Was Told CWF for OUI disqualifies me???

[Shogun1011]

Hey all,

from all i've read, and what i was told in my Safety course... a Continuance Without a Finding for an OUI is not a disqualifier when applying for a Class A license.

However, when I met with my local issuing officer @ the Greenfield MA PD, he stated that he couldn't legally grant me a Class A or B license EVER if i've had a CWOF. He said that the best he'd legally be able to do is grant me an FID card...but even then i'd have to wait at least 5 years after my probationary period ended.

I've contacted a lawyer inquiring about this, and am awaiting a reply...but in the meantime, I wanted to ask you all your opinions on this.

What's the real "legal" answer to this?? Does anyone know?

Thanks for your help!
Shamus

 

[doobie]

Easiest and cheapest solution: Move to NH or VT.

 

[Shogun1011]

Easiest and cheapest solution: Move to NH or VT.

Is he right though? I mean, i know he has the authority to grant or not...but he was acting as though this was a federal law, and that he "couldn't" grant me one even if he wanted to.

 

[doobie]

Is he right though? I mean, i know he has the authority to grant or not...but he was acting as though this was a federal law, and that he "couldn't" grant me one even if he wanted to.

He has 100% authority to grant, deny, revoke an LTC-A, LTC-B. He has no authority over a FID. A lawyer would be the best person to discuss it with on if you could win an appeal or have a better chance to get it granted.

 

[Raoul Duke]

1. IANAL

2. It's not a federal law.

 

[WayneWong]

You should be OK according to this.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm

(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, or renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be issued such license, and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or authorized under this section, unless the applicant:

i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years; (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;

...

 

[doobie]

1. IANAL

2. It's not a federal law.

You should be OK according to this.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm

(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, or renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be issued such license, and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or authorized under this section, unless the applicant:

i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years; (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;

...

You are both forgetting the granting of a license (LTC; not FID) is discretionary...in the hands of the CLEO.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You need a lawyer - consider the usual suyspects.

Some lawyers take the position that a CWOF, that is beyond the "continuance" period is simply a dropped charge with no state level disability.

One lawyer, who unfortunately has given advice to a number of police departments, takes the position that a CWOF+ASF is the same as a conviction for licensing purposes. ASF stands for "Admission to Sufficient Facts to warrant a conviction" and is basically a "pre-plea" of guilty in the event you violate the terms of the CWOF. Some courts have a policy of not accepting any CWOF without an ASF, so it's not as simple as "just don't admit to sufficient facts".


For example, the Warren Police department takes this position:

MPORTANT EDITOR’S NOTE: A continuance without a finding (CWOF), although not a conviction in Massachusetts, will disqualify an applicant for a LTC or FID (5 years for FID’s), where it is based on an admission to sufficient facts. An admission to sufficient facts will be deemed a plea of guilt pursuant to c278§18. However, it is possible to have a case continued without an admission – which will not amount to a guilty plea or an incriminating admission. Therefore, police must search the file to see what type of disposition was rendered.

278 S-18 reads in part:

If a defendant, notwithstanding the requirements set forth hereinbefore, attempts to enter a plea or statement consisting of an admission of facts sufficient for finding of guilt, or some similar statement, such admission shall be deemed a tender of a plea of guilty for purposes of the procedures set forth in this section.

Whereas the Andover police department takes a somewhat different position:

A conviction is a finding of Guilty for an adult or an adjudication of Delinquency in the case of a juvenile. A dismissal or a continuation without a finding “CWOF” is not considered a conviction.

So, it appears that some PD's take the position that "in this section" refers to items outside Section 18 of chapter 278, whereas others don't. I believe the source of this confusion is one attorney who came up with CWOF+ASF=Conviction when writing a summary of the laws.

This was covered on another thread: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=18&page=5


It would be great is someone could bring the resources to get this clarified once and for all.

 

[WayneWong]

You are both forgetting the granting of a license (LTC; not FID) is discretionary...in the hands of the CLEO.

