xero2099
NES Member
in a common sense world you wold think they would have done this but this is the Republic of MA nothing is ever done the easy way
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Comm2A Sues Town of Dighton
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
- Status
in a common sense world you wold think they would have done this but this is the Republic of MA nothing is ever done the easy way
Kicker96FS
NES Member
They are too busy running around with their hands covering their butts, that's why.
From what I have read, the police seemed to make that connection . . . although it might just be because they didn't like said minor?
Two different issues. The Sergeant didn't like the plaintiff befriending a minor. The chief manufactured the 131L allegation generally to justify the suspension of the FID card. The two were never connected as in "failed to store properly in the presence of a minor". It's more like 'we don't like you, so we're going to create an excuse to suspend your license".
Hearing on the MTD will be held next Wednesday. This is federal court warp speed.
I'm not a lawyer but this seems like a slam dunk. Since I believe he will get his FID and property back (I'm an optimist) what concerns me the most is section 40 now that his license has been suspended/revoked he will have to report that forever and it may even prevent him from upgrading to an LTC Class A unrestricted.....
StevieP
NES Member
I asked the same thing (back on page two somewhere...).
I didn't get a straight answer. Someone wrote 'ever means ever' or something like that.
I'd like to think that after all is said and done, he could truthfully answer 'No' to the question about whether his license was ever revoked.
I didn't get a straight answer. Someone wrote 'ever means ever' or something like that.
I'd like to think that after all is said and done, he could truthfully answer 'No' to the question about whether his license was ever revoked.
you know...maybe he should answer yes and then give this case to the licensing LEO and then they would know the injustice this guy went through and that he is willing to stand up and fight for his 2A rights. Then maybe they would not go down that road with this guy and just issue his LTC Class A unrestricted (when that time comes). I mean what could be better than having your license or FID revoked and the reason was because the police violated your constitutional rights. No grounds not to renew or issue there.....
dcmdon
NES Member
Legally no, its not been revoked.
I was arrested illegally in New Haven when I was in college. Prior to trial the judge dismissed the charges with prejudice. (I believe that means that even though the trial never started, they can never charge me again, google it and you'll know more than I do)
He also suggested that we file an internal affairs complaint against the NHPD. So I did. Shortly thereafter the NHPD asked the CT DPS to revoke my PP. Which they did. We scheduled a hearing with the BFPE and it was scheduled some 6 months in the future. It was a slam dunk.
Out of the blue my attorney suggested we contact the judge. When the judge found out what had happened he was PISSED. He wrote a letter to the BFPE asking for them to summarily order the DPS to return my PP. They did and I didn't have to wait for my hearing.
Several times during all of this, the judge told me "This didn't happen". You can always answer NO to any question that in your head might relate to this. The arrest, the trial, the revocation of your PP. It never happened.
So 20+ years later and I'm a resident of MA applying for a LTC in a green town. Not wanting to roll the dice that the NHPD followed CT 54-142A, which says that any trial records that are left as a result of a trial that is dismissed or with the defendant found innocent must be DESTROYED, I told the licensing officer in MA the story. He told me that unless it comes up on CORI substantially differently than I told the story, I didn't have a problem. In the end, it was NOT on CORI.
Don
p.s. Sec. 54-142a. (Formerly Sec. 54-90). Erasure of criminal records. (a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken.
IT would be a very rare case for a MA court to overrule a chief's suspension/revocation. I suspect that only FRB could answer as to how their computer system would record the event if a judge overruled . . . in other words, what would the next town's LO see when he did a historical query for John Smith? If any PD feels that you withheld info they will almost certainly deny based on suitability, so it is a dangerous thing to do (to answer "no").
In MA you have NO Constitutional Rights. All the way up to the SJC, they are on record as stating that they do not always abide by Federal Laws! <not joking>
Under "suitability" and "discretion", both terms of art in MGL C. 140, yes they can deny for any or no reason!
-----------------
Don, this isn't CT! There is NO EXPUNGEMENT possible in MA under our laws. If the same thing happened here, there definitely would be records to be found on a BOP (police don't do CORI, that's for the peasants and does NOT show the same info).
seanc
NES Member
This may be somewhat off topic yet related...
To the lawyers in the audience. I read something a while back, I believe it was in Texas. But there is/ was a lawyer there that was starting tothreaten/ sue LEOs personally under a federal statute. Something to the effect that LEOs are not immune from prosecution of civil rights violations? And that they can be held personally liable/ sued?
