What is a "suspension"?

[milktree]

I have a student who *might* need to answer "yes" to “has any firearms license issued under the laws of any state or territory ever been suspended, revoked, or denied?”

Here's his story:

He had a gun stolen from his car. By his own admission he made a few compounding mistakes.

He reported it immediately.

The PD decided that was not ideal behavior, and took his LTC. His guns all went to his son's house. None were confiscated, or transferred

There were no charges filed.

The PD told him to go take a safety course and he could get his LTC back.

He and I spent some quality time doing an expanded HFS course.

He presented the new cert to the PD, and they gave him his LTC back. He did not have to re-apply or pay a fee.

His LTC is literally the exact same piece of plastic he had before. Same expiration date, same issue date, everything. I asked him to check if the PIN had changed, but that seems unlikely given that the LTC is the same one with same number.

I'm damn sure that his LTC was not revoked or denied. But "suspended" is tricky.

It seems like "suspended" could easily have a technical legal meaning beyond, "we'll just hold on to this for a while", and not apply here.

He reports, "License was reinstated like it never happened" "reinstated" and "never happened" is a weird set of words, 'cuz the first implies "something happened"


Unfortunately, he did not verify the validity of his LTC *while* it was in the PD's hands, so we can't use that as a data point.


Is there a way to tell if this counts as "suspended", or is in fact just the cops giving him a legally silent slap on the wrist?

 

[qwert77]

I would ask the issuing CLEO for clarification on what they did. Also since they know about it and he if renewing with them I would include it just to be safe.

 

[bfm]

Lawyer, tell them to find one. I have used Jason Guida and was happy with results.

Had relative who had one of those what to put issues, was 17 (which was over a decade in the past at the time) and it was CWOF type things. Jason did the research and went and found the original record so we had the exact details etc and knew what to put.

 

[milktree]

I would ask the issuing CLEO for clarification on what they did. Also since they know about it and he if renewing with them I would include it just to be safe.

Yea, I told the guy to do that. I fear that they might not really understand the consequences of what they say. I was hoping there was some magic phrase that would remove ambiguity.

 

[milktree]

MGL C. 140 § 131(f) says they're supposed to give you paperwork when they suspend or revoke your LTC, explaining why they did it.

They didn't give my friend who had his yanked, (209a) so I expect this requirement is widely ignored, and can't be used as indicator of anything.

 

[AHM]

Either there is some magical way (at least accessible to lawyers)
to pry the LTC history out of FRB,
or the police chief can say what actually happened.

But it's a fundamental mistake for someone with such demonstrated poor judgement
as to get a brush-back from the cops for illegal storage
to run his own mouth at the police chief in search of the answer.

Pay a good Mass gun lawyer to do the legwork.
They may even decide that the only prudent thing to do
is to answer "yes" to the suspension question, and hand-craft the explanation.

Keep in mind that even if the old chief remains a reasonable guy,
his replacement may be risk averse and have no personal knowledge of what happened.

Imagine the student applies in jurisdiction B, answering "no"
because town A's old chief says, "not a 'suspension'; you learned your lesson".
What if during renewal time jurisdiction B (re-)queries town A's records,
and it turns out that in the interim the new chief has memorialized the event
on the student's "permanent record" as a suspension?
Suddenly the student lied on his original application to B.

The Massprudent applicant has a lawyer write a narrative that the old chief physically endorses.

 

[Uzi2]

MGL C. 140 § 131(f) says they're supposed to give you paperwork when they suspend or revoke your LTC, explaining why they did it.

They didn't give my friend who had his yanked, (209a) so I expect this requirement is widely ignored, and can't be used as indicator of anything.

The suspending CLEO should have no problem penning a simple letter of explanation for the suspension and also include that the LTC was reinstated.

 

[moojpg2]

My town has done that to people, my neighbor accidently shot himself in the hand and they did the same thing, asked him to go take another training course and they would give him his license and guns back after, they actually casually held his guns in their armory locker too, they didn't technically revoke or suspend the license to where it was formally recorded anywhere, they literally just held the card in their desk drawer until the person went for more training and gave it back after lol we verified it by having my buddy in another town run his name and the dispatcher of the other town came back with "blah blah blah, has unrestricted LTC, blah blah blah, even though it was supposedly "suspended" until he went for retraining.

I feel like this is their way of saying "hey you f***ed up, but we don't want to f*** with your rights so here's ur mulligan, just go get more training." without any documented consequences. My town PD is very pro 2a though.

He should probably just call his town's licensing officer or chief and be like "hey remember that time....I know I messed up and learned my lesson, but did you guys actually record anything being suspended formally where I need to disclose it to other agencies, or was it a slap on the wrist ya'll kept between us, because I'm trying to get a permit in another state or town and I never received any paperwork or anything about it so I'm not sure how to answer this and I don't want to stir the pot for myself or your department?"

 

[greencobra]

this is a good learning experience for all of us. it doesn't feel like a suspension but just shows you got to do your homework and take nothing for granted.

 

[wilson911]

My town has done that to people, my neighbor accidently shot himself in the hand and they did the same thing, asked him to go take another training course and they would give him his license and guns back after, they actually casually held his guns in their armory locker too, they didn't technically revoke or suspend the license to where it was formally recorded anywhere, they literally just held the card in their desk drawer until the person went for more training and gave it back after lol we verified it by having my buddy in another town run his name and the dispatcher of the other town came back with "blah blah blah, has unrestricted LTC, blah blah blah, even though it was supposedly "suspended" until he went for retraining.

I feel like this is their way of saying "hey you f***ed up, but we don't want to f*** with your rights so here's ur mulligan, just go get more training." without any documented consequences. My town PD is very pro 2a though.

He should probably just call his town's licensing officer or chief and be like "hey remember that time....I know I messed up and learned my lesson, but did you guys actually record anything being suspended formally where I need to disclose it to other agencies, or was it a slap on the wrist ya'll kept between us, because I'm trying to get a permit in another state or town and I never received any paperwork or anything about it so I'm not sure how to answer this and I don't want to stir the pot for myself or your department?"

Is your neighbor a Kennedy? Geez, that is some special consideration on the PD's part.

 

[moojpg2]

Is your neighbor a Kennedy? Geez, that is some special consideration on the PD's part.

Town is small and very pro 2a, plus I think they felt like shooting himself in the hand was punishment enough. Town is pretty rural except for downtown and we are nowhere near it, He is on 10 acres and the negligent discharge happened on his back deck towards a safe direction, he was striking his gun out to field strip it to clean it. He hurt himself by not paying attention, there was very little they could jam him up on.

 

[67ray]

Don't ask the CLEO definitely stop right there.

If they did not say his license was suspended, then it wasn't. No more discussion, move along, nothing to see here.

When he goes to renew at that same PD, he should ask them if they box should be checked. Let sleeping dogs lie.
.

 

[AHM]

I have a student who *might* need to answer "yes" to “has any firearms license issued under the laws of any state or territory ever been suspended, revoked, or denied?”

Wait wait, I misread your original post.

I thought the student was actually applying for a (new) permit elsewhere
(say a non-res in another state).

Sorry about that.

---

Q: Is he actually just trying to get his ducks in a row for LTC renewal
in the town where they took his card for a while?

That takes the risks way down if it's the same personnel at the police station.

He really should have asked "what do I write down when I renew?"
when they returned his LTC. Ideally getting the party line in writing would have been the smart move.

 

[milktree]

Wait wait, I misread your original post.

I thought the student was actually applying for a (new) permit elsewhere
(say a non-res in another state).

Sorry about that.

---

Q: Is he actually just trying to get his ducks in a row for LTC renewal
in the town where they took his card for a while?

That takes the risks way down if it's the same personnel at the police station.

His current, valid LTC doesn't expire for another few years, so "renewal" isn't a current, pressing concern. The town that took it and gave it back is the same town that issued it.

This is entirely to make sure he has all the correct information for renewal or non-resident applications or whatever.

He really should have asked "what do I write down when I renew?"
when they returned his LTC. Ideally getting the party line in writing would have been the smart move.

Yea, he should have asked that. But he didn't even consider any of this *AT ALL* until I brought it up. He says he was told something about "like it never happened". If it were me, I wouldn't trust that, 'cuz "like it never happened" doesn't sound very legalese to me.

