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

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

This is confirmed. How I handle these cases is to get the conviction overturned. Requires a motion to vacate plea/new trial and is NEVER guaranteed. Once that happens, the case is open, and requires a trial or a new plea, which could end up with another Guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is confirmed. How I handle these cases is to get the conviction overturned. Requires a motion to vacate plea/new trial and is NEVER guaranteed. Once that happens, the case is open, and requires a trial or a new plea, which could end up with another Guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me see if I understand this, if you have a single conviction that makes you DQ you can pursue a pardon or get it re-tried with a possible not guilty, or a FRB restoration of rights. But if you are unsuitable because of a CWOF and you lose your administrative hearing (which is pretty much always) you're SOL and permanently unable to get a MA permit. Nice system

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
if you have a single conviction that makes you DQ you can pursue a pardon or get it re-tried with a possible not guilty, or a FRB restoration of rights.
The FRB restoration of rights is NOT recognized by the federal govt.
But if you are unsuitable because of a CWOF and you lose your administrative hearing (which is pretty much always) you're SOL and permanently unable to get a MA permit. Nice system
By "administrative hearing", I assume you mean district court appeal. Yes, you are correct - but at least a CWOF does not render one a lifetime federal prohibited person.
 
The FRB restoration of rights is NOT recognized by the federal govt.

True, but there are some things that can make you DQ under MA law and not a fed PP. The FRB restoration works for these.

By "administrative hearing", I assume you mean district court appeal. Yes, you are correct - but at least a CWOF does not render one a lifetime federal prohibited person.

Correct, because unlike a real trial, there is no witness testimony or questioning and hearsay is admissible and if it's from the PD it's taken as fact (even if their own documents say otherwise) .... and you're assumed to be guilty (not officially but that's the way it's applied).

And sure, you're not fed PP, but you are forced to move out of MA.
 
True, but there are some things that can make you DQ under MA law and not a fed PP. The FRB restoration works for these.
A MA OUI (the original topic of the thread) is not one of them.
 
​My apologies if I've gotten too far off topic. I'll go away now.
 
Let me see if I understand this, if you have a single conviction that makes you DQ you can pursue a pardon or get it re-tried with a possible not guilty, or a FRB restoration of rights. But if you are unsuitable because of a CWOF and you lose your administrative hearing (which is pretty much always) you're SOL and permanently unable to get a MA permit. Nice system

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

A CWOF does not qualify one as a PP. A conviction does. The FRB appeal might get you the FID card, but you would be a felon in possession at the Federal Level if you owned guns, and you won't pass a 4473.
 
True, but there are some things that can make you DQ under MA law and not a fed PP. The FRB restoration works for these.



Correct, because unlike a real trial, there is no witness testimony or questioning and hearsay is admissible and if it's from the PD it's taken as fact (even if their own documents say otherwise) .... and you're assumed to be guilty (not officially but that's the way it's applied).

And sure, you're not fed PP, but you are forced to move out of MA.

Or rather, move to another town.
 
Depending on geography, yes it does matter in my opinion

I'm hoping I misunderstand. Are you saying you are ok with the government telling you that you have to move, say an hour, further from your job, at your own expense, losing $$ on the house you invested in, away from your home town where your friends and family are, if you want to own a gun? Please tell me this isn't what you meant.
 
I'm hoping I misunderstand. Are you saying you are ok with the government telling you that you have to move, say an hour, further from your job, at your own expense, losing $$ on the house you invested in, away from your home town where your friends and family are, if you want to own a gun? Please tell me this isn't what you meant.

I don't think he's "OK" with any of it but rather suggesting that working the system over in that manner might be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying a lawyer to fight it.

Common example, someone moves into a douche town without knowing any better (say Brookline) and is told if he applies for LTC that he will get a restriction. Fighting that shit isn't going to go anywhere. That leaves gaming the system via some means or another, which may or may not invovle selling a house. Getting an apartment (or a plausible "front" residence like renting a room somewhere that would withstand scrutiny) in a non shit town for 3 months is probably a LOT less expensive than paying a lawyer for a legal challenge that probably won't work.

-Mike
 
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.

This happened to me. Choose your attorney carefully. COMM2A is an excellent resource for advice. I wish I knew about them before my FLRB appeal.
 
I don't think he's "OK" with any of it but rather suggesting that working the system over in that manner might be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying a lawyer to fight it.

Common example, someone moves into a douche town without knowing any better (say Brookline) and is told if he applies for LTC that he will get a restriction. Fighting that shit isn't going to go anywhere. That leaves gaming the system via some means or another, which may or may not invovle selling a house. Getting an apartment (or a plausible "front" residence like renting a room somewhere that would withstand scrutiny) in a non shit town for 3 months is probably a LOT less expensive than paying a lawyer for a legal challenge that probably won't work.

-Mike

Soon, the game will be over. There will be no where left to "move" to or "game".
 
I don't think he's "OK" with any of it but rather suggesting that working the system over in that manner might be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying a lawyer to fight it.

Common example, someone moves into a douche town without knowing any better (say Brookline) and is told if he applies for LTC that he will get a restriction. Fighting that shit isn't going to go anywhere. That leaves gaming the system via some means or another, which may or may not invovle selling a house. Getting an apartment (or a plausible "front" residence like renting a room somewhere that would withstand scrutiny) in a non shit town for 3 months is probably a LOT less expensive than paying a lawyer for a legal challenge that probably won't work.

-Mike

Yes along these lines.
 
Love the info in here!! I am currently working with comm2a since my property was sent to be destroyed even though I been in contact with the PD since my case was dismissed after being Cwof'd.
 
Are you guys familiar with the Binderup v. Holder ruling. There's hope..
I think with trump now in office things will move in the right direction... It's not right taking away peoples constitutional rights for the rest of their lives for non violent misdemeanors.
 
Are you guys familiar with the Binderup v. Holder ruling. There's hope..
I think with trump now in office things will move in the right direction... It's not right taking away peoples constitutional rights for the rest of their lives for non violent misdemeanors.
Binder up (as well as Suarez & Tyler) are moving us in the right direction. More importantly however, there's a case in DC that deals directly with the federal prohibition resulting from a Massachusetts OUI. It's still in the early stages, but we're hopeful. If we prevail it will open the door to challenging the Massachusetts license ban.
 
Are you guys familiar with the Binderup v. Holder ruling. There's hope..
I think with trump now in office things will move in the right direction... It's not right taking away peoples constitutional rights for the rest of their lives for non violent misdemeanors.

People keep saying things will change with Trump....you're going to have the same judges, same DAs, same political spirit of self entitlement, is he going to kill all of their jobs? What can he realistically do at the state level?
 
Binder up (as well as Suarez & Tyler) are moving us in the right direction. More importantly however, there's a case in DC that deals directly with the federal prohibition resulting from a Massachusetts OUI. It's still in the early stages, but we're hopeful. If we prevail it will open the door to challenging the Massachusetts license ban.

I'll be watching that case with great interest. [wink]
 
Has anyone with an oui conviction been granted relief from the flrb.

I'd consider pettitioning the board to at least remove the state level disqualification in case there are eventual changes in the federal laws.

Taking away someones constitutional right for a non violent misdemeanor seems unconstitutional...
 
Has anyone with an oui conviction been granted relief from the flrb.

I'd consider pettitioning the board to at least remove the state level disqualification in case there are eventual changes in the federal laws.

Taking away someones constitutional right for a non violent misdemeanor seems unconstitutional...

Welcome to MA.
 
Has anyone with an oui conviction been granted relief from the flrb.

I'd consider pettitioning the board to at least remove the state level disqualification in case there are eventual changes in the federal laws.

Taking away someones constitutional right for a non violent misdemeanor seems unconstitutional...

While the FLRB might grant it, and allow you to get an FID card its a trap. A person with that status is a federal PP and can't pass a NICS check. Assuming they get the FID and either buy FTF or borrow from friends or family they are a felon in possession as far as the feds are concerned and just waiting to get screwed over.
 
Assuming they get the FID and either buy FTF or borrow from friends or family they are a felon in possession as far as the feds are concerned and just waiting to get screwed over.
Which is why someone who already owns guns, but can't pass a NICS check due to a MA OUI is a potential plaintiff with what we call "baggage".
 
While the FLRB might grant it, and allow you to get an FID card its a trap. A person with that status is a federal PP and can't pass a NICS check. Assuming they get the FID and either buy FTF or borrow from friends or family they are a felon in possession as far as the feds are concerned and just waiting to get screwed over.

I was told by 2nd amendment lawyer that you must petition for ltc, and not fid...

Your saying that when people pettition the flrb. The flrb wont allow you to get a ltc, but we will allow you the get your fid... which is useless as far as feds are concerned...
 
While the FLRB might grant it, and allow you to get an FID card its a trap. A person with that status is a federal PP and can't pass a NICS check. Assuming they get the FID and either buy FTF or borrow from friends or family they are a felon in possession as far as the feds are concerned and just waiting to get screwed over.

If your petition is successful, you can get an LTC. This situation is not quite the same as the "FID trap". You're still federally prohibited, regardless.
 
Has anyone with an oui conviction been granted relief from the flrb.

I'd consider pettitioning the board to at least remove the state level disqualification in case there are eventual changes in the federal laws.

Taking away someones constitutional right for a non violent misdemeanor seems unconstitutional...

As far as I can tell, the FLRB continues to grant relief to eligible individuals including those with OUIs. As Mr. Boudrie and other have pointed out, the problem then becomes passing a NICS check.

Given the recent en banc victories in Binderup, Suarez, and Tyler, the time may be ripe to challenge the federal prohibition based upon a Massachusetts OUI. There trick however is not making one's self subject to federal felon in possession charges in the process.

If you plan to go through the FLRB process you'll have to complete all the LTC application requirements including taking a basic firearm safety course. The problem is that the documentation you submit as part of your FLRB petition usually serves as evidence that, as a prohibited person, you've been in possession of firearms.

You simply cannot challenge the federal prohibition if your FLRB petition contains evidence that you committed a felony.
 
As far as I can tell, the FLRB continues to grant relief to eligible individuals including those with OUIs. As Mr. Boudrie and other have pointed out, the problem then becomes passing a NICS check.

Given the recent en banc victories in Binderup, Suarez, and Tyler, the time may be ripe to challenge the federal prohibition based upon a Massachusetts OUI. There trick however is not making one's self subject to federal felon in possession charges in the process.

If you plan to go through the FLRB process you'll have to complete all the LTC application requirements including taking a basic firearm safety course. The problem is that the documentation you submit as part of your FLRB petition usually serves as evidence that, as a prohibited person, you've been in possession of firearms.

You simply cannot challenge the federal prohibition if your FLRB petition contains evidence that you committed a felony.

What if he takes another version of the basic firearms course? I noticed some places on Groupon use laser targets vs. live fire. Those laser guns might not be firearms per MGL/Fed law.
 
Back
Top Bottom