Yeah, but he was asking if he was statutorily disqualified. The LO indicated he didn't have a choice.

 

[JonJ]

Very good discussion on CWOFs in this thread.

 

[Raoul Duke]

You are both forgetting the granting of a license (LTC; not FID) is discretionary...in the hands of the CLEO.

Doobie....I know you're a smart cookie-I've read your posts.

Now, go read mine again and tell me where I forgot about the extent of the CLEO's power. Here it is again:

1. IANAL

2. It's not a federal law.

I merely said that there is no existing "Federal Law" (the OP's original question) that would block him due to a CWF for an OUI. Clearly, as you understand too, the chief has the power to do as he wishes, and the "discretionary power" you refereed to, is on display.

Now, having said that. Greenfield is an extremely Green town, and the CLEO he's talking about struck me as one of the more reasonable LEO's I've ever met outside this board. He's strongly pro 2A as his record suggests so while I don't disbelieve the OP, his description of the encounter doesn't ring true with my experience. The only part that does jibe with my experience is that the OP didn't receive anything at all because, when I was interviewed, the CLEO told me "We don't issue anything but A-ALP. Either you qualify or you don't-we don't give out class B or restricted class A.

So...I dunno. I understand that everyone's experiences may be different. And those of you who know me understand that I'm rarely at the front of the "let's pander to the LEO wagon," but something doesn't sound right. More details are needed.

 

[Shogun1011]

Thanks for everyone help so far! Just to clear it up...The officer did imply that the decision was at a state level, and out of his control.

I actually just left a message with him again mentioning that my court documents did in fact only list a CWF, and not a CWF w/ASF.

I also just pinged Cross-x an email.

What bothers me the most is that i'm a responsible, tax paying, upstanding citizen. I'm kind to people, I'm considerate of others, I've held the same job for the past 9+ years.... I don't consider myself a danger to anyone...especially "society". Yet i am in the eyes of MA law?

Pretty messed up.

 

[vellnueve]

TALK. TO. A. LAWYER.

No one else can help you get around this. Good luck!

 

[Shogun1011]

TALK. TO. A. LAWYER.

No one else can help you get around this. Good luck!

Yep... I did email Cross-X... as well as other lawyers in the area. Just waiting on a response.

 

[Raoul Duke]

You'll get one-a response that is. And again, I want to stress that I'm not judging you based on this outcome. It's just awfully inconsistent behavior. The only explanation that might make it logical (if infuriating) is that he (the CLEO) really does believe that there is some federal issue and truly believes his hands are tied. Whether or not they are is another story but your following up correctly so far with a Lawyer so, good luck!

 

[Shogun1011]

Now, having said that. Greenfield is an extremely Green town, and the CLEO he's talking about struck me as one of the more reasonable LEO's I've ever met outside this board. He's strongly pro 2A as his record suggests so while I don't disbelieve the OP, his description of the encounter doesn't ring true with my experience. The only part that does jibe with my experience is that the OP didn't receive anything at all because, when I was interviewed, the CLEO told me "We don't issue anything but A-ALP. Either you qualify or you don't-we don't give out class B or restricted class A.

So...I dunno. I understand that everyone's experiences may be different. And those of you who know me understand that I'm rarely at the front of the "let's pander to the LEO wagon," but something doesn't sound right. More details are needed.

Dont get me wrong... I hope i didn't imply that he was rude about it. He was actually very very nice. He apologised for not noticing the CWOF on my form earlier while we were on the phone discussing it. I have absolutely no issues with him at all. I am mostly confused about the law based on what he told me vs. what i read.

 

[Shogun1011]

You'll get one-a response that is. And again, I want to stress that I'm not judging you based on this outcome. It's just awfully inconsistent behavior. The only explanation that might make it logical (if infuriating) is that he (the CLEO) really does believe that there is some federal issue and truly believes his hands are tied. Whether or not they are is another story but your following up correctly so far with a Lawyer so, good luck!

No worries, Raoul. He did mention some recent changes to the law, and may believe (and for all I know, he may be right) that I am disqualified. I'll learn more when I get a chance to speak with him again.

 

[M1911]

Yep... I did email Cross-X... as well as other lawyers in the area. Just waiting on a response.

I suggest that you call one, instead of e-mail. You will need to actually pay one, by the way. Don't expect to get free advice (outside of the initial call when you describe the situation briefly and the lawyer suggests alternate courses of action).

 

[Shogun1011]

I suggest that you call one, instead of e-mail. You will need to actually pay one, by the way. Don't expect to get free advice (outside of the initial call when you describe the situation briefly and the lawyer suggests alternate courses of action).

Lol...You mean Lawyers don't work for free? Just messing with ya. I'm emailing because i'm at work and don't like to discuss the aforementioned "OUI" since I'd like to keep it as personal business.

 

[Shogun1011]

Update: Just talked to another Chief (the one who ran the safety course), and he confirmed that the CLEO is correct. Told me to contact a lawyer to get the CWOF expunged from my record.

Time to pay some money!!

thanks all,
Shamus

 

[vellnueve]

Best of luck.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just talked to another Chief (the one who ran the safety course), and he confirmed that the CLEO is correct.

The fact that another chief agrees is not proof of accuracy - talk to an attorney who specializes in firearms related issues. Assuming your CLEO is willing to issue but for what he considers a statutory disqualifier, it presents a rather interesting case.

 

[M1911]

The fact that another chief agrees is not proof of accuracy - talk to an attorney who specializes in firearms related issues.

+1

Police officers are not lawyers and MA firearms law is very complex and confusing. I strongly suggest that you never rely on a police officers word when it comes to MA gun laws. They may be well meaning, but they are often wrong.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also, absent case law precedent all you have are assertions from people who claim they know what it means. This would also be the kind of case GOAL should be interested in supporting, since a decision in keeping with what the law says (not something you can always count on in MA) would benefit many people, not just the appellant.

 

[Lugnut]

Another thing that may have a bearing on this is when the OUI CWF was? It's my understanding that many years ago an actual OUI "conviction" wasn't itself a disqualifier as it wasn't punishable by more than two years. That's not the case currently so a OUI conviction IS a disqualifier.

Also- isn't their a review board that Romney put in place for these types of things?

 

[Shogun1011]

+1

Police officers are not lawyers and MA firearms law is very complex and confusing. I strongly suggest that you never rely on a police officers word when it comes to MA gun laws. They may be well meaning, but they are often wrong.

+2 !!!

Just talked with a Lawyer who specializes in this type of thing... he said that a CWOF for OUI is not a disqualifier. He basically said that you have to "carefully" fill out the form and give them sufficient reason to believe that you're a stable person worthy of getting this type of license.

Lol...I asked him how much it would cost to fill this form out correctly to get my license...he simply said $1,500.

(So, If I pay a lawyer $1,500...then i must be a good citizen, right? haha...just something I found comical.)

 

[Raoul Duke]

So, If I pay a lawyer $1,500...then i must be a good citizen, right?

Now you're getting it!

A good rule of thumb to remember is that the MA gun laws are the result of an insidious team consisting of Cheshire Cat, Martha Coakley, and a drunken, belligerent striped-ass baboon!

 

[pdm]

Now now, be fair Raoul. It wasn't Coakley that gave us the AG's regs.

 

[drgrant]

Now now, be fair Raoul. It wasn't Coakley that gave us the AG's regs.

Yeah, but apparently she's still enforcing them. Since the entire thing is
contingent on the interpretations of the acting AG, she could fix the problems
overnight. IMO this makes her just as culpable as Reilly.

-Mike

 

[Baystatesuks]

Yeah, but apparently she's still enforcing them. Since the entire thing is
contingent on the interpretations of the acting AG, she could fix the problems
overnight. IMO this makes her just as culpable as Reilly.

-Mike

Culpable indeed!

This is why she needs to throw out all the regs in return for our support for her soon to be U.S. Senate bid.