Trying to get my LTC back

[Doogz]

Hey everyone, its been a long time since I've been on this forum.

Quite a few years ago I had an OUI drugs charge with my firearm in the vehicle, and it was continued without a finding (first criminal offense I've had, and last ) I completed all the requirements of rehabilitation, probation with flying colors and early termination.

Just after the offense, my LTC was "suspended" and I had to surrender my firearms. Feeling very defeated during this time, I didn't bother trying to further pursue it in fear of seeming too bold. So, I gave it 6 years. The LTC is now expired and I have been communicating with my local licensing employee. She mentioned that I need a letter from a doctor stating that they don't believe I should be a prohibited person. Unfortunately, being quite a healthy individual, I haven't been to a doctor in years. I still tried to explain this to my new PCP, however they didn't feel comfortable providing me with this letter. Of course! heh.

Do I have any other options other than continuing to acquire this letter? Also, the licensing woman said this doesn't guarantee I get my license.

With my application packet, I wrote a long letter to the chief explaining my offense as well as including many personal references. I'm a business owner, own a house in a nice neighborhood, upstanding citizen, etc. I'm certain the letter never made it to his hands.

Thank you for any insight or help in this dilemma.

B

 

[snax]

Lawyer

 

[Picton]

Lawyer

Yup.

@nstassel

 

[aphextwin11]

Inb4 barrage of "errrrr omg dupe, stfu and call a lawyer!"



In all seriousness, if you are determined to sort this out, the best possible course of action would be to contact an attorney that specializes in 2A issues. Jason Guida is a popular choice, albeit he charges as much as he is worth (alot). There are a number of other excellent practicioners recommended throughout NES though.

Without knowing much about your situation, at a high level: if you've been convicted of any offense where the potential penalty was more than two years in prison, regardless of what the actual penalty you recieved was, you are now a prohibited person for life (at the federal level). 1st offense OUI in MA is ostensibly the most common instance of this. Sounds like you CWOF'd though, so that likely doesn't apply to you.

An alternative means of denying a license would be through 'suitability', where there doesn't necessarily need to be any criminal convictions your past. The chief can just say that for 'xyz' reason they do not find you a suitable LTC candidate. The grounds on which they can declare this are extremely discretionary and do not have to be "solid" so to speak. Your options for recourse are limited. It sounds maybe like this would apply to you.

There's a ton of content in this forum on fed PP status due to 'misdefelonies', suitability, and LTC hoop-jumping. You can certainly educate yourself through a little elbow grease here on NES, however all roads will point to hiring an attorney to guide your process should you be serious about it.

Best of luck

 

[drgrant]

Hey everyone, its been a long time since I've been on this forum.

Quite a few years ago I had an OUI drugs charge with my firearm in the vehicle, and it was continued without a finding (first criminal offense I've had, and last ) I completed all the requirements of rehabilitation, probation with flying colors and early termination.

Just after the offense, my LTC was "suspended" and I had to surrender my firearms. Feeling very defeated during this time, I didn't bother trying to further pursue it in fear of seeming too bold. So, I gave it 6 years. The LTC is now expired and I have been communicating with my local licensing employee. She mentioned that I need a letter from a doctor stating that they don't believe I should be a prohibited person. Unfortunately, being quite a healthy individual, I haven't been to a doctor in years. I still tried to explain this to my new PCP, however they didn't feel comfortable providing me with this letter. Of course! heh.

Do I have any other options other than continuing to acquire this letter? Also, the licensing woman said this doesn't guarantee I get my license.

With my application packet, I wrote a long letter to the chief explaining my offense as well as including many personal references. I'm a business owner, own a house in a nice neighborhood, upstanding citizen, etc. I'm certain the letter never made it to his hands.

Thank you for any insight or help in this dilemma.

B

You need to stop posting and contact a firearms attorney, yesterday. Neil Tassel is great, for starters.

I'm going to be that guy- but frankly you should have done that even before talking to the LO. People with priors are always a problem in MA, and doing the dance has its own set of
garbage.

If you don't have the money to do this, stop until you do, because you could be screwing yourself potentially. It's actually way cheaper to not make mistakes in these processes than it is to have to go back and try to undo them later.

