in regards to government.

Bob

 

[MisterHappy]

this is what informs public policy:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103414/drugs-are-bad

 

[Leitrim]

Rob, If someone has a single misdemeanor pot charge from way back, MGL 94C, Section 34 give you a mulligan. Here's the money quote from the statute;

"The record maintained by the department of probation shall contain only identifying information concerning the person and a statement that he has had his record sealed pursuant to the provisions of this section. Any conviction, the record of which has been sealed under this section, shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of any disqualification or for any other purpose. No person as to whom such sealing has been ordered shall be held thereafter under any provision of any law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge such arrest, indictment, conviction, dismissal, continuance, sealing, or any other related court proceeding, in response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose."

I hope that this will help some otherwise good and law abiding people out.

 

[terraformer]

Rob, If someone has a single misdemeanor pot charge from way back, MGL 94C, Section 34 give you a mulligan. Here's the money quote from the statute;

"The record maintained by the department of probation shall contain only identifying information concerning the person and a statement that he has had his record sealed pursuant to the provisions of this section. Any conviction, the record of which has been sealed under this section, shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of any disqualification or for any other purpose. No person as to whom such sealing has been ordered shall be held thereafter under any provision of any law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge such arrest, indictment, conviction, dismissal, continuance, sealing, or any other related court proceeding, in response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose."

I hope that this will help some otherwise good and law abiding people out.

I know that is what the law says, but that is not what the courts have been upholding lately.

 

[Len-2A Training]

First time post on this forum but long time reader..

I got a FID card about 6 months ago and I have a felony on my record from about 10 years ago, the PD never mentioned to me that I was federally prohibted which seems unbelievable to me. I only found out when I tried to purchase a gun from a dealer.

I decided to look into this because this is a interesting subject and from what I have read on court cases and Mass Law it makes no sense either way. Bascially the feds will allow you to have guns again if you where pardoned, expunged or had civil rights restored but won't allow a partiall restoration of rights (rifles or shotguns only) its all or nothing. Here in Mass you do lose certain civil rights after being convicted of felonies and those rights are restored later down that road so that does qualify as restoration of civil rights but since the courts have said it all or nothing the feds dont allow it. So if you do have your rights restored for guns though the FLRB it really still makes you a federally prohibted person since you never lost any civil rights since it was a misdemanor and civil rights aren't lost for those types of crimes.. For the ATF to say it will not prosecute any one who had there rights restored though the FLRB wouldn't be correct since it still doesn't qualify under federal law as a restoration, they would have to do the same for the FID card holders with felonies since Mass allows them to have rifles or shotguns. It does really matter any way if the ATF is saying they won't prosecute because there are plenty of other Federally agiencies that could!

You are confusing a few things here. FLRB can not even hear a case wrt a felony, only a very limited number of misdemeanors (MGL C 140 S 130B). Since this law bounces you around a bunch of other places to figure out what FLRB can do, I'll instead quote the FLRB letter to applicants that is more concise about their abilities to restore rights.

Dear Applicant:
This letter and attached petition are being provided to you so that your petition for review by the Firearm Licensing Review Board ("FLRB") pursuant to Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004, may be processed and reviewed as efficiently as possible.
It is important that you understand that the FLRB has the authority to review only misdemeanor convictions, and that the FLRB may not review convictions for:
a) an assault or battery on a family or household member, or a person with whom you have had a substantive dating relationship, as defined by G.L. c. 209A, § 1;
b) a crime involving 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
c) a crime regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances.
In addition, the statute specifies that the FLRB may not review a petition if the petitioner:
a) has a disqualifying felony conviction;
b) has multiple misdemeanor convictions, unless the offenses arise from one incident;
c) was denied a license to carry on the basis of suitability rather than a disqualifying conviction (the District Court is the appropriate forum for appeal in this case); or
d) is disqualified for a reason other than a misdemeanor conviction, such as having an active warrant or restraining order.
Finally, the FLRB may not review a petition until after the passage of five (5) years since the misdemeanor conviction or release from supervision, whichever is last occurring. We have included a list of documents (attached) which we recommend that you include with your petition. While it is not necessary to retain the services of an attorney to represent you at the hearing, you should feel free to do so if you so choose.

So bottom line is that FLRB can't restore any of your rights due to a felony conviction (according to your first post here on NES) and that possession of any firearms/ammo could result in a Federal prison term.

So once you do the slightest little thing wrong you should be punished the rest of your life?

This has nothing to do with how we here on NES feel. Nobody asked any of us for input before they passed the onerous MA anti-gun law in 1998. And the Feds certainly never asked lawful gun owners what they thought of tarring and feathering anyone who made mistakes in their life.

There are consequences for poor decisions, sorry.

In MA they have made it a quest to make the maximum potential sentence for every misdemeanor 2.5 years as a back door way to prevent people from being to exercise their 2A rights.

Exactly right!

So if you get one ticket for speeding you should lose your lic. then? Of course not but you get my point.. If this continues then within 10 to 20 years guns will be 100% gone.. Every one is worried about what types of guns the state allows people to buy and the suitability issue, well that won't be a issue down the road every one will be a PP.

Here I agree with you. Someday they will likely make jaywalking a 2-1/2year prison sentence and my goose will be cooked!

Actually moving to NH on the 15th, getting the hell out of here!!

If you are indeed a Federally prohibited person (based on your first post), I don't think that moving to NH will help you at all.

But good luck to you. Getting out of MA is always a good thing!

 

[Brandon1317]

You are confusing a few things here. FLRB can not even hear a case wrt a felony, only a very limited number of misdemeanors (MGL C 140 S 130B). Since this law bounces you around a bunch of other places to figure out what FLRB can do, I'll instead quote the FLRB letter to applicants that is more concise about their abilities to restore rights.



So bottom line is that FLRB can't restore any of your rights due to a felony conviction (according to your first post here on NES) and that possession of any firearms/ammo could result in a Federal prison term.



This has nothing to do with how we here on NES feel. Nobody asked any of us for input before they passed the onerous MA anti-gun law in 1998. And the Feds certainly never asked lawful gun owners what they thought of tarring and feathering anyone who made mistakes in their life.




Exactly right!




Here I agree with you. Someday they will likely make jaywalking a 2-1/2year prison sentence and my goose will be cooked!




If you are indeed a Federally prohibited person (based on your first post), I don't think that moving to NH will help you at all.

But good luck to you. Getting out of MA is always a good thing!

Turns out it wasn't a felony charge which I found out recently, so that is why I was trying to figure out if going though the FLRB will even do anything since I'm moving to NH. And from what I have read and been told it wont do any good.

But Im still glad to be getting out of MA!!

 

[Len-2A Training]

If NICS still denies one after FLRB clearance, going to FLRB won't help in NH and would be useful only if you desire a MA NR LTC (which would be restricted anyway).

FLRB is a state-construct and it's decision will have no weight in any other state. It's not anywhere near the same as a pardon or expungement (not done in MA).

 

[Brandon1317]

Thats pretty much what I thought and figured out and it was a tough thing to get a answer to.

You know what I find funny since you brought up the old post about the FID card is that I really have not seen any rants online about any one getting a FID card and still being federally PP. then not being able to buy a gun from a dealer. I would think there have to be a good number of people in that boat.
is it possible the the NCIC check is clearing people with a FID card? I saw a online article about delayed responses with the check and how they look at that states restoration of firearms rights to see if a person falls under that catorgy.

 

[Leitrim]

I know that is what the law says, but that is not what the courts have been upholding lately.

Silly me. Why should the courts, you know, uphold the law or something.

 

[appraiser]

Turns out it wasn't a felony charge which I found out recently, so that is why I was trying to figure out if going though the FLRB will even do anything since I'm moving to NH. And from what I have read and been told it wont do any good.

But Im still glad to be getting out of MA!!

It doesn't have to be a felony, a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of 2.5 years jail or prison time will trigger a federal disqualification,and IIRC so won't a drug charge.

If you want better advice, post the exact MGL involved and the approx date of the charge, or PM it to Len, who is not a lawyer and does not give legal advice, but can give you a more accurate opinion if the details are known.

Or you can look up the MGL online and see what the max potential incarceration is.

 

[Brandon1317]

Yes I know it is a 2.5 year max, it was receiving stolen property under $250 so it is stil a DQ.

At this point since the FLRB would be useless, I can try to get it set side (which is unlikely) or hope some how the federal laws get changed to allow states to restore the gun rights weather they are a full or partial (again unlikely).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Brandon, contact Comm2A.

I've been told that numerous people in MA have had their cases re-opened and dismissed (which allegedly makes the conviction go away - just reporting what I've been told), so that might be a possibility.

MGL C. 266 S. 60

• CHAPTER 266 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
• Section 60 Stolen goods; buying or receiving

Section 60. Whoever buys, receives or aids in the concealment of stolen or embezzled property, knowing it to have been stolen or embezzled, or whoever with intent to defraud buys, receives or aids in the concealment of property, knowing it to have been obtained from a person by a false pretense of carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary course of trade, shall, if the value of such property does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished for a first offense by imprisonment in jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars; or, if for a second or subsequent offense, or if the value of such property exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.