Taking a disqualified person to the range?

Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
2,774
Likes
473
Location
Worcester, MA
Feedback: 12 / 0 / 0
Quick hypothetical question:

Is it legal in Massachusetts for a lawful gun owner to take a disqualified person shooting at a private gun range?

For example, I know a guy who was involved in some bad stuff when he was seventeen. He was tried and convicted as an adult. He's in his fifties now, leads a clean life and is an upstanding member of the community. Never-the-less he has a lifetime disqualification for getting an LTC due to his criminal record.

Would I be placing myself in legal jeopardy if I took him shooting at my gun club?
 
Thats a good question. Judging by the # of views and still no responses, I'm thinking it falls into a gray area. If he's a convicted felon, then the answer is no I THINK. Don't quote me on that, I'm no lawyer and I'm just guessing. If he was convicted of stealing a Playboy and a bag of Doritos, I don't think there'd be too much to worry about.
 
No. I'm assuming the 'bad stuff' is enough to earn him a Fed DQ. If so you are commiting a felony if you put a gun in his hands. There are at least 2 other threads here on it going into detail.
 
No, if you know they are disqualified, then you are commiting a crime by handing them a gun.
 
If the individual is a Federally prohibited person, it is illegal for them to even touch a firearm (18 USC 922(g)).

The Fed has prosecuted prohibited persons for even momentary possession.

Additionally, you would be in violation of 18 USC 922(d), having "disposed" of a firearm to a prohibited person.
 
Assuming you get "caught" you would also be putting your club at risk along with yourself.
 
If the individual is a Federally prohibited person, it is illegal for them to even touch a firearm (18 USC 922(g)).

The Fed has prosecuted prohibited persons for even momentary possession.

Yes, unless you're one of the "beautiful people" (hollywood felon types always seen handling guns in movies). [thinking]

Additionally, you would be in violation of 18 USC 922(d), having "disposed" of a firearm to a prohibited person.

While I agree with this, IMO a 922(d) prosecution would be about as likely as Deval Patrick announcing he's going to cut taxes.

The biggest risk, by far, is for the prohibited person.

ETA: Of course, everyone here is assuming that the OP's buddy is federally DQed and not just "mass DQed" and the bar in MA is a hell of a lot lower than the federal bar.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
So this person is DQ'd from getting an LTC, but not FID? Where his crimes enough to earn him a fed-level DQ?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't even have to get to that. The feds recognize any state DQ as a fed-level DQ.

This is incorrect. While it's true that some MA state offenses trigger PP, like DUI, (because it goes above the fed limit for it for the max first offense sentence) it's not universally true. Offenses which are below the federal bar don't automatically make you a federally prohibited person.

Say if MA had a law that said anyone who got 10 parking tickets in a year was guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a week in prison, and that anyone who violated this law was statutorily disqualified from obtaining an LTC. That would not make the individual a prohibited person. That conviction would not "follow you around" from state to state because it is way below the federal bar of what a "prohibited person" is.

There are likely better examples of this in MGL, but I think you get the idea.

Actually here is a really good one.... AGE is a statutory disqualifier. So you're telling me everyone in MA under 21 is now a federally prohibited person because they can't get an LTC in MA? [laugh] (Or say, 17 year olds for an FID, etc. )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
...everyone here is assuming that the OP's buddy is federally DQed and not just "mass DQed"...

Good point.

OP: If the person is statutorily ineligible to receive a LTC, but is not a Federally prohibited person, they can legally possess firearms in the presence of a license holder, pursuant to MGL 140-129C(m).



This is incorrect. While it's true that some MA state offenses trigger PP, like DUI, (because it goes above the fed limit for it for the max first offense sentence) it's not universally true. Offenses which are below the federal bar don't automatically make you a federally prohibited person.

Say if MA had a law that said anyone who got 10 parking tickets in a year was guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a week in prison, and that anyone who violated this law was statutorily disqualified from obtaining an LTC. That would not make the individual a prohibited person. That conviction would not "follow you around" from state to state because it is way below the federal bar of what a
prohibited person is.

There are likely better examples of this in MGL, but I think you get the idea.

-Mike

Exactly.

A State level felony conviction with a potential penalty in excess of one year incarceration, or a State level misdemeanor conviction with a potential penalty in excess of two years incarceration would render one a FPP.
 
A dui make's someone disqualified? I know of at least one person with a dui has an unrestriced ltc.

I know several, but they were all pre may-94 convictions. Before May of 1994, the law was different and the max penalty was not nearly as high as it is now for a first offense.

-Mike
 
Unless you have a really rotten lawyer, or represent yourself ( same thing) barring extenuating circumstances a first time DWI is usually CWOF'd .