 

[aphextwin11]

You need to stop posting and contact a firearms attorney, yesterday. Neil Tassel is great, for starters.

I'm going to be that guy- but frankly you should have done that even before talking to the LO. People with priors are always a problem in MA, and doing the dance has its own set of
garbage.

If you don't have the money to do this, stop until you do, because you could be screwing yourself potentially. It's actually way cheaper to not make mistakes in these processes than it is to have to go back and try to undo them later.

^ this x100000000000000000000000

 

[moojpg2]

You need to stop posting and contact a firearms attorney, yesterday. Neil Tassel is great, for starters.

I'm going to be that guy- but frankly you should have done that even before talking to the LO. People with priors are always a problem in MA, and doing the dance has its own set of
garbage.

If you don't have the money to do this, stop until you do, because you could be screwing yourself potentially. It's actually way cheaper to not make mistakes in these processes than it is to have to go back and try to undo them later.

This x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[CATI]

What happened to your firearms and what was the value?

 

[Sparky123]

 

[Doogz]

Thanks everyone, in process of contacting the recommended attorneys above.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Thanks everyone, in process of contacting the recommended attorneys above.

I just want to add another attorney to the recommendation list: Joe Simons. He helped me out with a LTC denial. 10/10 would use again. You can get a free consultation: Massachusetts License to Carrry Appeal Attorneys | Simons Law Office

It may also be worth it to at least also try contacting Comm2A ([email protected]). It’s a long shot, but It’s about time someone sued the state over the BS “suitability” provision of the LTC statute. It shouldn’t still be a thing in a post-Bruen world.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I just want to add another attorney to the recommendation list: Joe Simons. He helped me out with a LTC denial. 10/10 would use again. You can get a free consultation: Massachusetts License to Carrry Appeal Attorneys | Simons Law Office

It may also be worth it to at least also try contacting Comm2A ([email protected]). It’s a long shot, but It’s about time someone sued the state over the BS “suitability” provision of the LTC statute. It shouldn’t still be a thing in a post-Bruen world.

particularly, if you haven't touched a firearm since then, you might be who they're looking for...

 

[Doogz]

What happened to your firearms and what was the value?

I was able to sell them to a local ffl for a very low price..

 

[CATI]

I was able to sell them to a local ffl for a very low price..

Thanks for the info. At least it did not end up in the private collection of someone on the force

 

[appraiser]

well since the Bruen decision, you have a little help from the Supreme Court on your side, but not much.

If the drug was Pot, even better.

The local L.O. is talking out her ass, at what point were you a PP?

You were not charged or convicted of possession of a class (insert letter here) drug

The OUI was CWOF'd

IANAL but they are pulling a back door "suitability" denial if they say you can't get a LTC

A Doctors letter is not needed, and I'd be surprised if they were legally able to require that as part of the requirement to get a LTC.

I'd say as others did to Lawyer up, get a copy of your CORI, go to the courthouse and get as many of the files including disposition paperwork and have it ready for the Attorney.

If you wanted to test the waters, apply for a FID but if you are denied ( not likely but possible) it will ding you pretty badly.

 

[Doogz]

well since the Bruen decision, you have a little help from the Supreme Court on your side, but not much.

If the drug was Pot, even better.

The local L.O. is talking out her ass, at what point were you a PP?

You were not charged or convicted of possession of a class (insert letter here) drug

The OUI was CWOF'd

IANAL but they are pulling a back door "suitability" denial if they say you can't get a LTC

A Doctors letter is not needed, and I'd be surprised if they were legally able to require that as part of the requirement to get a LTC.

I'd say as others did to Lawyer up, get a copy of your CORI, go to the courthouse and get as many of the files including disposition paperwork and have it ready for the Attorney.

If you wanted to test the waters, apply for a FID but if you are denied ( not likely but possible) it will ding you pretty badly.

I thought about the FID but, yes, Id rather not take any more dings. Just in case. What do you mean by PP abbreviation?

 

[MAJoe]

I thought about the FID but, yes, Id rather not take any more dings. Just in case. What do you mean by PP abbreviation?

Prohibited Person. Federally ineligible to posses firearms and ammunition. A guilty finding for a first time Mass OUI makes you one.

 

[appraiser]

but a CWOF does not

Under the old rules a CWOF could be used to deny on "suitability" but Bruen raised the bar on that substantially.

The department IMHO would have a hard time explaining to a District Court Judge on a appeal denial, in a post Bruen world that a CWOF for Operating Under with no possession charges along with it could hold water.

They would have to be able to with articulate specificity why YOU are not allowed to hold a LTC.

" Just because" doesn't meet the Bruen standard.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

but a CWOF does not

Under the old rules a CWOF could be used to deny on "suitability" but Bruen raised the bar on that substantially.

The department IMHO would have a hard time explaining to a District Court Judge on a appeal denial, in a post Bruen world that a CWOF for Operating Under with no possession charges along with it could hold water.

They would have to be able to with articulate specificity why YOU are not allowed to hold a LTC.

" Just because" doesn't meet the Bruen standard.

You have been around here a long time, so I am surprised you think this is how the system works.

LEO says "Based on a history of bad judgement, I have determined this person would present a danger to public safety if he is allowed to own and carry a gun". The key under the new standard is to allege "Dangerousness". Try getting a court to say "The dedicated public official is wrong, and this judge is willing to be mentioned as the one who ordered return of the appellant's LTC if this person is involved in an incident."

How it goes:

Step 1: Court: Will take it under advisement
Step 2: Letter denying appeal arrives in a week or three.
Step 3: Attorney advises as to cost of appeal; advises client prevailing is very unlikely and suggest client now waste his/her money

 

[aphextwin11]

but a CWOF does not

Under the old rules a CWOF could be used to deny on "suitability" but Bruen raised the bar on that substantially.

The department IMHO would have a hard time explaining to a District Court Judge on a appeal denial, in a post Bruen world that a CWOF for Operating Under with no possession charges along with it could hold water.

They would have to be able to with articulate specificity why YOU are not allowed to hold a LTC.

" Just because" doesn't meet the Bruen standard.

 

[appraiser]

It would be hard to get that argument across on a CWOF DUI with no other charges, and none prior or subsequent.

A good lawyer will ask the Chief " have you issued any LTC's to any persons that have had a CWOF for DUI in the past? "

"Chief do any members of your department have a CWOF on their record? Any past restraining orders that have been vacated? Do you issue them LTC's?"

Rob I understand where you are coming from, and prior to Bruen that was absolutely the norm in District Courts

Was it Kelliher v the Wakefield C.O.P. a while back that nailed suitability even after a 209A was vacated?

I may be an optimist but I hope post Bruen, that these games will go away

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It would be hard to get that argument across on a CWOF DUI with no other charges, and none prior or subsequent.

A good lawyer will ask the Chief " have you issued any LTC's to any persons that have had a CWOF for DUI in the past? "

"Chief do any members of your department have a CWOF on their record? Any past restraining orders that have been vacated? Do you issue them LTC's?"

Rob I understand where you are coming from, and prior to Bruen that was absolutely the norm in District Courts

Was it Kelliher v the Wakefield C.O.P. a while back that nailed suitability even after a 209A was vacated?

I may be an optimist but I hope post Bruen, that these games will go away

I hope so too, but district courts can interpret Bruen any way they wish. The falls into the category of "I hope I am wrong but fear that I am right". I am aware of one district court safe storage gun case with a questionable warrant where the judge started with "Counsel, I don't want to hear anything about the warrant". That case ended with a CWOF and the subject eventually got his LTC back, so there was no upstream appeal.

But, Bruen does provide an attack surface up the food chain and quite possible federally.

Just look at how the district courts still used Moyer as the standard even after (pre-Bruen) the MA Legislature changed the standard form to dangerousness.

 

[appraiser]

hell I'd be looking at the "Laurie List" or "Brady List" for the department and seeing how many if any Officers are on it, for what reason, and ask the Chief in open court before a District Court Judge if those Officers are issued LTC's by the department, are carrying department issued weapons, and if he thinks that an Officer that is so compromised that they have to be disclosed to Defense Attorneys as having credibility issues are suitable to carry a weapon.

There are what over 20 cops just on the Medford PD that are on the Middlesex County DA's Exculpatory Evidence List.

IMHO IANAL it is hard for a Chief to deny you a license under Bruen with a department full of compromised officers.

