MASS LTC Disqualifiers.

R

rscalzo

Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
3,613
Likes
816
Location
Epping,NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I found this on a LE website. Might be of interest to those in Mass..

MASSACHUSETTS 1998 GUN CONTROL ACTMisdemeanor Conviction Disqualifier for FID cards and LTC’s

Under Massachusetts law, misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for more than two years1 include the following offenses:

Crimes Against the Person:Assault (c. 265, §13A) 2

Assault & Battery (c. 265, §13A)
A&B on Public Employee (c. 265, §13D)
A&B on Ambulance Personnel (c. 265, §131)
Permitting Injury to a Child (c. 265, §13J)
Gross Negligence by Common Carrier (c. 265, §30)
A&B/Property Damage to Intimidate (c. 265, §39)
Causing Injury in a Physical Exercise Program (c. 265, §40)
Resisting Arrest (c. 268, §32B)

Crimes Against Property:

Failure to Report Hotel Fire (c. 266, §13A)
Larceny from Common Carrier/Business (c. 266, §30(1))
Larceny Under $250 from Elder/Disabled Person (c. 266, §30(5))
Shoplifting Over $100 (c. 266, §30A)
Falsely Obtaining Commercial Computer Service (c. 266, §33A)
Receipt of Deposit by Insolvent Bank (c. 266, §54)
Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)
False Statement to Motor Vehicle Insurer (c. 266, §111B)
Obstruction of Medical Facility - Subseq. Offense (c. 266, §120E)
Wanton Destruction Property Over $250 (c. 266, §127)
Destruction Church/School Property (c. 266, §127A)
Destruction Jail Property (c. 266, §130)

Motor Vehicle Offenses:

Operating After Suspension for OUI/MVH, etc. (c. 90, §23)
Operating Under the Influence (c. 90, §24(1))
Motor Vehicle Homicide While OUI or While OTE (c. 90, §24G(b))
OUI With Serious Bodily Injury (c. 90, §24L(2))
OUI on a Vessel (c. 90B, §8(a))
OUI on a Vessel With Serious Bodily Injury (c. 90B, §8A(2))
Homicide by Vessel While OUI or While OTE (c. 90B, §8B(2))

1 Excluding weapons-related and controlled substance offenses, which are disqualifiers on a separate basis.

2 Please note that this list may not be exhaustive. When in doubt, reference should be made to the current
version of the relevant statute.
 
-- Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)

What? Anyone can do this without even realizing it. Ever buy on eBay? I have no way of knowing if anything I've bought was stolen.
 
Prepper said:
-- Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)

What? Anyone can do this without even realizing it. Ever buy on eBay? I have no way of knowing if anything I've bought was stolen.
Click to expand...

The actual offense is "knowlingly receiving . . . "
 
depicts said:
What are the weapons related qualifiers?

Where do I find them in MGL?
Click to expand...

ANY charge that involves guns/ammo/mags!

- Read the hunting statutes for some real clues.
* Possession of a loaded long gun "IN A VEHICLE" - EPS has charged/convicted hunters who leaned a loaded gun against the bumper while taking a piss ($25 fine)! NOT KIDDING. LIFETIME DQ!

- Possession of ammo/guns/mags without appropriate license.

- Gun storage laws.

- Gun transport laws.

- Possession of a long gun on a public way that isn't cased.

- Shooting too close to a road/house, etc.
 
(Receiving) Stolen Property statutes usually under common law have wording known or should have known.

That's when you buy the brand new $1500.00 laptop from Smiling Sammy on the corner for $20.00, the jury/or judge will propably correctly guess you knew or should have known it was stolen. These are questions that are determined in a court of law and don't have clear cut explanations.
 
Making matters worse...

If found guilty of any of those charges, they would be a federal disqualifier as well.
 
found guilty of anything can get you disqualified...HELL the way you write,look, smell,and even if the chief is in a bad mood because he hasn't got <any> lately is a DISQUALIFIER!


Note: above the word any can be interpritated ANY way you want. I meant ..donuts!
 
It's also important to note that first offense OUIs before May 27 1994 don't
count, at least statutorily speaking. That being said, an issuing authority
can still try to use it as an excuse to deny someone under the "unsuitable person" clause.

-Mike
 
I know someone who was convicted of "illegal possession of a firearm", in 1970, and he has been issued his LTC A AlP many times.

He went to court in 1996 to prove it wasn't a felony, and the judge said to issue the license. He said it was something about Ex Post Facto rulings.

Anyone know how that works?
 
Prepper said:
-- Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)

What? Anyone can do this without even realizing it. Ever buy on eBay? I have no way of knowing if anything I've bought was stolen.
Click to expand...