I am not a lawyer so this is just layman speculation, but IMHO a CWOF should not trigger the statutory disqualification, but it does trigger the "suitability" issue.

So does anyone know for sure if a CWOF triggers a statutory disqualification?
 
Kirk I would suggest to you that you get a lawyer and try to re open your case, claiming your previous lawyer was ineffective or incompetent, and try to change the outcome to a CWOF. You were not properly advised that pleading guilty would have the consequences it did.

There have been instances where this has been done by people trying to get into the Marines, and I know it can be done, I know someone that did it.

The trick is to convince a judge you are not looking for a not guilty finding, you will admit to sufficient facts and ask for a CWOF.
 
If they're federally disqualified then they'd run a huge risk even going to the range with you. Say they step on a piece of brass and it gets stuck in the sole of their shoes, or an ejected shell case gets snagged in their pants cuff. It the BATF is looking to get better publicity by locking up "bad guys", either one would be good for 5 years.

Ken
 
Kirk I would suggest to you that you get a lawyer and try to re open your case, claiming your previous lawyer was ineffective or incompetent, and try to change the outcome to a CWOF. You were not properly advised that pleading guilty would have the consequences it did.

There have been instances where this has been done by people trying to get into the Marines, and I know it can be done, I know someone that did it.

The trick is to convince a judge you are not looking for a not guilty finding, you will admit to sufficient facts and ask for a CWOF.

Although a stretch having it done post sentence, a motion to revise and revoke could work to get it changed to a CWOF.

A DUI CWOF is a funny beast, as the system treats it is a conviction for almost all purposes but spares the subject the stigma of a criminal record. A DUI CWOF counts as a "previous offense" for sentence determination in future DUI convictions; is treated as a conviction for insurance surcharge purposes; and can be used as the basis for a license revocation by the registry. Also, there is an occasional effort to elevate a CWOF w/ASF to a "conviction equivalent" for firearms licensing purposes, so the only time a CWOF should be accepted is when the alternative is conviction.
 
This is incorrect. While it's true that some MA state offenses trigger PP, like DUI, (because it goes above the fed limit for it for the max first offense sentence) it's not universally true. Offenses which are below the federal bar don't automatically make you a federally prohibited person.

Say if MA had a law that said anyone who got 10 parking tickets in a year was guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a week in prison, and that anyone who violated this law was statutorily disqualified from obtaining an LTC. That would not make the individual a prohibited person. That conviction would not "follow you around" from state to state because it is way below the federal bar of what a "prohibited person" is.

There are likely better examples of this in MGL, but I think you get the idea.

Actually here is a really good one.... AGE is a statutory disqualifier. So you're telling me everyone in MA under 21 is now a federally prohibited person because they can't get an LTC in MA? [laugh] (Or say, 17 year olds for an FID, etc. )

-Mike

Yea, I know. Didn't edit my post quick enough.
 
Actually here is a really good one.... AGE is a statutory disqualifier. So you're telling me everyone in MA under 21 is now a federally prohibited person because they can't get an LTC in MA? [laugh] (Or say, 17 year olds for an FID, etc. )

-Mike

You mean 15, right? [wink]

A dui make's someone disqualified? I know of at least one person with a dui has an unrestriced ltc.

There are DUI convictions in other states that don't trigger the same federal penalties that a Mass. DUI does (well, one after the magic date anyway).

I am not a lawyer so this is just layman speculation, but IMHO a CWOF should not trigger the statutory disqualification, but it does trigger the "suitability" issue.

So does anyone know for sure if a CWOF triggers a statutory disqualification?

By law, no. But there are Mass. chiefs who feel that an ASF CWOF = conviction, so it's on the applicant to have that opinion reviewed in court. I believe Scriv has handled a few of those cases.

Thanks all. The person in question is DQ'd for both LTC and FID. I don't enough (yet) to know whether he is federally DQ'd.

I think the chances are extremely slim that he isn't federally prohibited in that case.

Kirk I would suggest to you that you get a lawyer and try to re open your case, claiming your previous lawyer was ineffective or incompetent, and try to change the outcome to a CWOF. You were not properly advised that pleading guilty would have the consequences it did.

That doesn't seem to generally work in Mass. In the case Comm. v. Indelicato, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 944, (1996), the defendant got bad legal advice from his lawyer and took a plea based on the incorrect info. There's also the case Comm. v. Wheeler, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 631 (2001) where a similar attempt was made, but it didn't pan out either.

FWIW, Wheeler tried more than 25 years after his case went through, and Indelicato tried just 13 months after his, but neither was successful. Indelicato had other issues as well, but the statements made by the court on his attempt are pretty clear to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom