Urgent Message to those with FLRB restorations

[Comm2A]

From the meeting minutes of the FLRB in April:

Michaela Dunne, DCJIS Manager of Law Enforcement & Justice Services, updated the Board regarding the recognition of Board decisions by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Through informal discussion, the ATF has stated that they will no longer recognize Board decisions and that petitioners who are found suitable will remain federally prohibited from possessing firearms due to the Courts decision in Logan v. US, 552 US 23 (2007). In Logan, the court found that because civil rights were never lost, they cannot be restored.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/dcjis/flrb-meeting-minutes-april-2015.pdf

If you have had your rights restored by the FLRB for something that was punishable by >2 years, you need to get all of your guns and ammo out of your possession. The ATF's new position is that the gentleman's agreement that they would recognize the restoration is now over.

Mods, Please sticky.

 

[drgrant]

Stuck. So basically, they're going to go full retard on someone over a technicality now? Any viability to defend a person stuck in that circumstance? (although I imagine it'd be difficult to find a plaintiff under these conditions to begin with)

 

[MisterHappy]

that last line in the quote box in the OP is pure Kafka.

If you never lost your right, so therefore it can't be restored, how do you not have it?

- - - Updated - - -

that last line in the quote box in the OP is pure Kafka.

If you never lost your right, so therefore it can't be restored, how do you not have it?

 

[invaliduser]

If something was not lost it cannot be restored. So if it was not lost (ahem. taken away.), how does one not have it then?

 

[JayMcB]

Does this include expunged records? Or is that the right they never took away because it never happened?

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Ok, I'm sorry.... I'm going to be "that guy"

I don't understand what's happening here?

 

[soloman02]

Ok, I'm sorry.... I'm going to be "that guy"

I don't understand what's happening here?

Someone with a Mass DUI loses their firearm rights. However, according to SCOTUS, you don't actually lose your civil rights so therefore according to the ATF, the FLRB cannot restore your civil rights because you never lost them.

Got it? Still confused? Good, that's the way the government wants it.

 

[LoginName]

1) Any idea how many people will be affected by this?

2) I take it there's no more point in having the FLRB and it'll be disbanded.

 

[drgrant]

Ok, I'm sorry.... I'm going to be "that guy"

I don't understand what's happening here?

TLDR version is people in MA who had FLRB restorations are being ****ed over by ****ed up legal mechanicals at the federal level. At first the feds conceded it was retarded slightly, by essentially saying they wouldn't prosecute anyone under these conditions. Now they're upping the ante by saying "the lawr is the lawr".

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, unless there is more to this than I read there, there may not be a need to panic.

What Jason told me years ago was that BATFE would not recognize a FLRB restoration, BUT that they would NOT prosecute anyone with the FLRB restoration as a PP. Those people would flunk NICS, but could thus buy privately.

Now, if BATFE is reneging on their "amnesty" position . . . it is time for people to panic. So, has that actually changed?


<Repeated from the other thread>

Nothing new here. I recall Jason Guida back years ago telling me about his meeting with BATFE over this subject. He was extremely frustrated with their position. Spin forward a number of years and I discussed this with Michaela who was "hopeful" regarding convincing BATFE to change their position.

As much as I'd like the answer to be different, when I teach my MA Gun Law Seminar, I point out to my students WHY the decision by BATFE is valid given what is printed on the 4473 form. I suggest that folks here read the instructions on that form wrt restoring rights . . . it is very clear. Since MA does not take away the right to vote, hold public office (state house would be close to empty) or right to serve on a jury, FLRB indeed can not restore those rights which is what the Feds use as their litmus test.

I'm unsure if it would take a re-write of US Code (never going to happen) or CFR (also highly unlikely) to change that position.

So again, there is nothing new in that statement except that Michaela went to bat and also struck out. I'll give her (and Jason before her) for trying.

 

[LoginName]

OK, unless there is more to this than I read there, there may not be a need to panic.

