LTC reinstatement question

can I add that my local PD that issued my LTC has openly told me to fight this(I moved back several months ago). The town where I resided briefly during the incident are the one's refiling the charges.
 
DSoM11 said:
I have an attorney. Those here who know my story have been very helpful and seem genuinely interested in the outcome of my situation. If you'd rather me not share, you're right, I don't need a internet forum.
Click to expand...

Share smartly. They are just trying to ensure you don't rely on us for legal advise or screw up your case.

Keep us informed. Smartly.
 
can I add that my local PD that issued my LTC has openly told me to fight this(I moved back several months ago). The town where I resided briefly during the incident are the one's refiling the charges.
Click to expand...

If this is indeed the case, there is a decent chance the issuing town will reinstate the license *IF* the disposition of your case is not a statutory disqualifier. If you get a CWOF and the offense is a disqualifier, you probably won't be eligible to get your LTC back until the continuance period is over. Some departments believe that a CWOF with ASF is a disqualifier as if you were convicted, however, that is not the generally prevailing view.
 
DSoM11 said:
I have an attorney. Those here who know my story have been very helpful and seem genuinely interested in the outcome of my situation. If you'd rather me not share, you're right, I don't need a internet forum.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't share until the case is resolved. Anything you post can and will be used against you.
 
M1911 said:
Maybe. Maybe not. Presumably, the prosecutor will be making a different argument, and there will likely be a different judge. But even if the second case gets thrown out, that doesn't mean that the chief now has to reinstate his LTC.
Click to expand...
True. When that funeral home owner in Lawrence was found not guilty of multiple charges stemming from him firing a 12-gauge near a noisy crowd and hitting two people with fragments from a 1-oz. slug, his LTC was not returned to him. Chief Romero commented that he was an "unsuitable person". His gun collection was returned to his wife when she got her LTC, but what good does that do him? The guns are in his house but he cannot touch them or even a single round of ammo without committing a felony.
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
True. When that funeral home owner in Lawrence was found not guilty of multiple charges stemming from him firing a 12-gauge near a noisy crowd and hitting two people with fragments from a 1-oz. slug, his LTC was not returned to him. Chief Romero commented that he was an "unsuitable person". His gun collection was returned to his wife when she got her LTC, but what good does that do him? The guns are in his house but he cannot touch them or even a single round of ammo without committing a felony.
Click to expand...

It's still better than losing them entirely or having them stuck in bonded storage someplace. If they move out of MA (which the OP here might want to do, if he is acquitted but still runs into a licensing suitability wall) he won't have to worry about any of this crap anymore.

I certainly wouldn't hang around this state if I was in that position, assuming there were no simple legal remedies left.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
It's still better than losing them entirely or having them stuck in bonded storage someplace. If they move out of MA (which the OP here might want to do, if he is acquitted but still runs into a licensing suitability wall) he won't have to worry about any of this crap anymore.

I certainly wouldn't hang around this state if I was in that position, assuming there were no simple legal remedies left.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, the gun that was "allegedly" (yeah, right, two people were hit! LOL) used in the shooting was a perfectly-FID-legal Winchester 12-gauge pump. He would have been able to apply for the FID and kept that one, along with a bolt-action .22 that he owned. The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune newspaper crew made a point of listing every firearm that was returned to the custody of his wife. Almost like they had some type of fetishistic fascination with the whole mess.
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
True. When that funeral home owner in Lawrence was found not guilty of multiple charges stemming from him firing a 12-gauge near a noisy crowd and hitting two people with fragments from a 1-oz. slug, his LTC was not returned to him. Chief Romero commented that he was an "unsuitable person". His gun collection was returned to his wife when she got her LTC, but what good does that do him? The guns are in his house but he cannot touch them or even a single round of ammo without committing a felony.
Click to expand...

He was found Not Guilty of any criminal act.

He was declared "not suitable" by his chief.

Now, please cite what law makes it a felony for a "not suitable" person to touch a gun or ammo (assuming in the presence of a licensed person)?

Was I sleeping and missed a new law change here? [wink]

If he applied for an FID, (legally) his chief would have to issue it to him and then he could possess the shotgun and any other low capacity rifle/shotgun/ammo for same on his own.
 
LenS said:
If he applied for an FID, (legally) his chief would have to issue it to him and then he could possess the shotgun and any other low capacity rifle/shotgun/ammo for same on his own.
Click to expand...

