Traffic Law Question

JonJ said:
If have appeared as a defendant as defined in the question and you check "NO", you will be DENIED for lying on the application that you signed under the penalty of perjury, even if it's a mistake.
If yo do not understand a question DO NOT answer that question and submit the application. Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them. Document who you spoke to and when.

Chiefs do not look to issue permits, they look to DENY them for whatever reason they can.

Adding insult to injury, the applicant doesn't get the processing fee refunded if denied. [angry]
 
JonJ said:
If have appeared as a defendant as defined in the question and you check "NO", you will be DENIED for lying on the application that you signed under the penalty of perjury, even if it's a mistake.

Almost always true. You may even be prosecuted for giving the false answer.

Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Don't even THINK it! Keeeeeeeeeeeeerist, how many horror stories about cops, clerks and meddlesome dispatchers giving idiotic answers have to be posted here before those who think these "sources" are reliable "grasp the concept?" [rolleyes]

The only thing more stupid than guessing at the answer is expecting some cop taking your info to:

1. UNDERSTAND the question and its complications;

2. KNOW the law; and

3. GIVE you the correct answer.

It is YOUR responsiblity to prepare the application; not the cop's. It is your duty to prepare it accurately; NOT the cop's.

A simple test for those who still miss the obvious:

1. Whose signature is on the application?

2. Who is held responsible for providing complete and accurate answers to the questions on that application?

3. Who will be denied a license if any answer is found to be incorrect?

4. Who will face possible criminal prosecution for submitting misinformation on the application?

NOW do you "get it?"
 
Last edited:
To sum it up...

For those of you who may be either confused, or have special circumstances (not to mention anyone who wants the best possible shot at getting the license they are asking for) It is probably in your best interest to retain a QUALIFIED attorney who is well versed in MA gun law, and licensing regulations.

Adam
 
LoginName said:
Adding insult to injury, the applicant doesn't get the processing fee refunded if denied. [angry]

As a matter of law, this is TRUE.

However, I just saw a denial letter with a cover from the chief's secretary, informing the applicant that he could come down and pick up his check! [shocked]
 
The only thing more stupid than guessing at the answer is expecting some cop taking your info to:

1. UNDERSTAND the question and its complications;

2. KNOW the law; and

3. GIVE you the correct answer.
I agree. Anyone who has any "history" that they think could be a disqualifier should consult an attorney and not seek casual advice.
If a questionable applicant doesn't seek the help of attorney he's going to do it on his own and if so I stated that he should at least document who he spoke with and when so that when the Chief denies because of one of his officer's incompetence, the applicant would have some sort of recourse.

I am personally involved with a denial because of a misunderstanding of Question #10. The person didn't understand that he indeed had been a defendant. He now has no LTC and out $100.
I can't understand how a chief can deny for lying on the application and not prosecute. Sounds like some kind of a leg to stand on in court.
 
JonJ said:
... I stated that he should at least document who he spoke with and when so that when the Chief denies because of one of his officer's incompetence, the applicant would have some sort of recourse.

Let's go to the videotape!

If yo do not understand a question DO NOT answer that question and submit the application. Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them.

Now contrast your present claim about merely suggesting documentation with your first assertion about "Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them" and tell us they are NOT contradictory.

I find Question # 10 to be straightforward and simple. I am simply amazed at how many people "blow" it and have absolutely no clue as to the ramifications of their appalling ignorance.

It generally starts to sink in between the time I direct their attention to the "penalties of perjury" language IMMEDIATELY above their signature and my dissertation about the client who was charged with CAPITAL perjury for his idiotic "No" to that question. [rolleyes]
 
Rewind and playback....
Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them. Document who you spoke to and when.
Fast forward....
I stated that he should at least document who he spoke with and when so that when the Chief denies because of one of his officer's incompetence, the applicant would have some sort of recourse.
These 2 statements are Not contradictory.
What did I miss?

You're right, #10 is straightforward but it hangs many people. Some have no idea that they were a defendant. Ignorance? Who knows.
 
I'm sticking with this:

Quote:
If yo do not understand a question DO NOT answer that question and submit the application. Ask the person doing the licenses to explain the question and pose your particular case to them.

Quod est demonstratum
 
Viking,

Brian King is NOT your friend. He has given a hard time to people who have had LTCs for 10-20 years and are just going in for a standard renewal.

You damn well have to have your ducks in a row with him. Investing in an attorney for a few hours would be a very worthwhile investment for your situation.

That's it for my free advice!
 
Back to the original question, I'd start by trying to get copies of the docket entries in the case in which you "appeared." For starters, I doubt that the official disposition was "thrown out the window," which seldom appears in the docket entries.

The term "appear" is a bit misleading, since technically those who "appear" in any litigation in Massachusetts are (a) those attorneys who file an appearance on behalf of a party client and (b) those parties who appear on their own behalf ("pro se").

If a proceeding for a criminal motor vehicle offense was commenced, it would be technically entitled Commonwealth v. X, where X is the defendant (the person charged; you). That is most likely an "appearance," and so the answer to the question should be "Yes."

If a criminal proceeding was commenced, there are only three possible dispositions: GG (found guilty, either upon a plea, an admission of facts sufficient, or a trial); NG (found not guilty after a trial); and DIS (dismissed). The best result is NG. DIS covers a multiple of possible scenarios, ranging from dismissal for want of jurisdiction (which implies nothing either way about underlying guilt) to CWOF ("continued without a finding"), which can only enter after an admission of facts sufficient, and is taken by most folks to be the practical (if not legal) equivalent of GG.

However, there may never have been a criminal case commenced; you may have appeared before a Clerk or a Judge on an application for a criminal complaint (G.L. ch. 218, sec. 35A). After listening to the application and sworn statement in support of it, the officer may have decided not to issue a criminal complaint, which is the functional equivalent of a Grand Jury issuing a report of No True Bill, and is even better than an NG. Subject to more research and thinking about it, a person who shows up in court in response to a 218/35A probably hasn't "appeared," since the legal meaning of "appear" presupposes that there is a "proceeding" in which to "appear," and by definition until a complaint issues in response to an application for one, there is no "proceeding."

The foregoing is a longwinded response to the following effects: (A) you haven't given us enough information to answer the question, and you probably don't have the necessary information yourself; and (B) it is as likely as not that, once you get the necessary information, only a lawyer is going to be able to figure out the answer. Sorry about that.
 
JonJ said:
I can't understand how a chief can deny for lying on the application and not prosecute. Sounds like some kind of a leg to stand on in court.

Truly the chief is just being charitable!

I know one person who "forgot" that he spent a night in jail! He answered NO to whatever the question is that basically asks if you had ever been arrested. Cost him his LTC (this was a renewal). His chief (not in my town) was incredulous that this guy "forgot" that he spent a night in jail! Sorry, but I'm on the chief's side on this one. The chief denied him for lying, but chose not to prosecute him. He got off very lucky, as if he had been prosecuted it would have cost him his livelihood as a bonded Constable!
 
A friend of my brothers was just denied his FID renewal because he received stolen goods (furniture) over 20 years ago. I'm curious why it wasn't caught the first time around when the photo licenses first came out.
 
Savage110FP said:
A friend of my brothers was just denied his FID renewal because he received stolen goods (furniture) over 20 years ago. I'm curious why it wasn't caught the first time around when the photo licenses first came out.

I just reviewed 2 (maybe even 3) cases where licenses were renewed AFTER 1998 (2002), but were DENIED this year because of events pre-dating 1998. Saw one, maybe two more last month.

This is usually, but not always, in small towns w/o MIRCS. Even so, CHSB should have picked it up. [rolleyes]
 
ok... so it looks like my best bet would be to hire a lawyer that i can't afford. how much do they cost per hour and how long do you think i would i need with one?
 
A couple of the folks answering your questions on this post, are qualified MA firearms attorneys. Maybe you should PM them for contact information.

Good luck
Adam
 
if i get denied the class A, do they usually demote it to a class B? probably not eh? i'm guessing it all depends what side of the bed sarg. gets up on that day? i'm guessing he doesn't have to give you anything if he doesn't feel like it?
 
If they deny you in Weymouth, you won't get anything more than a letter of denial.

You MUST then state that you were denied (when, where, why) on ANY subsequent LTC application (in MA and most other states as well). So a denial now could mean that many years later you also get denied somewhere else as "unsuitable". That is why you can't afford to mess up on this application and should spend the money for an attorney to make sure you don't screw yourself. It also shows the town (Brian King) that perhaps he shouldn't screw around with you either!
 
so i would actually have to bring the lawyer with me when i sit down with Brian? or do i just need the lawyer to review my application?
 
viking said:
so i would actually have to bring the lawyer with me when i sit down with Brian? or do i just need the lawyer to review my application?

TALK to a lawyer. They can answer these questions best, not me.
 
Scrivener said:
I just reviewed 2 (maybe even 3) cases where licenses were renewed AFTER 1998 (2002), but were DENIED this year because of events pre-dating 1998. Saw one, maybe two more last month.

This is usually, but not always, in small towns w/o MIRCS. Even so, CHSB should have picked it up. [rolleyes]

I've heard of people obtaining both an FID and LTC. That way that if in the future they should have thier LTC revoked or are denied a renewal based on "suitability" or any other lame excuse the chief can come up with, at least they get to retain their non-large capacity longarms. Downside is that the person has to pay the application fee for two permits.
 
LN,

That was a common practice pre-98. My Wife and I both held both.

But today unless you are a hunter/skeet/trap shooter only, the FID doesn't cover enough of our guns to make it worthwhile to pay the excessive fee twice.

Let's just say that I am aware of a few situations where PDs have revoked/suspended FIDs too, even though the legality of doing so might have been questionable at best. IMNSHO I just don't think that the FID offers any real "coverage" today, and certainly not enough to warrant the cost.
 
LoginName said:
I've heard of people obtaining both an FID and LTC. That way that if in the future they should have thier LTC revoked or are denied a renewal based on "suitability" or any other lame excuse the chief can come up with, at least they get to retain their non-large capacity longarms. Downside is that the person has to pay the application fee for two permits.

Up until the time the fee jumped to $100, I had both an FID and an LTC. I also advised everyone I knew to do the same, STAGGERING the years of issuance, of course.

Contrary to what lies you may be told in Lowell and elsewhere, it is NOT "illegal" to hold both. Do you need both? Legally, the FID adds nothing to what the LTC allows, of course. Further, now that we have the 90-day grace period restored, the second license is not critical (it WAS between 1998 and 2004!).

That said, YOU should decide what you need; not some presumptuous cop imposing his/her unsolicited opinions upon you.
 
LenS said:
Let's just say that I am aware of a few situations where PDs have revoked/suspended FIDs too, even though the legality of doing so might have been questionable at best.

So how exactly do these PD's go about revoking and/or suspending a valid FID. Of course I can see how they could physically take the piece of paper, but absent any new statutory disqualification on my part, that really wouldn't be any different than it getting chewed up by my dog or stolen by a pickpocket. Can my dog revoke my FID? I'm not suggesting that the courts won't let them get away with entering my house without either a warrant or probable cause of a crime being committed, or taking my property without any more legal basis than your average armed robber (after all, it's for the children). I'm simply wondering if they have any more power to revoke my FID than I have to revoke the Chief's driver's license.

Ken
 
Ken,

Power by intimidation (abuse of power). They have a badge and a gun and can lock you up and make up a reason later. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen!

Example: Middle class black man parked in front of a house (at night) in Milton, waiting for his Daughter who was visiting her friend (Daughter of home owner). Someone called Milton PD about a "suspicious black man" in a white neighborhood. Milton PD arrested the man (essentially charge was DWB). AFTER the arrest, booking and throwing him in a jail cell, they checked his story and verified that he was legitimately there and had committed NO crime.

