I have a friend at work who had gotten 3 oui's many years ago. His last one was in the early 80's. He turned his life around and has not touched alcohol for over 20 years. I feel bad for him because he is such a nice guy and loves guns. He comes to me at least once a week telling me about a new gun he saw on the Internet and how he wishes he wasn't a screw up when he was younger. Would it be possible for my friend at work to ever get a ltc or is it not worth him even trying?
-
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.
Would it be possible to get a ltc?
- Thread starter Busa
- Start date
DickWanner
Banned
Depends on the maximum penalty for the second and third OUI as to whether or not he is statutorily DQ'd, but even if he wasn't he would most likely be denied due to suitability.
IMO it depends on the town and the disposition of the cases. I know at least one guy who had a couple of pre-94 DUI incidents on his record and has an LTC in a green town. It depends on convictions vs cwofs, etc. Yeah, in a red or a yellow town he's pretty much f***ed, but in the ones that actually only push statutory limits, he might have a fighting chance depending on the dispositions of his DUIs.
-Mike
IMO before your friend even thinks about applying he/she should contact a lawyer and see about having the records sealed. Where the offense occurred and that states laws about record sealing play a role too. Don't make the mistake of assuming what layman tell you to be fact. People are well meaning and will tell you what they think is true and sometimes, it's not. If your friend has truly become a better citizen shouldn't the first reward be having the record cleared?
This.
Depending on the maximum penalty that could have been imposed at the time, he may or may not even be eligible for an FID... let alone an LTC.
The somewhat promising news is that in the early 80's, OUI wasn't taken nearly as serious as it is nowadays... the penalties back then were fairly mild.
Bad nes is that even if that were the case, the chief could still deny him on the suitability issue.
Not so when applying for an FID.
fencer
NES Member
I am not trying to be a smartass, but can someone tell me what it means to have your record "Sealed" or "Cleared"? I see this mentioned often and have my doubts that someone with a conviction can just make them invisible to those looking.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Likes
- 236
In short, you will NEVER get your record cleared. Not in Mass. If you have it sealed, it's still visible to Police. Therefore, failure to mention an arrest because you "thought" your record was sealed, will probably result in a DQ for providing false information.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,518
- Likes
- 33,531
It means that non-LEO inquiries (employment, etc.) and *some* LEO inquiries will not see them. It also means, that in certain situations, you are entitled to the use of legal fiction (answering "no" to a have you ever been charged or convicted question). "Sealed" is not an absolute bar to to LE seeing the record or, at minimum, being told a sealed record exists.
MA LE agencies do NOT recognize sealing as relieving the applicant of the obligation to answer YES to the record question (#10 on resident apps), so "sealing" is of little benefit in MA except in regards to non-LEO employment record checks.
Many states have procedures where persons with old records for minor offenses can effectively be "scrubbed" with relatively minor effort after a certain amount of time - expunging the conviction or retroactively dismissing the charge (in CA, some felony convictions can automatically be downgraded to misdemeanor after a number of years). MA is not one of them. In fact, the state is most helpful in assisting PDs gain access to sealed records for the purposes of evaluating LTC applicants.
Last edited:
MetalgodZ
NES Member
IIRC, no...not if he's statutorily prohibited here. 2 1/2 years max sentence = federally prohibited person, and since MA will not un-DQ someone for an LTC, the feds determine that the person hasn't had their firearms rights restored by their state, and so they remain a federally prohibited person.
One of many reasons I want out of MA.
Maybe. It would depend on the actual disposition of the cases. If any of the charges resulted in a felony conviction which carried a potential sentence of incarceration in excess of 1 year, or resulted in a misdemeanor conviction carrying a potential sentence of incarceration in excess of 2 years, he would be Federally DQ'd.
One can be statutorily prohibited from obtaining a LTC in MA and not be Federally DQ'd.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,518
- Likes
- 33,531
Except felony anti-trust or restraint of trade which are not federal DQs.
True, but MA seems to use 2.5 years as the theoretical limit for a LOT of misdemeanors, so it is MUCH easier to get federally DQed for a petty crime in MA that in most, perhaps all, other states.
I want to echo what Len S. and Mr. Boudrie have stated. There are basically no such things as sealed records in Mass. This is based on my personal experience back when I worked in the licensure process.
Mark L.
Mark L.
DickWanner
Banned
I completely agree.
lancecolonel
NES Member
1)
not to sound like i'm starting a class-warfare pissing contest here, but how many "average joes" get convicted of these crimes? when is a felony not a felony? when a business bigwig commits it, right?
2)
it's beyond time to look at sentencing requirements.......
(edited for quote placement)
Show-off.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
(you're right of course, but I was addressing the DUIs)No argument here.
Without seeing a copy of his CORI I can't even guess as to his status WRT a LTC of any kind.
Back before Melanies law, a DWI would fall off your record after 10 years. It would have been possible for your friend to have had a DWI in 1960, 1971, and 1982, and they would all have been charged as a first offense. Also the way DWI's were treated back then was a lot different. Half the time if you got caught DWI the cops would drive you home, or sometimes even let you drive home. That ended after those cops on the cape cut a guy a break since he was spitting distance to his house, but still managed to get involved in an accident after the cops kicked him lose, the town got hung out to dry on that one IIRC.
So even if the cops did charge you there were a lot of "dismissed on payment of $62.50 court cost" dispositions. DWI was just viewed differently back then.
So it all depends on the laws on the books at the time of each arrest, how each arrest was treated ( first, second, third DWI) and the maximum penalty at the time for any CONVICTION.
Then once he figures out if he is not statutorily prohibited under state or federal law, we come to suitability.
Depending on where he lives, he could be S.O.L. regardless of his legal status.
It is really one of those cases where one of the finer lawyers who are versed in the inner workings of Chapter 140 should be retained for a consultation.
Back before Melanies law, a DWI would fall off your record after 10 years. It would have been possible for your friend to have had a DWI in 1960, 1971, and 1982, and they would all have been charged as a first offense. Also the way DWI's were treated back then was a lot different. Half the time if you got caught DWI the cops would drive you home, or sometimes even let you drive home. That ended after those cops on the cape cut a guy a break since he was spitting distance to his house, but still managed to get involved in an accident after the cops kicked him lose, the town got hung out to dry on that one IIRC.
So even if the cops did charge you there were a lot of "dismissed on payment of $62.50 court cost" dispositions. DWI was just viewed differently back then.
So it all depends on the laws on the books at the time of each arrest, how each arrest was treated ( first, second, third DWI) and the maximum penalty at the time for any CONVICTION.
Then once he figures out if he is not statutorily prohibited under state or federal law, we come to suitability.
Depending on where he lives, he could be S.O.L. regardless of his legal status.
It is really one of those cases where one of the finer lawyers who are versed in the inner workings of Chapter 140 should be retained for a consultation.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,518
- Likes
- 33,531
It's not going to happen. The requirements are not considered a problem by the system, since judges exercise discretion and there is no pattern of abuse where people are getting sentences over 2 years for matters that are traditionally disposed of with a CWOF or minor sentence.
The only problem the 2.5 year standard MA creates is the federal DQ, and there is no way the politicians are going to take a stance that is concurrently "pro gun" and "soft on crime". It might happen if minorities were systematically getting 2.5 years for offenses white kids from the suburbs are getting CWOFed for, but that's not really happening. In fact, the 2.5 year standard helps the legal profession since the threat of jail time is what assures the legal profession that people will spend their life savings on representation, even if they are just pleading guilty, rather than go pro-se.
Another unfortunate aspect of this federal prohibition is that the feds do NOT recognize a FLRB state level relief from disabilities, and will NOT remove someone from the NICS denial list even if they provide proof the state granted an FLRB review for a 2.5 year misdemeanor.
In general, how much pull does the state have in opening sealed/expunged records from other states? I'm sure there are 49 different responses to this, but I was just curious if other states tell the Commonwealth to pound sand if asked, or if they open right up?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
I would expect a challenge to the inability to restore your rights under any circumstances once a federal PP before I expect to see any real reform in sentencing coming from the legislature.
That said, our penal system is cracking badly and our rate of incarceration (vs the population) is not only unsustainable, but its going to lead to social unrest soon enough and suspect it will couple with back-lash/insurgency from the "war on drugs" and the expansion of the Mexican cartels' influence on our side of the border.
I suspect it will require a significant re-think in this generation, if for no other reason than budgets, but the insurgency against the war-on-drugs conflating with the social un-rest from the rather alarming demographic realities of our penal system could produce profound changes here. As always, people will put up with crap for a lot longer than they should or anyone outside looking in thinks they will - until that day when they won't any more...
Similar threads