Len, you're assuming, of course, that Romero wouldn't try to gum up the works. I know an FID is shall issue, but when's the last time a Chief was ever -actually- punished for not obeying the licensing laws? [laugh]

I have a funny feeling that Romero would deny it and make the guy bring it to court- at which point the court would probably force issuance, but still...

I've heard of lots of weird things with FIDs. They might be legally safer in the strictest sense, but Chiefs have jerked people around
on FIDs, too.

-Mike
 
Mike, I fully agree with you that chiefs can and have jerked people around on FIDs, although I don't know the chief or his reputation, so I won't speculate on what he might do.

You may note that I put "(legally)" in parenthesis and that was exactly why I posted my message that way.
 
just a quick question, if someone in a situation like the Lawrence case for example, or a Lautenberg situation, had a spouse that was not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, ammo, or component, and the spouse had weapons in the house, what are the legal issues?

In MA I assume since everything has to be locked up and inaccessible to unlicensed persons it can be argued that as long as the person without the LTC/FID can't get at the guns/ammo all is well, but I can see where a C.O.P. would use the prohibited person as a LTC disqualifier, but I wonder how that factors into the FID where in theory it is not a disqualifier?
 
Glockaholic said:
just a quick question, if someone in a situation like the Lawrence case for example, or a Lautenberg situation, had a spouse that was not legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, ammo, or component, and the spouse had weapons in the house, what are the legal issues?

In MA I assume since everything has to be locked up and inaccessible to unlicensed persons it can be argued that as long as the person without the LTC/FID can't get at the guns/ammo all is well, but I can see where a C.O.P. would use the prohibited person as a LTC disqualifier, but I wonder how that factors into the FID where in theory it is not a disqualifier?
Click to expand...

A couple of things....

If someone is lautenberg disqualified it doesn't matter whether they somehow get an FID or not. If they can access a gun (or purchase one) they're basically a felon in posession WRT federal law,. This "FID trap" has been discussed numerous times here. Mass might not be able to hang him, but an anti gun MA DA would probably bump it to the feds if they found out about it.

The standard for FIP/lautenberg is that the prohibited individual has no access to firearms. They should be stored in such a way that someone cannot claim constructive possession. (EG, a gun cabinet with the key hanging on the wall in another room is a bad idea).

The Cotnoir case is not even related to this. If he's acquitted he's "clean" legally, he's just dealing with a purely administrative denial of rights. If Cotnoir got an FID, his possession of FID type guns and ammunition would be legal because he's not otherwise
disqualified.

Whether or not the OP here will end up "clean" or not remains to be seen.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
A couple of things....

If someone is lautenberg disqualified it doesn't matter whether they somehow get an FID or not. If they can access a gun (or purchase one) they're basically a felon in posession WRT federal law,. This "FID trap" has been discussed numerous times here. Mass might not be able to hang him, but an anti gun MA DA would probably bump it to the feds if they found out about it.

The standard for FIP/lautenberg is that the prohibited individual has no access to firearms. They should be stored in such a way that someone cannot claim constructive possession. (EG, a gun cabinet with the key hanging on the wall in another room is a bad idea).

The Cotnoir case is not even related to this. If he's acquitted he's "clean" legally, he's just dealing with a purely administrative denial of rights. If Cotnoir got an FID, his possession of FID type guns and ammunition would be legal because he's not otherwise
disqualified.

Whether or not the OP here will end up "clean" or not remains to be seen.

-Mike
Click to expand...
G. Gordon Liddy's wife owns a security company. There are firearms kept in their residence. Liddy even admitted this on the air during his radio show once. Liddy, a former FBI agent, is a convicted felon and has been one for several decades. I assume that his wife keeps the firearms in a locked safe, out of his reach. A high-profile guy like him would be a tempting target for a BATFE raid and he knows this, so I doubt that he is taking any chances.
 
DSoM11 said:
Does a judge have the power to reinstate a permit if the charges that lead up to the suspension are dropped? If not does that benefit my chances with my local PD in get it back?
Click to expand...

I recall some of the details of the original post regarding this but not all of them. If you are eventually cleared of all charges, and you're not statutorially disqualified, your chief may find you a 'suitable person.' Unless I've misunderstood some of the comments posted here, your issuing authority seems to be on your side. If you do get licensed, I would give the town where you had the problem a wide berth.