PS a CWOF to a DUI gets you on the list

 

[Rob Boudrie]

IMHO IANAL it is hard for a Chief to deny you a license under Bruen with a department full of compromised officers.

Morally and fairly? Absolutely very hard.

In practice? Easy.

You are not allowed discovery in an LTC appeal, and the Brady list is only available to check officers scheduled to testify in a case you are handling; it is not available to those outside LE as a "list".

 

[TayNinh_66]

Your attorney will assist you with preparing your LTC application.
You might actually receive it, If you get a suitability denial you have 90 days for your lawyer to file appeal with either District Court or Board.
You attorney will assist you in documentation of your outstanding citizenship, letters from everyone you know, etc.
If District Court denies you can go to Superior Court. Expensive process but Superior Court judges actually read and follow the laws.

I highly doubt any medical or clinical practitioner will assume the liability of declaring anyone safe to carry firearms.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I highly doubt any medical or clinical practitioner will assume the liability of declaring anyone safe to carry firearms.

The key is to make a specific reasonable ask, like "I am not aware of any medical condition that makes Mr X unqualified for firearms ownership."

Or you can get a psych consult. Ask Rick Harrison would say "I know a guy". No details on the forum but think "Board certified 07 SOT"

 

[In God We Trust]

If the charge was CWOF, you are not prohibited from owning firearms. I guess they could still play games with you, but the lawyer should be able to fix this pretty easily.

I usually shit on the “call a lawyer and delete thread!” guys, but it’s probably a good idea. Again, you are not prohibited as you were technically never convicted of a crime.

 

[42!]

You have been around here a long time, so I am surprised you think this is how the system works.

LEO says "Based on a history of bad judgement, I have determined this person would present a danger to public safety if he is allowed to own and carry a gun". The key under the new standard is to allege "Dangerousness". Try getting a court to say "The dedicated public official is wrong, and this judge is willing to be mentioned as the one who ordered return of the appellant's LTC if this person is involved in an incident."

How it goes:

Step 1: Court: Will take it under advisement
Step 2: Letter denying appeal arrives in a week or three.
Step 3: Attorney advises as to cost of appeal; advises client prevailing is very unlikely and suggest client now waste his/her money

Me and @Rob Boudrie have been known to disagree, but he's spot on this.
From someone who's been through it. No Dr letter will help, the best an eval will say is you are a minimal risk, that's the zero on the scale "minimal". And the LO will point to that as proof.
You're getting a lawyer, GOOD. That's your best bet. But start planning your move to NH, just saying.
And don't assume you'll get an FID. The definition of suitability is the same for both the ltc and fid, the process is a little differnt. The LO is aware that if they give you an fid it will work against them if you then apply for an ltc. You'll end up with a denial that you will have to disclose in any other state, forever.

BTW NH and Utah don't give a shit about what MA thinks, resident or non-resident ltc, or even if MA has denied you. And they both will issue a non-res even if you don't have one in your home state.

 

[appraiser]

Morally and fairly? Absolutely very hard.

In practice? Easy.

You are not allowed discovery in an LTC appeal, and the Brady list is only available to check officers scheduled to testify in a case you are handling; it is not available to those outside LE as a "list".

Several DA's in MA have released their Brady List, including the Suffolk and Middlesex county District Attorneys

Some have done so willingly, some by F.O.I.A. request.

This is Norfolk County via a FOIA

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Middlesex County

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Suffolk County ( it is old)

View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FzZNmbWDfH_qjvQpACU3oS5PeEfHXW0uhTkNpHV3T1g/edit#gid=1556619442

 

[42!]

Several DA's in MA have released their Brady List, including the Suffolk and Middlesex county District Attorneys

Some have done so willingly, some by F.O.I.A. request.

This is Norfolk County via a FOIA

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Middlesex County

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Suffolk County ( it is old)

View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FzZNmbWDfH_qjvQpACU3oS5PeEfHXW0uhTkNpHV3T1g/edit#gid=1556619442

Strange that Lt. Harry Wareham isn't on the FPD list. The man lied on his own LTC application/renewal for his entire career and got caught. If that doesn't spell untrustworthy I don't know what does.

Sorry off topic