Typically that charge is only levied when it can be reasonably demonstrated
that the buyer -KNEW- the goods were stolen. Buying something for
cheap on ebay would not be nearly enough proof, or even buying it at
someone's yard sale or a flea market, for that matter. More often than
not it seems to be used as a charge to hang accomplices of shoplifters
and the like... eg, people that may have been with the shoplifter but that
the authorities couldn't catch in the act directly.

-Mike
 
depicts said:
I know someone who was convicted of "illegal possession of a firearm", in 1970, and he has been issued his LTC A AlP many times.

He went to court in 1996 to prove it wasn't a felony, and the judge said to issue the license. He said it was something about Ex Post Facto rulings.

Anyone know how that works?
Click to expand...

"Ex Post Facto" basically means a person can't be charged at a later date with a crime before it was a crime.

I don't recall when the Bartley-Fox law was passed, but it was sometime around the early 70's.

The someone you know is probably one of the rare lucky ones that had a judge rule in his favor.
 
Prepper said:
-- Receiving Stolen Property Under $250 (c. 266, §60)

What? Anyone can do this without even realizing it. Ever buy on eBay? I have no way of knowing if anything I've bought was stolen.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine got nailed by this one.

In his freshman year of High School, he got a job and bought a bike from one of his neighbors so that he could ride to and from work most days. He locked the bike up at the rack near the front door if the store. Well, the serial number on the frame allowed someone to identify it as their bike. My friend was charged with the Receiving Stolen Property. His lawyer advised him to just plead guilty and accept a plea bargain to a Continuing without a finding.

This was in the early 1980's. Well, come 2000 when he goes to renew his carry permit, guess what comes up. (And yes, his record was a supposably 'sealed' juvenile record)

Turns out that since it was a CWF and not a conviction he wasn't prohibited, but his chief still denied him the license. He has since moved out of state. Oh, and the temp agency he started and ran which employed many unskilled people in temporary "light industrial" type of work no longer exists.
 
How do "sealed" records apply to adults? If the only thing on your record is a "sealed" misdemeanor from your early 20's is it left to the discretion of the chief even if under normal (not a sealed record) circumstances it would be a life long disqualifier?
 
FITH said:
found guilty of anything can get you disqualified...HELL the way you write,look, smell,and even if the chief is in a bad mood because he hasn't got <any> lately is a DISQUALIFIER!
Click to expand...

Of course that's the case herein the people's republic, but these are disqualifiers that will still apply even if you move to a gun friendly town, or even to a gun friendly state (e.g., VT or AK). Permanent federal disqualifiers that prohibit your possession of any firearm or even a round of .22lr for the rest of your life.

Ken
 
Chris said:
When it comes to the background check, there is no such thing as 'sealed'.
Click to expand...


I just don't understand how a pre-1998 misdemeanor can effect renewal of a Class A LTC ALP issued just 4 years ago (i.e. issued post-1998). If the police were aware of the misdemeanor when they issued the LTC 4 years ago, it must be legal for them to renew it if they choose, right?

It's just a scary feeling waiting for my new LTC to show up in the mail and wondering what I'm going to get. The PD chief is on my side and actually wants to issue me the unrestricted Class A, but the licensing officer said he may not be able to because this pre-1998 misdemeanor may be a life long disqualifier. I don't see how that is possible if the LTC I am trying to renew was issued post 1998 and the PD at the time knew of the pre-1998 misdemeanor. Perhaps since it was the only thing on my record, and it has a "sealed" status, they are able to overlook it if they choose?

So here I sit in the awkward situation with 2-4 weeks left of a wait. I will either get it all or nothing.

Sorry if I hijacked the post, seemed like it was becoming a bit of a bitch session anyhow.
 
Xak said:
I just don't understand how a pre-1998 misdemeanor can effect [sic] renewal of a Class A LTC ALP issued just 4 years ago (i.e. issued post-1998). If the police were aware of the misdemeanor when they issued the LTC 4 years ago, it must be legal for them to renew it if they choose, right?
Click to expand...

NO. If you have such a disqualifier, the fact that it is pre-1998 is irrelevant. The only thing it proves is that the cops screwed up 4 years ago.

I am surprised at how many licenses WERE issued improperly after 1998. Yours is not the only one.

The PD chief is on my side and actually wants to issue me the unrestricted Class A, but the licensing officer said he may not be able to because this pre-1998 misdemeanor may be a life long disqualifier. I don't see how that is possible if the LTC I am trying to renew was issued post 1998 and the PD at the time knew of the pre-1998 misdemeanor. Perhaps since it was the only thing on my record, and it has a "sealed" status, they are able to overlook it if they choose?
Click to expand...

Again, NO.

If you are correctly denied renewal because of a disqualifying misdemeanor, you may be able to appeal to the Firearms License Review Board.
 
Certain Misdemeanors are lifetime DQ, been that way since 1998 (ex post facto, yes . . . but upheld to date).

