-
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.
Mass LTC Holders with FLRB Reliefs Will Be revoked !
- Thread starter cma
- Start date
Beretta92FS
NES Member
How about focusing the resources on gangbangers in the inner city instead? But that requires actual police work, so we can't have any of that!
Sooo much easier to go after the people that has gotten legal relief and pardons!
Sooo much easier to go after the people that has gotten legal relief and pardons!
Asaltweapon
NES Member
Low hanging fruit takes less work.
Pardons (only those that specify restoration of gun rights) are NOT affected by this memo or the BATFE position. All FLRB restorations however ARE impacted by this memo as Comm2A has warned people for >1 year and I stated in prior threads.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Contact Comm2A. We need plaintiffs. We put out the word to the lawyers but since this is now coming out on NES, I post here.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 938
- Likes
- 381
Because the agenda is to disarm the public and leave them helpless between the state run drug dealers and the police/military.
This letter illustrates just how spineless EOPSS has become. There was a time when they were willing to stand up to the feds on this.
Honest question, how does that help anyone? Say they stand up to them, keep issuing licenses. These people will either fail the NICS check and not get the gun, plus maybe draw ATF attention. Or they will buy privately, assuming that they are Ok because of the state level fix and then later get jammed hard if they get in trouble for anything and it comes out they can get nailed with an additional felon in possession charge.
Unless mass started giving real pardons to these people to fix it, all they are doing is setting a trap for them and not telling them about it.
Let me answer your question by restating it: "Why does this matter?"
There's a much bigger issue here and that's the relatively low federal bar that's used to strip people of their Second Amendment rights. It's an area where the courts have been fairly receptive to restoring rights of people who convicted of long-ago non-violent offenses. The FLRB should have been a good setup for this challenge because the Commonwealth actually has a process for restoring someone's rights. And now the state has thrown in the towel.
Successfully challenging the state on this doesn't get a touchdown, but it moves the ball down the field.
(And you, everyone knows about Caron and Logan. We believe we can make a differentiated case).
Well, hopefully it works out. I saw it more as the state screwing those people rather than giving them better standing to take the feds to task on something. It seems ridiculous that people can't get their rights back, especially when some states go out of their way to make all sorts of dumb things into disqualifying offenses.
I posted in the other thread (Lawsuit filed against FLRB) before I saw this one. I get it now.
So the goal here is to make a federal case that distinguishes Caron and/or Logan. That makes sense. Do you think these actions by EOPSS make it easier or harder? I know part of the issue is finding a "clean" plaintiff that doesn't incriminate himself as a PP.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
Bingo. The ideal plaintiff is someone who has FLRB relief, wants to buy a gun, but has either never owned firearms or did not own them during the time (s)he was a PP. Plus, we always need spare plaintiffs in case someone has to drop out (moves, dies, etc.)
lets start the week off right!
Is this Article really off base?
credit to Mark Shean Gun Sense - Mark Shean & Son
The Past:
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367, was passed by the Ma. House and Senate making it law on 6-29-2004. It created the Firearms Licensing Review Board, (FLRB). Firearm license applicants disqualified by a prior misdemeanor conviction could now file a petition for review, (see Gun Sense #20) now moot, in front of a seven member board. The petition could be filed 5 years after the conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole.
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367 merely took the existing state references to Federal law, and fixed the language to a point in time in 1994. Lawmakers followed that Federal language supposedly in 2004 as well, and believed the net effect on Ma gun owners should be zero.
Under M.G.L c. 140/ 130B, since 2004, people who were previously denied a firearm license were able to sometimes successfully petition the FLRB to regain or gain a firearm license. Police chiefs would ultimately have the final say but normally were comfortable with the findings of the FLRB.
PRESENT DAY:
Recently, 4-20-18, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF) had a meeting with the Ma. Criminal Justice Information Services, (DCJIS) and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. In the meeting the BATF outlines how the state has been violating Federal law 18 u.s.c. / 992(g) and 18 u.s.c./ 921 (a) (20) since 2004. The BATF ‘advises’ that the licenses that were approved through the FLRB appeals process should now all be revoked. This now would render the FLRB impotent in the future. ‘Advice’ politicians are happy to follow.
People who lawfully went through the FLRB appeals process, approximately 340 of them, many in law Enforcement, all good people, are now, suddenly, and severely impacted by this turn of events. These people did everything right, unknowingly, under what was obviously fraudulent law.
The state should have to reimburse the people the money they had to spend to go through that process, plus any renewals they had to pay over the years.
When the topic is firearms the politicians now pretend to be concerned about running ‘afoul’ of Federal laws, but exhibit no such ‘concern’ about running afoul of Federal Immigration or Federal marijuana laws......
