who's succesfully got their LTC after having DUI conviction expunged.

[evolved]

I got my DUI in 99, and was convicted. The licensing officer in my town issued me an FID after I was denied for my LTC. I didn't know about the misdefelony thing when I had originally applied.
I've owned my own business for a year now, and am ready to start the process to get the DUI taken care of. I contacted a lawyer that I found highly recommended on here. I was quoted a "little" more than I figured it was going to cost, but if that's what it takes, then it is what it is.
I've heard that even if the DUI is squashed, it still won't be enough, and I'll still be on the PP list.
Has anyone been in this situation, and been successful?

 

[42!]

Assuming this is MA. There is no expungement in MA. The record can be "sealed" but that only prevents employers, landlords, and the general public from seeing it. It still exists and LE still has access to it. If it's a disqualifier now it still will be.

IANAL but I suppose you could go to the fed court seeking injunctive relief and ask for the record to be expunged. If you go this route I'd be very interested to hear how it works out.

 

[Matt_SERE]

"squashed" is not a legal term. If your lawyer is looking to have the DUI expunged he/she still needs to seek to have your 2ndA rights reinstated by the MA FLRB.

If you already know of this from your lawyer I would stop posting details for now and then tell us how it went after the fact.

Best of luck to you and your wallet.

 

[evolved]

Yeah, I knew that wasn't the correct term. That's why I called a lawyer. hehe
Guess, I'll just cross my fingers, write a check, and eat ramen for the next few weeks.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The feds will not currently recognize a FLRB expungement, since they are not restoring the right to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury (see Logan v. US).

Comm2A would be interested in you as a plaintiff if you have not touched a gun (and thus been a federal felon in possession) at any time after your OUI conviction.

I cannot speculate on the chances of a federal prosecution, but if you possess any guns or ammo on that FID you are a felon in possession under 18 USC 922(g). The FID is not a protection from that charge.

The only forms of "expungement" that will currently get your gun rights back are a governor's pardon with the "includes firearms rights" box checked (no, you will not trick the system by claiming you want a pardon for other reasons - try that and if you get it, it will be a "without gun rights" pardon), or somehow having the case re-opened and disposed of with something other than a guilty finding. Oh, and good luck getting a govenor to sign up for giving a drunk back his gun (which is how the Globe will describe it).

Attorney Jason Guida is the go-to guy for record issues since he has worked inside the belly of the beast.

I got my DUI in 99, and was convicted.

If no one was injured, and it was a first offence, you either rolled the dice trying for a full acquittal or your lawyer wasn't good enough to get you the standard CWOF w/24d diversion program. Did you go cheap on an attorney or hire the best money could rent? If you fronted less than a $5K retainer, you probably got bargain basement representation. Justice is a commodity like any other, and you only get what you can afford to pay for.

Also, if the attorney did not advise you as to the lifetime loss of gun rights as a consequence of conviction, and the fact that the feds do not recognize an FLB restoration, you had ineffective assistance of counsel and were the victim of shoddy legal work at best and possibly legal malpractice.

 

[Matt_SERE]

The feds will not currently recognize a FLRB expungement, since they are not restoring the right to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury (see Logan v. US).

Comm2A would be interested in you as a plaintiff if you have not touched a gun (and thus been a federal felon in possession) at any time after your OUI conviction.

The only forms of "expungement" that will currently get your gun rights back are a governor's pardon with the "includes firearms rights" box checked (no, you will not trick the system by claiming you want a pardon for other reasons - try that and if you get it, it will be a "without gun rights" pardon), or somehow having the case re-opened and disposed of with something other than a guilty finding. Attorney Jason Guida is the go-to guy for record issues since he has worked inside the belly of the beast.

If no one was injured, and it was a first offence, you either rolled the dice trying for a full acquittal or your lawyer wasn't good enough to get you the standard CWOF w/24d diversion program. Did you go cheap on an attorney or hire the best money could rent? If you fronted less than a $5K retainer, you probably got bargain basement representation. Justice is a commodity like any other, and you only get what you can afford to pay for.

Also, if the attorney did not advise you as to the lifetime loss of gun rights as a consequence of conviction, and the fact that the feds do not recognize an FLB restoration, you had ineffective assistance of counsel and were the victim of shoddy legal work at best and possibly legal malpractice.