They gave him a "hold harmless" release form to sign, telling him that he MUST sign the form (which stated that he could not sue the town for false arrest) BEFORE they would release him. He refused . . . so they threw him back in the jail cell. Eventually I guess his attorney got him released (without signing the form). He sued for false arrest, civil rights violations, etc. and received a fat cash settlement from the Town of Milton. [This happened ~25 years ago and was in the newspapers. Some of the above details came from a discussion I had with my late police chief (who was disgusted by Milton PD's actions).]

So, is it legal? NO!

Can they do it? Yes, of course they can do anything they want to to anyone they want to!

Will they get away with it? Maybe!
 
Coyote33 said:
Heard a good line on this:


"What you tolerate, you validate."

You heard it from me - or someone quoting me. I've been using it for years. You are quoting it incompletely. Here it is in full:

What you tolerate, you validate;
What you put up with - YOU DESERVE!
 
Sounds as if we're in complete agreement except for the use of the word "revoke". As I said, they can take it, but they can't revoke it. No different than your typical armed robber, except you can't report it to the police, and the courts won't do much about it either.

Ken
 
KMaurer said:
As I said, they can take it, but they can't revoke it.

I beg to differ. As the chief is the licensing authority; he/she clearly has the authority to revoke the license he/she issued - IF there is a statutory basis. This should be stated in the letter of revocation.

The absence of a revocation letter, combined with the utter lack of proof of any statutory violation, makes for a very nice petition. [wink]
 
Back to the original question, I'd start by trying to get copies of the docket entries in the case in which you "appeared." For starters, I doubt that the official disposition was "thrown out the window," which seldom appears in the docket entries.

The term "appear" is a bit misleading, since technically those who "appear" in any litigation in Massachusetts are (a) those attorneys who file an appearance on behalf of a party client and (b) those parties who appear on their own behalf ("pro se").

If a proceeding for a criminal motor vehicle offense was commenced, it would be technically entitled Commonwealth v. X, where X is the defendant (the person charged; you). That is most likely an "appearance," and so the answer to the question should be "Yes."

If a criminal proceeding was commenced, there are only three possible dispositions: GG (found guilty, either upon a plea, an admission of facts sufficient, or a trial); NG (found not guilty after a trial); and DIS (dismissed). The best result is NG. DIS covers a multiple of possible scenarios, ranging from dismissal for want of jurisdiction (which implies nothing either way about underlying guilt) to CWOF ("continued without a finding"), which can only enter after an admission of facts sufficient, and is taken by most folks to be the practical (if not legal) equivalent of GG.

However, there may never have been a criminal case commenced; you may have appeared before a Clerk or a Judge on an application for a criminal complaint (G.L. ch. 218, sec. 35A). After listening to the application and sworn statement in support of it, the officer may have decided not to issue a criminal complaint, which is the functional equivalent of a Grand Jury issuing a report of No True Bill, and is even better than an NG. Subject to more research and thinking about it, a person who shows up in court in response to a 218/35A probably hasn't "appeared," since the legal meaning of "appear" presupposes that there is a "proceeding" in which to "appear," and by definition until a complaint issues in response to an application for one, there is no "proceeding."

The foregoing is a longwinded response to the following effects: (A) you haven't given us enough information to answer the question, and you probably don't have the necessary information yourself; and (B) it is as likely as not that, once you get the necessary information, only a lawyer is going to be able to figure out the answer. Sorry about that.


I am facing the same problem. My roommate simply displaced my letter notifying my license was suspended (because my payment on a ticket was 5$ short), I was suspended and got pulled over one night. No arrest, just a ticket given to me to go to court. When I was at the court, the magistrates clerk did not issue a criminal complaint. Also was found "not responsible" for speeding, walked out clean I thought...and now this question haunts me.

NOW, did I officially APPEAR in court as a DEFENDANT even when no criminal complaint was made?
Because I am renewing my permit and I did NOT receive any criminal complaints, I believe I should tick NO. I may be wrong, what do you all think?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom