• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Wild case resolved LTC suitability

Great work Neil. Just goes to show you suitability is alive and well (hopefully this decisions causes some chiefs to pause before they deny/revoke someone’s LTC). Even with no criminal charges people are still having their LTCs revoked.

Bruen definitely helped with licensing in this state but I laugh when I talk with someone and they think Massachusetts is 100% shall issue now.
 
Jesus f***ing christ on a cruise ship.

The thing that chaps my ass about this is the lack of respect for someone with a bias for action. When the shit hit the fan you do what you can with what you've got.

Here, there's no respect for that. It's sort of like the folks who won't pull someone out of a burning car because the victim might also have a spine injury. So, it's better to let them burn to death?????? The petitioner's actions were not unreasonable. He tried to do something that was NOT an unreasonable risk under the circumstances. He wasn't successful, but he also didn't make matters worse. Society really needs more people. like this, willing to put themselves out there trying to do the right thing.
Massachusetts disagrees with Graham; actively discourages helping self and/or others.

Rule #1 and #3 apply in this case.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    795.5 KB · Views: 63
Wakefield has a long 30 year history of pulling LTC's for no good reason

Wakefield P.D. sucks

What department had a convicted felon as a Sgt who had to leave their gun at the station when off duty?

What cop took the cocaine from the evidence locker in an attempt to get his friends case tossed.. but MSP had already tested and certified the results of the evidence.

What cop raped the relative of a Governor and got away with it.

What cop was quietly retired due to a raging drug problem?

What cop set many buildings on fire by making copies of the keys building owners left at the station to get in and rig the bombs to the telephones so he could dial the number and set the fire remotely?

How many GOOD cops have been run off that department by the aholes running the department?

How many retired cops were arrested for shoplifting?

What cop near the top of the Department was steering equipment contracts to a relative?
Any excuse to ban guns.

Wow.

Doesn’t the concept of exigent circumstances apply?

Based on Wakefield PD, the guy should have let the victim burn to death.
 
And then there was this case again pre-Bruen where the guy gets screwed because the chief said that they would never issue a permit to anyone that had had a restraining order against them even if it was vacated and the Court ruled that there was no right for an individual to have a firearm in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

There was some interesting logic in this one:

- Under MGL, a restraining order is issued only for a temporary basis until the person has a chance for a hearing. If the court finds the person is a threat the restraining order may be extended. It is very rare for a court to risk its reputation on wrongly refusing a RO, so the subject is almost totally helpless in court.

- Under MGL the fact that the TRO was extended means the court found the person to be a threat.

So, the chief's position was "Even though the RO has expired with no violation, you have a history of having been found by a court to present a threat of violence, and the expiration of the RO does not remove that finding from your record, hence no LTC for you".
 
Me objecting to the relevance of testimony that there were other more effective means of breaching doors was half the hearing. Plus objecting to questions concerning how many guns did the petitioner own. (The lawyer said "we need to know if he's some kind of gun crazy cowboy.")
Was the defendant a gun crazy cowboy? What the hell does it even matter in this case?
 
Wakefield has a long 30 year history of pulling LTC's for no good reason

Wakefield P.D. sucks

What department had a convicted felon as a Sgt who had to leave their gun at the station when off duty?

What cop took the cocaine from the evidence locker in an attempt to get his friends case tossed.. but MSP had already tested and certified the results of the evidence.

What cop raped the relative of a Governor and got away with it.

What cop was quietly retired due to a raging drug problem?

What cop set many buildings on fire by making copies of the keys building owners left at the station to get in and rig the bombs to the telephones so he could dial the number and set the fire remotely?

How many GOOD cops have been run off that department by the aholes running the department?

How many retired cops were arrested for shoplifting?

What cop near the top of the Department was steering equipment contracts to a relative?
Wakefield is a real winner, or is it loser, in the bad department game, but Framingham is trying. Licensing Officer LTC revoked for past felony, lied his whole career but kept on the force. Two officers stealing cash from the evidence locker. And it was civil forfeiture cash, so stolen from the PD after it was stolen by the PD. And never forget they shot an innocent old man in the back while he was laying on the floor. There would likely be more but despite the 125 officer size, the chief refuses to put in any type of cameras, car or body. Some day the shell is going to crack there and everyone will say "we had no idea".

But bak OT, good win @nstassel
 
There was some interesting logic in this one:

- Under MGL, a restraining order is issued only for a temporary basis until the person has a chance for a hearing. If the court finds the person is a threat the restraining order may be extended. It is very rare for a court to risk its reputation on wrongly refusing a RO, so the subject is almost totally helpless in court.

- Under MGL the fact that the TRO was extended means the court found the person to be a threat.

So, the chief's position was "Even though the RO has expired with no violation, you have a history of having been found by a court to present a threat of violence, and the expiration of the RO does not remove that finding from your record, hence no LTC for you".
you've never been a victim of the weaponization of a 209A in a divorce proceeding

I know people who have

"He yelled at me I'm afraid of him" is enough to get you on the wrong side of a 209A that is then converted to a 208 order in the divorce decree.

That then becomes a LIFETIME ban on gun ownership, or until the other party dies.

And because it is considered a "domestic" you are now subject to Lautenberg and the iirc 15 year potential prison sentence for so much as holding a gun or a bullet.

Your LTC gets yanked for almost anything that is not a felony and you can still get a FID at some point, you can still hop up to NH and go shooting with a friend.
You could also carry in a Constitutional Carry state in many cases

I am told they don't automatically hand out RO's like they used to, but probably over 90% of the applications are granted.

Especially if a "victim advocate" is involved and telling the applicant exactly what key words to use that will force a Judge to issue the order.

And why do Judges just issue them carte blanche?

Because they don't want to risk Channel 7 on their doorstep asking why they didn't save that poor defenseless woman from her homicidal ex



"yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife"
 
you've never been a victim of the weaponization of a 209A in a divorce proceeding
My point was that the technicality of a RO being a "finding" that one is "prone to violence" is bogus and a flaw in the system.

"He yelled at me I'm afraid of him" is enough to get you on the wrong side of a 209A that is then converted to a 208 order in the divorce decree.
I'd bet that "He never even raised his voice to me, but divorce is stressful, and I am worried that stress could bring out a violent side of him that nobody has ever seen or reported" would do it.
 
No that's why I objected. Can you imagine any other constitutional right that you can only practice to a degree?
Or require a license to exercise
Or that can be removed by anything other than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" finding by a court
Or that is not protected by a right to trial by jury

Clearly a right of the second class.
 
Back
Top Bottom