I know a lot of vagueness there... And not sure if it applies in Mass..
To the lawyers in the audience. I read something a while back, I believe it was in Texas. But there is/ was a lawyer there that was starting tothreaten/ sue LEOs personally under a federal statute. Something to the effect that LEOs are not immune from prosecution of civil rights violations? And that they can be held personally liable/ sued?
I know a lot of vagueness there... And not sure if it applies in Mass..
dcmdon
NES Member
Thanks Len,
When I went in to get printed, they did the check while I was sitting there and said it didn't show. Either way, I was still glad I disclosed it even though I shouldn't have had to.
Thanks to discussions with both you and Rob, I understood that I had no rights and had to play by their rules if I wanted to legally bring my firearms into MA.
Don
- - - Updated - - -
It could certainly apply in Mass. Simpy because you would have to sue in federal court if you wanted any traction.
When I went in to get printed, they did the check while I was sitting there and said it didn't show. Either way, I was still glad I disclosed it even though I shouldn't have had to.
Thanks to discussions with both you and Rob, I understood that I had no rights and had to play by their rules if I wanted to legally bring my firearms into MA.
Don
- - - Updated - - -
It could certainly apply in Mass. Simpy because you would have to sue in federal court if you wanted any traction.
Garys
NES Member
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. It's very specific about for which things public officials can be sued. It's actually fairly complex and I don't fully understand it.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I think that the town of Dighton and it's attorney are playing out of their league... Someone's gonna get spanked.
dcmdon
NES Member
FEDERAL civil rights laws are very very open.
In the Rodney king situation, the officers were acquitted. However the feds brought civil rights charges against the 4 cops and 2 were convicted and did jail time.
This was a federal criminial suit. I'm not sure how a civil suit would play differently. What I do know is that every significant litigation effort going on in CT relating to gun rights is happening in FEDERAL court, since the state courts are considered to be stacked too much against us.
In the Rodney king situation, the officers were acquitted. However the feds brought civil rights charges against the 4 cops and 2 were convicted and did jail time.
This was a federal criminial suit. I'm not sure how a civil suit would play differently. What I do know is that every significant litigation effort going on in CT relating to gun rights is happening in FEDERAL court, since the state courts are considered to be stacked too much against us.
That's exactly (mostly) the strategy we're following here in Massachusetts. Federal courts have some distinct advantages. In state court we'd never get to the civil rights issue because our only avenue for appeal is essentially an administrative hearing in district court where the court would likely order the PD to return the license. Case closed. No precedent would be set. State court is also very inefficient. You show up on the morning you're ordered to show up and you wait around. When the clerk sees your case they put it on the bottom of the stack because it's not a routine matter. When it does come up the judge calls a recess to bone up on the law and then you finally get a hearing. If you win you probably won't get an opinion or if you do it won't be binding outside of that case. And you've spend a lot of unrecoverable money on your lawyer.
In federal court you make a civil rights claim. The parties argue their cases in writing, you show up for a scheduled hearing and you have it on the date and time arraigned. No waiting around. Months later you get a decision. If you win you may get a binding precedent you can use again.
Oh, and if you win and the court decides that the government violated your rights, the court orders the government to pay your legal bill.
You can get written findings of fact and rulings of law under Rule 52 of the Mass Rules of Civil Procedure.
That is SOP in MA. They even confiscate scopes and other non-controlled items. Usually they all go off to the Bonded Warehouse, never to be seen again. Illegal, smegel the police don't care about the law and the Bonded Warehouse says "the police gave it to me, therefore I can charge and sell it if unpaid"!
That is why the Comm2A case Jarvis v. Village Vault is so important!
Quiet
Banned
That's the way it should be anytime someone needs to sue the government at any level.
May I ask how many times this has happened for Comm2A and for how much in total?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Joe negotiated a settlement with the AGs office after winning Fletcher. We were all happy with the number but won't release the figure.
which is nice and all but if you really think about it they're just returning a very small portion of the money they took from the serfs in the first place, including the one they're trying to railroad. at least it keeps money in the coffers to bring more cases but it would be nicer if there was a way to make it hit the AGs checkbook directly
![[devil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/015.gif "Devil [devil]")
- Status
Similar threads