 

[KBCraig]

I know this is a Mass problem, where the laws don't matter and the rules are made up, but...

It sounds to me like his license--the physical plastic card--was never suspended. It was just seized temporarily.

While it was seized he had no proof that he was licensed; not that he needed it, since he stored all his guns elsewhere and didn't carry. When the physical card was returned to him, it was the same card, same dates, same conditions. That's not a reinstatement, that's just returning the card.

Legally (I know, it's Mass...) it sounds the same as if he'd lost his wallet (with the card), it was found and turned into police, and he received it back. After having safely stored all his guns with his son while he didn't have proof of licensing.

 

[drgrant]

Is your neighbor a Kennedy? Geez, that is some special consideration on the PD's part.

If you don't live in a douche town and your CLEO isnt a douche, that kind of thing is not very uncommon.

I have witnessed people "come back from far worse" because the chief in town X wasn't a dick.

A friend of mine would have been completely f***ed in any douche town and never gotten his LTC back after what he got bagged for. Instead, after his probation/cwof/blah blah shit was all taken care of, they let him go get a restricted LTC, and then years later he shed the restriction on a renewal

 

[AHM]

His current, valid LTC doesn't expire for another few years, so "renewal" isn't a current, pressing concern. The town that took it and gave it back is the same town that issued it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yea, he should have asked that. But he didn't even consider any of this *AT ALL* until I brought it up.

Mind you, that was not even one of my first one or two kneejerks.
I'm not trying to hold myself out as someone that would have thought of it in the nick of time...

He says he was told something about "like it never happened". If it were me, I wouldn't trust that, 'cuz "like it never happened" doesn't sound very legalese to me.

Faithful study of NES certainly trains one that
when it comes to omitting old problems from a Mass LTC application,
that there is no Expungement Fairy. Sometimes it's that the background check
is allowed to read records that are required to be preserved.
And some other times, it's that records that used to be paper-only
get exposed through computerization.

I'm not saying an LTC confiscated to force retraining is
as serious as concealing a juvenile shoplifting beef
or a trial that was CWOFed...

It sounds to me like his license--the physical plastic card--was never suspended. It was just seized temporarily.

A trouble with playing "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" games,
is that the police get to do it too; and their story usually wins.

Plus, I just thought of something else:

If one is denied down the road, and one's petition for reconsideration
depends upon "that's my story"-style blurring of the narrative -
well, that hack is particularly good at hand-feeding a jury some reasonable doubt.

But if you are fighting a denial triggered by someone deciding you lied on an old form,
I'm not sure that's going to end up before a (civil trial) jury.

And maybe a sole magistrate is less likely to suck for "that's my story".

 

[WPDC13]

As stated, he should have been notified in writing upon suspension if there was one. Also as someone mentioned, if the PD didnt mail it to him then he wouldnt know. The kicker is that you cant suspend without at least prompting that in the computer, so if he really wants to know he could just call the FRB because the letter automatically gets cc'd to them.

 

[RKG]

Either there is some magical way (at least accessible to lawyers)
to pry the LTC history out of FRB,
or the police chief can say what actually happened.

But it's a fundamental mistake for someone with such demonstrated poor judgement
as to get a brush-back from the cops for illegal storage
to run his own mouth at the police chief in search of the answer.

Pay a good Mass gun lawyer to do the legwork.
They may even decide that the only prudent thing to do
is to answer "yes" to the suspension question, and hand-craft the explanation.

Keep in mind that even if the old chief remains a reasonable guy,
his replacement may be risk averse and have no personal knowledge of what happened.

Imagine the student applies in jurisdiction B, answering "no"
because town A's old chief says, "not a 'suspension'; you learned your lesson".
What if during renewal time jurisdiction B (re-)queries town A's records,
and it turns out that in the interim the new chief has memorialized the event
on the student's "permanent record" as a suspension?
Suddenly the student lied on his original application to B.

The Massprudent applicant has a lawyer write a narrative that the old chief physically endorses.

This is extremely sound advice.