AKA the Wahlberg clause. The rumor is that he gave up when he realized that his 'pardon', not expungement, would not have restored his gun rights. He dropped his request.

I don't think he understood what Rob detailed above. I did and still wrote it out wrong. This is why Comm2A might be worth contacting and good lawyers are not cheap.

Again, good luck.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mark-wahlberg-seeks-pardon-past-crime/story?id=27391548

 

[Rob Boudrie]

AKA the Wahlberg clause. The rumor is that he gave up when he realized that his 'pardon', not expungement, would not have restored his gun rights. He dropped his request.

I have not heard of any "pardons w/gun rights restoration" since the Weld dynasty.

The Whalberg application was the kind of application I was thinking of - one where the applicant sites all sorts of politically correct reasons like "wants to live the rest of his life without the social stigma of being a felon" or as Whalberg claimed the need to get some sort of professional license other that firearms ("concession" in his case) when the real reason is an attempt to become a full member of society again (i.e., regain the right to be legally armed).

The need for a specific "firearm rights" notation on the pardon effectively makes it impossible to get pardon gun rights through the back door, and the front door is slammed shut, double locked, and barricaded from the inside.

 

[evolved]

The feds will not currently recognize a FLRB expungement, since they are not restoring the right to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury (see Logan v. US).

Comm2A would be interested in you as a plaintiff if you have not touched a gun (and thus been a federal felon in possession) at any time after your OUI conviction.

I cannot speculate on the chances of a federal prosecution, but if you possess any guns or ammo on that FID you are a felon in possession under 18 USC 922(g). The FID is not a protection from that charge.

The only forms of "expungement" that will currently get your gun rights back are a governor's pardon with the "includes firearms rights" box checked (no, you will not trick the system by claiming you want a pardon for other reasons - try that and if you get it, it will be a "without gun rights" pardon), or somehow having the case re-opened and disposed of with something other than a guilty finding. Oh, and good luck getting a govenor to sign up for giving a drunk back his gun (which is how the Globe will describe it).

Attorney Jason Guida is the go-to guy for record issues since he has worked inside the belly of the beast.

If no one was injured, and it was a first offence, you either rolled the dice trying for a full acquittal or your lawyer wasn't good enough to get you the standard CWOF w/24d diversion program. Did you go cheap on an attorney or hire the best money could rent? If you fronted less than a $5K retainer, you probably got bargain basement representation. Justice is a commodity like any other, and you only get what you can afford to pay for.

Also, if the attorney did not advise you as to the lifetime loss of gun rights as a consequence of conviction, and the fact that the feds do not recognize an FLB restoration, you had ineffective assistance of counsel and were the victim of shoddy legal work at best and possibly legal malpractice.

"Expunge" may have been the wrong term as well. I'm not sure what exactly will be done, but there will be a petition to the FLRB.
As for the DUI, there were some other driving related charges, and he gave me the option to plead guilty to them, and lose my license for a year, or the DUI and lose it for 90days. Being in my early 20's, stupid, and living 15 miles from work, my license was more important at the time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"Expunge" may have been the wrong term as well. I'm not sure what exactly will be done, but there will be a petition to the FLRB.
As for the DUI, there were some other driving related charges, and he gave me the option to plead guilty to them, and lose my license for a year, or the DUI and lose it for 90days. Being in my early 20's, stupid, and living 15 miles from work, my license was more important at the time.

Chances are pretty good the FLRB will rule in your favor.

The Feds, however, will still consider you a prohibited person and you will fail a NICS check. If you appeal the NICS denial, the feds will confirm the conviction, specifically ignore the FLB relief as not valid under federal law, and uphold the NICS denial. You will remain a federally prohibited person if the only relief is from the FLRB.

Any lawyer who is helping with an FLRB appeal who does not warn you of this fact is either ignorant or negligent and quite possibly incompetent.

Did the lawyer advise you of the gun rights consequences of the conviction? The misdafelony concept was well known and competent counsel should have advised you of this consequence. I still think the lawyer did a lousy job not getting you a CWOF w/24d program.

 

[42!]

