Vacated restraining orders and LTC

rep308

NES Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
10,274
Likes
11,937
Location
inside the 495 Belt
Feedback: 68 / 0 / 0
Not me, but from a friend. I have linked him to the firearms attorneys on this board. Here is his story, names and town removed: He had a restraining order (RO) issued on him from a messy divorce 6 or so years ago.

Last night I had my appointment with the firearms officer in XXX who denied me a LTC (period). They said the decision was not in the chief’s hands, that it is an automatic denial because I had a RO issued against me at one time. (It’s long been vacated.) They said there is an appeals process which I need to follow and should I choose to do so, They (name removed) will process my application into the state with my check for $100. Apparently, all my background checks were completed and references checked.

I asked specifically why I was being denied since I no longer had an RO and the decision lay at the sole discretion of the chief. They indicated that the chief did not have the sole discretion to grant me the license. When I asked about how the RO impacted the decision, the response I received was that “the fact that the judge continued the RO after the hearing, 10 days after it was first issued” was the issue. They said apparently the judge felt it was necessary to continue. Not that it was in place for 2 or 3 years at all but simply the fact that the RO came to be after the initial hearing.


Comments please and my friend will contact an attorney
 
The applicant is facing one of two problems:

#1: Obstinance where they don't WANT to issue an LTC. There was a case (Howard v. Wakefield, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=appslip/appAug03x&invol=1) where the court upheld a chief's decision to deny an LTC because a restraining order had once been issued.

#2: Ignorance - the chief actually thinks that you are statuatorily denied.

The first order of business for your attorney should be to determine if you are facing #1 or #2 above. If it's #2, the attorney should know how to provide verifiable information to the chief. Alternatively, if your friend is to cheap to pay for an attorney, he could try to talk the chief into checking with Chief Ron Glidden of the GCAB on this issue.

Of course "out of the chief's hands" could also mean "The chief does not have a choice because he wrote himself a policy memo prohibiting himself from issuing an LTC under such circumstances", in which case your friend may be screwed.
 
This is why I am so pissed that the SCOUS refused to hear the Lautenberg case, although it wouldn't have made a difference in MA they had their own version long before Lautenberg slid through.

I know someone who asked for a 209A order who got denied a LTC because they requested it.

Lawyer up is his only choice, or move to NH. It's cheaper to move to NH and the result is assured.
 
Back
Top Bottom