 

[dcmdon]

I would ask the issuing CLEO for clarification on what they did. Also since they know about it and he if renewing with them I would include it just to be safe.

This is the correct answer.

The same cops who will be processing his renewal are the ones who gave him the LTC back. Ask them. Because the reality is that even if they tell him to say yes, and its the wrong answer. They already know what happened. So its irrelevant.

Though this may matter if/when he moves. Most license applications ask if you've ever had a "firearms license" suspended. So it will probably matter at some point.

Either way, if the issuing authority says "no". Then its case closed. If they say, Yes, then there would need to be more discussion.

 

[Silverado]

Do you really want someone who is careless owning a gun.

 

[milktree]

Do you really want someone who is careless owning a gun.

Good point. We should exclude people who have gotten speeding tickets or have overdue library books too.

Maybe there should be some sort of intelligence test before you can own a gun.

But tests don’t catch everything, so we should leave the decision up to an expert, like a doctor or the chief of police; unless they both say you’re ok to own s gun, you probably shouldn’t have one.
</sarcasm>

Don’t be an authoritarian.

The guy got nailed with a “safe storage” violation, something that’s not even regulated in most states. Are you saying he should lose his rights because of that?

 

[Silverado]

Good point. We should exclude people who have gotten speeding tickets or have overdue library books too.

Maybe there should be some sort of intelligence test before you can own a gun.

But tests don’t catch everything, so we should leave the decision up to an expert, like a doctor or the chief of police; unless they both say you’re ok to own s gun, you probably shouldn’t have one.
</sarcasm>

Don’t be an authoritarian.

The guy got nailed with a “safe storage” violation, something that’s not even regulated in most states. Are you saying he should lose his rights because of that?

Bottom line he was careless and rationalization makes no sense.

 

[drgrant]

Do you really want someone who is careless owning a gun.

There are a lot of people who own guns that shouldn’t. I doubt this even qualifies in this thread if the person was whacked with something that shouldn’t even be a law.

The tyranny implicit in the government deciding or forcing that decision is 100,000 times worse than any shitty or marginal person having a gun.

 

[milktree]

Bottom line he was careless and rationalization makes no sense.

So, you've never made a mistake, ever? You've never got a speeding ticket? Never rolled through a stop sign at 3:00 in the morning when there was nobody around?

That's a mighty high level of perfection you're demanding to exercise a right.

 

[Silverado]

So, you've never made a mistake, ever? You've never got a speeding ticket? Never rolled through a stop sign at 3:00 in the morning when there was nobody around?

That's a mighty high level of perfection you're demanding to exercise a right.

No and what's more never had an accident that was my fault in sixty years driving. Mistakes I've make but never on this level.

 

[milktree]

No and what's more never had an accident that was my fault in sixty years driving. Mistakes I've make but never on this level.

On what level? You mean doing something that's not regulated at all in most places?

Furthermore, let's say he *did* have a stupid little trigger lock on his pistol, would you then say, "well, that's fine, because he's complying with Massachusetts' arbitrary storage requirement".

Is that actually your position?

 

[Silverado]

On what level? You mean doing something that's not regulated at all in most places?

Furthermore, let's say he *did* have a stupid little trigger lock on his pistol, would you then say, "well, that's fine, because he's complying with Massachusetts' arbitrary storage requirement".

Is that actually your position?

No he's not and your pushing the envelope.

 

[milktree]

No he's not and your pushing the envelope.

Ok, so what are you saying?

Spell it out for me.

It looks like you’re saying only perfect people should be allowed to have guns.

 

[pastera]

Bottom line he was careless and rationalization makes no sense.

Given the facts presented - A guy got a firearm stolen from his vehicle. How do you know that he was careless? Do you have insight into what actually happened?

All we know is "he made a few compounding mistakes" not what those mistakes were. Compounding mistake could be as stupid as having gun stickers on his car and leaving it in a bar parking lot after closing because he grabbed an Uber to get home.

No and what's more never had an accident that was my fault in sixty years driving. Mistakes I've make but never on this level.

Never had an accident or never found at fault for an accident?

What level is that - have you never had something stolen or vandalized?

Sorry but your position is so pretentious and self-righteous as to be laughable.