Rob is the goto guy on this kind of thing, so I'd suggest listened closely to anything he has to say.
Having said that, it sounds like you're talking about restoring your gun rights with the FLRB. And as it's been said, that does nothing on the fed level. You may want to get more info on what kind of legal limbo that leaves you in, between state and federal. And I'd imagine it does nothing for you outside MA.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[42!]

I need to learn to type faster. Rob posted while I was still poking away.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

One OUI conviction in any other state, and he has his rights, but here in Mass the man makes sure you loose it all.

 

[M1911]

One OUI conviction in any other state, and he has his rights, but here in Mass the man makes sure you loose it all.

The problem is as much federal law as MA law.

 

[PaulR]

Poor guy.
All the money in the world and he can't own/carry any guns.

Given a choice, I think I'd take the guns.

 

[Smash05]

No expungement in MA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The problem is as much federal law as MA law.

it's Mass law the 2.5 year sentence can get imposed.
A friend in Texas is convicted of OUI and no issues, because of the sentencing guide lines. Granted this was over 18 yrs ago.

 

[M1911]

it's Mass law the 2.5 year sentence can get imposed.
A friend in Texas is convicted of OUI and no issues, because of the sentencing guide lines. Granted this was over 18 yrs ago.

But it is the Federal law that creates the whole misdafelony issue, and the ATF that doesn't recognize the MA appeal board that would grant someone an appeal to get an LTC.

 

[Maui5150]

The thing I hate in Massachusetts is these things stay forever. So many States I see, have a 6 year or so window. So you get a DUI, you are prohibited for 6 years, after that, your rights are restored. While I can understand alcohol or drug related offenses may indicate substance issues which could pose a higher risk, especially when dealing with "yout" mistakes we make should allow for maturity. After all, we elected a crack user to President and Barry was a long time abuser and held office.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

But it is the Federal law that creates the whole misdafelony issue, and the ATF that doesn't recognize the MA appeal board that would grant someone an appeal to get an LTC.

How? I am not aware? I thought it was the 1 year?

 

[JAD]

How? I am not aware? I thought it was the 1 year? View attachment 181985

Federal law prohibits persons convicted of "a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year", a term of art, from purchasing or possessing firearms. As a term of art "a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year" is assigned a special statutory meaning different from its facial meaning, which excludes crimes identified by state law as a misdemeanor if punishable by a term of imprisonment 2 years or less. OUI is a state law misdemeanor (since it is not punishable by state prison) but is prohibiting since it is punishable by 2.5 years HOC.

 

[drgrant]

I got my DUI in 99, and was convicted. The licensing officer in my town issued me an FID after I was denied for my LTC. I didn't know about the misdefelony thing when I had originally applied.
I've owned my own business for a year now, and am ready to start the process to get the DUI taken care of. I contacted a lawyer that I found highly recommended on here. I was quoted a "little" more than I figured it was going to cost, but if that's what it takes, then it is what it is.
I've heard that even if the DUI is squashed, it still won't be enough, and I'll still be on the PP list.
Has anyone been in this situation, and been successful?

If you were convicted in MA after May of 94 you're pretty much ****ed unless your lawyer can work a miracle and somehow get the case reopened and the conviction overturned. There is no expungment process in MA. If it happened somewhere else, different story.

-Mike

 

[snax]

Depends on your town man, I know 3 people with LTC's that have DUI's. One was denied in Lowell, moved to a neighboring town and got it. I know several with weed possession convictions, and all have LTC's. But I do know one guy with an AGGRAVATED DUI conviction from NH and was denied in one of the same towns, but this guy comes accross real sketchy to most people. He may have other stuff on his record tho.

 

[M1911]

Depends on your town man, I know 3 people with LTC's that have DUI's. One was denied in Lowell, moved to a neighboring town and got it. I know several with weed possession convictions, and all have LTC's. But I do know one guy with an AGGRAVATED DUI conviction from NH and was denied in one of the same towns, but this guy comes accross real sketchy to most people. He may have other stuff on his record tho.

No, it doesn't depend upon your town if the DUI was post 1994. If the DUI is post 1994, then they are a federally prohibited person. Nothing the local PD can do changes that fact.