Whatever the outcome is, I wish you the best of luck, as I'm sure everyone else does also. I know it gets tiresome to keep hearing "get a lawyer" but given the situation in MA that is the only possible course of action.

Best wishes for a happy outcome.

EDIT: This is what I was referring to in the first paragraph of my comment:
DSoM11 said:
can I add that my local PD that issued my LTC has openly told me to fight this(I moved back several months ago). The town where I resided briefly during the incident are the one's refiling the charges.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As stated before the issue of suitability has nothing to do with the outcome of a criminal case. Let's not forget, in Massachusetts most liberal judges pick either dismissed, not guilty, or CWOF. I have seen filthy drug dealers who were absolutely dead to rights guilty get kicked loose because some A-hole judge decided to kick the cops in the bag (and this judge has been known to do it). In my book this drug dealer should have no business getting an LTC. I am disappointed though when a COP uses the suitability issue just to keep good people from getting an LTC, this is a power that needs to be used appropriately.
 
delgrifith said:
I am disappointed though when a COP uses the suitability issue just to keep good people from getting an LTC, this is a power that needs to be used appropriately.
Click to expand...
It is a power they shouldn't have. LTC should be shall issue.

That won't happen in MA, though.
 
It is a power they shouldn't have. LTC should be shall issue.

That won't happen in MA, though.
Click to expand...
If Heller gets incorporated and the 2nd is recognized as a right in MA, it may be difficult for the courts to uphold a process of depriving a citizen of that right because of a crime of which they have been found not guilty, exercising their 5th ammendment rights, or having an expired RO with no charges of violation thereof.

It is unlikely a pro-incorporation decision will have anything to do with the ability of a chief to restrict and LTC but, since an LTC is required for mere possession, incorporation could pave the way to shall issue of either an LTC-B or target only LTC-A. (Not as good as we would like it, but certainly less unfair than the current situation)
 
Many of the strange decisions (Godfrey v. Wellesley for example) are based on the premise that since there is no right to own a handgun, depriving someone of the ability to legally own one is not "punishment", and therefore not subject to the due process required to take something away that is a right. That line of judicial thinking is going to be harder to justify if the 2nd gets incorporated and the courts are required to treat it as a "right".
 
Case has been dismissed.....

NOW, I plan on going to talk with the LT. in town that deals with all firearm licensing and suspended my LTC. Any advice for that conversion?
 
Lawyer up, seriously call any one of the fine lawyers who frequent this forum and pay them for their expertise and tact.

It is still up to the C.O.P. if you can have it, unlike a FID he can deny you for any or no reason.
 
he can hand it back to you at any time.

They may make you jump through hoops

they may decide you are unsuitable because of the charges that were brought against you, they won't care if the court found you not responsible.

I'd rather have Darius send a letter to the licensing officer asking for the LTC to be reinstated based on the fact that you were found not guilty of the charges, but if you want to do it yourself have at it and let us know how it works out for you.

One thing lawyers hate is trying to represent you after you have tried to represent yourself. If you have a competent attorney from step one, he may be able to resolve it easily, rather than have to spend a lot of time trying to undo the mess you created, even if it was unintentional or undeserved.
 
Last edited:
Glockaholic said:
One thing lawyers hate is trying to represent you after you have tried to represent yourself. If you have a competent attorney from step one, he may be able to resolve it easily, rather than have to spend a lot of time trying to undo the mess you created, even if it was unintentional or undeserved.
Click to expand...

Yup. This is very high stakes. You've got one shot to present yourself to the PD in the best light. I'd much rather do so after getting advice from someone who has been down that road before.
 
DSoM11 said:
Case has been dismissed.....

NOW, I plan on going to talk with the LT. in town that deals with all firearm licensing and suspended my LTC. Any advice for that conversion?
Click to expand...

Good for you. That was the right answer based on what you had told us. Yeah, you want a lawyer to help you here. Either that or move to a free state to avoid this crap all together.

BTW: Dismissed with the prosecution's blessing or CWOF?
 

Similar threads

LTC Address Change
Replies
11
Views
260
Shevchenko
Shevchenko
MGL Question
Replies
1
Views
147
pastera
pastera
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
661
67ray
67ray
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
drgrant
drgrant
Can we own Pre made paper cartridge without FID/LTC?
Replies
8
Views
164
G753
G
Back
Top Bottom