What Jason told me years ago was that BATFE would not recognize a FLRB restoration, BUT that they would NOT prosecute anyone with the FLRB restoration as a PP. Those people would flunk NICS, but could thus buy privately.

Now, if BATFE is reneging on their "amnesty" position . . . it is time for people to panic. So, has that actually changed?


<Repeated from the other thread>

Nothing new here. I recall Jason Guida back years ago telling me about his meeting with BATFE over this subject. He was extremely frustrated with their position. Spin forward a number of years and I discussed this with Michaela who was "hopeful" regarding convincing BATFE to change their position.

As much as I'd like the answer to be different, when I teach my MA Gun Law Seminar, I point out to my students WHY the decision by BATFE is valid given what is printed on the 4473 form. I suggest that folks here read the instructions on that form wrt restoring rights . . . it is very clear. Since MA does not take away the right to vote, hold public office (state house would be close to empty) or right to serve on a jury, FLRB indeed can not restore those rights which is what the Feds use as their litmus test.

I'm unsure if it would take a re-write of US Code (never going to happen) or CFR (also highly unlikely) to change that position.

So again, there is nothing new in that statement except that Michaela went to bat and also struck out. I'll give her (and Jason before her) for trying.

Will this invalidate (or be revoked, suspended) the LTC's/FID's of those affected?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Will this invalidate (or be revoked, suspended) the LTC's/FID's of those affected?

If the Feds are now going to prosecute as PPs, then they should revoke LTC/FIDs to protect people from jeopardy.

I'm still unsure if anything has changed. I have a call into Michaela but she's been in training this week, so no idea when I'll hear back from her.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just spoke with Michaela and it is NOT good news.

The wording about restoration of rights is in the US Code (and thus will never change in our favor, as it requires Congress to change the law and would be political suicide).

Unsure if anything has really changed wrt prosecutions for people with FLRB restoration however. Both FBI and BATFE are involved in this.

What I will say is that when you try to buy and are denied, you are "flagged" and LE may well be notified.

If someone from MA with FLRB restoration were to purchase in a free state from a dealer and the particular crime was one recognized federally as "PP status", you still would be denied. IIRC there are some crimes in MA which don't elevate to the federal level and thus may be AOK anywhere with a FLRB restoration.

 

[soloman02]

Just spoke with Michaela and it is NOT good news.

The wording about restoration of rights is in the US Code (and thus will never change in our favor, as it requires Congress to change the law and would be political suicide).

Unsure if anything has really changed wrt prosecutions for people with FLRB restoration however. Both FBI and BATFE are involved in this.

What I will say is that when you try to buy and are denied, you are "flagged" and LE may well be notified.

If someone from MA with FLRB restoration were to purchase in a free state from a dealer and the particular crime was one recognized federally as "PP status", you still would be denied. IIRC there are some crimes in MA which don't elevate to the federal level and thus may be AOK anywhere with a FLRB restoration.

How does this affect those with DUI convictions in mass who were cleared by the FLRB?

 

[drgrant]

How does this affect those with DUI convictions in mass who were cleared by the FLRB?

They're basically still ​screwed because the misdafelony triggers fed PP.

-Mike

 

[Whutmeworry]

So I guess LoginName's comment still begs the question: Is there any real point to the FLRB?

 

[Whutmeworry]

IIRC there are some crimes in MA which don't elevate to the federal level and thus may be AOK anywhere with a FLRB restoration.

I presume these crimes would have to be punishable by jail sentences of not more than 1 year...

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I presume these crimes would have to be punishable by jail sentences of not more than 1 year...

I believe not reporting a hotel fire is one of the laws that screws you in MA< but doesn't hurt you federally....in either case, the things that screw you in MA but not at the federal level are in the law as making you unsuitable, but do not pass the threshold the feds have on prohibited person status...

Im sure someone will be along to correct me, but that was my understanding, and I defer to someone with more information (aka, don't take my word for it, as I am curious as to the actual things that screw you just in MA, but not federally)

 

[terraformer]

So I guess LoginName's comment still begs the question: Is there any real point to the FLRB?