Originally sealed records were ignored (as was intended), but for whatever reason, they are basically being "unsealed" to use as a determinant of DQ upon renewals as a normal course of events over the last year or two.

If the chief learns of something that is a DQ, he is obligated to act on it, no discretion.

Good luck!
 
[crying]

I saw on one of the firearms attorneys websites that they can get DQ charges "vacated". Would this solve the problem? Even if my LTC does go through I may want to do this. Anyone know, roughly, what kind of $ I would be looking at?
 
Xak said:
[crying]

I saw on one of the firearms attorneys websites that they can get DQ charges "vacated". Would this solve the problem? Even if my LTC does go through I may want to do this. Anyone know, roughly, what kind of $ I would be looking at?
Click to expand...

If it "goes through" then why would you bother? You're either statutorily
DQ'ed or your not- the law is pretty specific when it comes to this. When
it comes down to the wire, only convictions count. The fact that some
issuing authorities foam at the mouth over CWOF, PTI (don't think they do
that in MA) and the like, I don't believe is part of the law. That's an
administrative issue, and might not be "fixable" depending on who the foamer is.
(just a WAG, here, but since the IA hasn't told you to "go away" I get the
impression that admin issues are not the problem- unless the PD doesn't understand
the way the law works... but I thought once the button was pushed by the PD
that the state processes the LTC, and they would determine whether or not you
are -actually- statutorily disqualified. (I could be wrong on this, but I was always
under the impression that other than restrictions, printing, and inprocessing, the
local PD is not the sole arbiter of whether or not you get a permit. )

If you are denied you should get in touch with a lawyer. Every case is
probably different and will end up costing a different amount of
time in attorney fees and the like. You might want to get in touch with
a lawyer anyways, just to find out where you really stand.

And even then, if you have an arrest record, etc, in MA, it will never be
"expunged" so the hassle of having to explain it every time will never
go away. (MA does not do expungements, IIRC, under any circumstances)

Note: This doesn't mean that whatever the "real" problem is, that it's unfixable/unliveable.
If you are legally clear than it is a matter of providing documentation (eg, via a lawyer or
other source) to the right people, proving so. (Or if needed, via the review board that
scrivener talks about- if your offense falls in the category covered by the review
board, then with a competent attorney you could pursue that route, if the issue is "real". )


-Mike
 
Last edited:
There is one attorney (who, unfortunately, some PD's listen to) who has concluded that a "CWOF w/ASF" (Admission to Sufficient Facts - basically a "pre-confession" that is used against you if you violate the "don't get in trouble during the continuance period") is considered the same as a conviction for licensing purposes. Other attorneys have told me that is not the case, and also advised that many courts require ASF as a condition of accepting a CWOF deal.
 
It was so long ago I don't remember if it was a "guilty" plea, CWOF, ASF or what it was. Just that I paid a fine and was told since my record was clean this incident would be sealed so it would remain clean if I were to stay out of trouble for 6 months. I'm not even sure if the judge used the term "sealed", but I'm pretty sure he did.

I was honest just as I was when I filled out my original LTC app 4 years ago.

If it is true that the PD approves the renewal internally then sends it to the state to make sure I don't have any DQ's than this gives me new hope. I applied for renewal with the same, truthful, admision of the incident as in my original LTC app and that is the only thing on my record. Nothing has changed since then so perhaps it will go through.

Still, nothing would surprise me and I am certainly not going to count my chickens. The wait is killing me. What a rollercoaster.

I can't believe it's possible that I may either get an unrestricted Class A or they may deny my renewal and take my guns. All I've done between my original app and now is get a parking ticket that I paid, obey the laws, pay my taxes, and build a carreer. Not to brag, but I am a very suitable person to own firearms and CC and have always taken great pride in having an LTC. [sad]
 
LenS said:
ANY charge that involves guns/ammo/mags!

- Read the hunting statutes for some real clues.
* Possession of a loaded long gun "IN A VEHICLE" - EPS has charged/convicted hunters who leaned a loaded gun against the bumper while taking a piss ($25 fine)! NOT KIDDING. LIFETIME DQ!

- Possession of ammo/guns/mags without appropriate license.

- Gun storage laws.

- Gun transport laws.

- Possession of a long gun on a public way that isn't cased.

- Shooting too close to a road/house, etc.
Click to expand...

if you were walking on the side of the road with a unloaded shotgun but not on the road(on the dirt beside the road) could this count as - Possession of a long gun on a public way that isn't cased?
 
Falsely Obtaining Commercial Computer Service (c. 266, §33A)

One should be very careful when connecting their laptop to an available wireless network.....
 

Similar threads

Mass compliant list Question
2
Replies
49
Views
943
steven grammont
steven grammont
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
570
67ray
67ray
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
229
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
1
Views
211
Eric W
E
Back
Top Bottom