 

[JAD]

Depends on your town man, I know 3 people with LTC's that have DUI's. One was denied in Lowell, moved to a neighboring town and got it. I know several with weed possession convictions, and all have LTC's. But I do know one guy with an AGGRAVATED DUI conviction from NH and was denied in one of the same towns, but this guy comes accross real sketchy to most people. He may have other stuff on his record tho.

If the OUI was a Mass case that resulted in a non-conviction, including a CWOF dismissal, it wouldn't be a per-se disqualifier. If it was a convcition from before 1994, when the 2.5 penalty was implemented, it would not be a per-se disqualifier. If it was an out of state misdemeanor DUI, it would not be a per-se disqualifier.

There are circumstances in which a misdemeanor marijuana conviction might not necessarily be a DQ.

​NH Aggravated DWI is a wobbler, that is to say can be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the underlying circumstances/ how charged. If it is based on criterion other than causing serious bodily injury (e.g. BAC over .16, > 30 mph over limit, passenger <16, eluding) then it is typically a misdemeanor. Accident causing serious bodily injury makes it a felony. Of course, there is also subjective suitability.

 

[snax]

If the OUI was a Mass case that resulted in a non-conviction, including a CWOF dismissal, it wouldn't be a per-se disqualifier. If it was a convcition from before 1994, when the 2.5 penalty was implemented, it would not be a per-se disqualifier. If it was an out of state misdemeanor DUI, it would not be a per-se disqualifier.

There are circumstances in which a misdemeanor marijuana conviction might not necessarily be a DQ.


​NH Aggravated DWI is a wobbler, that is to say can be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the underlying circumstances/ how charged. If it is based on criterion other than causing serious bodily injury (e.g. BAC over .16, > 30 mph over limit, passenger <16, eluding) then it is typically a misdemeanor. Accident causing serious bodily injury makes it a felony. Of course, there is also subjective suitability.

Perhaps that is the case. I do know they went to court for DUI, all POST 1994. Perhaps they were not actual convictions? I'll ask them, because I am now re-interested in this.
I know for a fact that none of them did a breathalyzer, and did lose their license for that, the rest of the case perhaps was dismissed for no evidence?
One of these guys was bagged for sleeping in his car in the breakdown lane of 495.

The aggravated DUI he blew something ridiculous like .24. Completely wasted, probably good thing they caught him, would have killed somebody.

 

[M1911]

Perhaps that is the case. I do know they went to court for DUI, all POST 1994. Perhaps they were not actual convictions? I'll ask them, because I am now re-interested in this.
I know for a fact that none of them did a breathalyzer, and did lose their license for that, the rest of the case perhaps was dismissed for no evidence?
One of these guys was bagged for sleeping in his car in the breakdown lane of 495.

The aggravated DUI he blew something ridiculous like .24. Completely wasted, probably good thing they caught him, would have killed somebody.

If their lawyer got them a deal for a Continued Without a Finding (CWOF), then they haven't been convicted and they aren't a federally prohibited person. The chief of police could still use discretion to deny them an LTC, but that is a different matter.

If they were convicted in MA of a DUI post 1994, then they are a federally prohibited person and nothing a police can do would change that.

 

[mrmike7189]

I agree CWOF and after 1 year on probation ...its dismissed. technically you are not prohibited person

 

[42!]

I agree CWOF and after 1 year on probation ...its dismissed. technically you are not prohibited person

"technically"...then there's that pesky suitability thing, in some towns at least.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But it is the Federal law that creates the whole misdafelony issue, and the ATF that doesn't recognize the MA appeal board that would grant someone an appeal to get an LTC.

But a clean read of the info on those questions on the 4473 form makes a clear-cut case for the Fed interpretation of PP here.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If their lawyer got them a deal for a Continued Without a Finding (CWOF), then they haven't been convicted and they aren't a federally prohibited person. The chief of police could still use discretion to deny them an LTC, but that is a different matter.

An OUI CWOF is structured so the penalties are pretty much like a conviction (fees, insurance surcharge, license suspension) but without the full criminal record stigma. I say "full" because a CWOF counts as a first offense for sentencing in subsequent offenses, and counts as if it werre a conviction for CDL purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

How? I am not aware? I thought it was the 1 year? View attachment 181985

The federal interpretation of Logan v. US.