Yes. Anyone who committed simple assault benefits. Some more obscure crimes are still covered too but not > 2 yrs. But the big one, the common one, is OUI. That's 75% of the FLRB reviews.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Yes. Anyone who committed simple assault benefits. Some more obscure crimes are still covered too but not > 2 yrs. But the big one, the common one, is OUI. That's 75% of the FLRB reviews.

So if you get convicted of simple assault, you are only DQ'd at the MA state level, is that correct?

 

[terraformer]

So if you get convicted of simple assault, you are only DQ'd at the MA state level, is that correct?

Yes, in the past. Recently assault became a 2.5 year penalty, but previously it was a 2 year penalty. Lots of people walking around with that.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Yes. Anyone who committed simple assault benefits. Some more obscure crimes are still covered too but not > 2 yrs. But the big one, the common one, is OUI. That's 75% of the FLRB reviews.

Wait a minute, I thought conviction of any crime where the punishment could have been >1 year screwed you federally, because the F 4473 question asks you exactly that.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Wait a minute, I thought conviction of any crime where the punishment could have been >1 year screwed you federally, because the F 4473 question asks you exactly that.

Question 11b, to be exact...

 

[Kevlar]

Wait a minute, I thought conviction of any crime where the punishment could have been >1 year screwed you federally, because the F 4473 question asks you exactly that.

Question 11b, to be exact...

Yes, as defined by statute:

(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include—

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title18/html/USCODE-2013-title18-partI-chap44-sec921.htm

So, excluding the offenses listed under (A) above, any felony conviction with a potential penalty in excess of one year incarceration, or any misdemeanor conviction with a potential penalty in excess of two years incarceration, renders one a federally prohibited person.

 

[LoginName]

Yes, as defined by statute:



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title18/html/USCODE-2013-title18-partI-chap44-sec921.htm

So, excluding the offenses listed under (A) above, any felony conviction with a potential penalty in excess of one year incarceration, or any misdemeanor conviction with a potential penalty in excess of two years incarceration, renders one a federally prohibited person.

And in this state, a 1st time DUI after 5/27/94 is punishable by 2 1/2 years jail time.

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices

... always pisses me off to no end

A person can bilk investors for millions, provide insider information, engage in fraudulent
banking/stocks scams, etc can still retain their 2nd amendment rights.

A person with a single DUI (at least in MA), got caught with a few joints, etc becomes a prohibited person.

Obviously some people are more equal than others.

 

[terraformer]

Wait a minute, I thought conviction of any crime where the punishment could have been >1 year screwed you federally, because the F 4473 question asks you exactly that.

I realize this is confusing, but 18 USC §921 defines crime punishable by >1 yr, as a crime punishable by >2 when it's a state crime. Furthermore, the state gets to define what is a crime punishable >2 yrs for the purposes of §921...

So, it's >1 yr, except when it's > 2 yrs...

 

[soloman02]

Yes, in the past. Recently assault became a 2.5 year penalty, but previously it was a 2 year penalty. Lots of people walking around with that.

When did that change? So a bar fight in Mass makes everyone a PP?

 

[terraformer]

When did that change? So a bar fight in Mass makes everyone a PP?

Battery has been a 2.5 yr penalty for some time now. Assault was more recently, but still a while ago. But yes, there isn't much in MA that doesn't make you a PP, especially for an LTC where ANY crime with violence as an element is a DQ as is any crime involving a firearm.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Battery has been a 2.5 yr penalty for some time now. Assault was more recently, but still a while ago. But yes, there isn't much in MA that doesn't make you a PP, especially for an LTC where ANY crime with violence as an element is a DQ as is any crime involving a firearm.

Before long jay-walking in MA will make you a PP!!

 

[terraformer]

The master crime list.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/admin/sentcomm/mastercrimelist.pdf

Read it and weep.

BTW: They don't publish the spreadsheet any longer but I have a copy of the 2010 version.