Article VI of the Constitution states that Federal law takes priority when it clashes with state law. Where is that ‘concern’?
Two examples of hypocrisy by politicians and police in Ma concerning an aversion of running afoul of Federal laws;
7-24-17, The Highest Court in Ma. Declares the Commonwealth a Sanctuary State.
(A clear violation of Federal Immigration law)
2-27-18, State Police Chiefs Back New Version of Sanctuary State bill.
(Another clear violation of Federal Immigration laws)
Lets not even talk about Federal Marijuana laws the state willingly violates.......
The DCJIS FLRB has no authority to revoke or suspend licenses currently in force. Police chiefs can simply allow licenses to expire in due course, there should be no manufactured ‘panic’ by politicians or police.
The Governor should stop feigning ‘panic’ to strip guns away from these people, “immediately”, people who lawfully held them for years with no abuses.
The guns were also bought legally by these people and are private property. Is the state going to reimburse the cost of the firearms that are seized? Or are they going to willfully violate the Fourth, Fifth, and possibly the Ninth Amendment, as well?
The people effected need to lawyer-up and take the state to court. And Federal law concerning appeals should be made so people are not banned for life for some minor youthful indiscretions that amounted to nothing.
Mark Shean
6-17-18
Is this Article really off base?
credit to Mark Shean Gun Sense - Mark Shean & Son
The Past:
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367, was passed by the Ma. House and Senate making it law on 6-29-2004. It created the Firearms Licensing Review Board, (FLRB). Firearm license applicants disqualified by a prior misdemeanor conviction could now file a petition for review, (see Gun Sense #20) now moot, in front of a seven member board. The petition could be filed 5 years after the conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole.
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367 merely took the existing state references to Federal law, and fixed the language to a point in time in 1994. Lawmakers followed that Federal language supposedly in 2004 as well, and believed the net effect on Ma gun owners should be zero.
Under M.G.L c. 140/ 130B, since 2004, people who were previously denied a firearm license were able to sometimes successfully petition the FLRB to regain or gain a firearm license. Police chiefs would ultimately have the final say but normally were comfortable with the findings of the FLRB.
PRESENT DAY:
Recently, 4-20-18, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF) had a meeting with the Ma. Criminal Justice Information Services, (DCJIS) and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. In the meeting the BATF outlines how the state has been violating Federal law 18 u.s.c. / 992(g) and 18 u.s.c./ 921 (a) (20) since 2004. The BATF ‘advises’ that the licenses that were approved through the FLRB appeals process should now all be revoked. This now would render the FLRB impotent in the future. ‘Advice’ politicians are happy to follow.
People who lawfully went through the FLRB appeals process, approximately 340 of them, many in law Enforcement, all good people, are now, suddenly, and severely impacted by this turn of events. These people did everything right, unknowingly, under what was obviously fraudulent law.
The state should have to reimburse the people the money they had to spend to go through that process, plus any renewals they had to pay over the years.
When the topic is firearms the politicians now pretend to be concerned about running ‘afoul’ of Federal laws, but exhibit no such ‘concern’ about running afoul of Federal Immigration or Federal marijuana laws......
Article VI of the Constitution states that Federal law takes priority when it clashes with state law. Where is that ‘concern’?
Two examples of hypocrisy by politicians and police in Ma concerning an aversion of running afoul of Federal laws;
7-24-17, The Highest Court in Ma. Declares the Commonwealth a Sanctuary State.
(A clear violation of Federal Immigration law)
2-27-18, State Police Chiefs Back New Version of Sanctuary State bill.
(Another clear violation of Federal Immigration laws)
Lets not even talk about Federal Marijuana laws the state willingly violates.......
The DCJIS FLRB has no authority to revoke or suspend licenses currently in force. Police chiefs can simply allow licenses to expire in due course, there should be no manufactured ‘panic’ by politicians or police.
The Governor should stop feigning ‘panic’ to strip guns away from these people, “immediately”, people who lawfully held them for years with no abuses.
The guns were also bought legally by these people and are private property. Is the state going to reimburse the cost of the firearms that are seized? Or are they going to willfully violate the Fourth, Fifth, and possibly the Ninth Amendment, as well?
The people effected need to lawyer-up and take the state to court. And Federal law concerning appeals should be made so people are not banned for life for some minor youthful indiscretions that amounted to nothing.
Mark Shean
6-17-18
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
The governor could solve the problem, and show respect for MA law, with the stroke of a pen by creating an expedited process for the affected individuals to obtain a pardon w/restoration of gun rights.
Largely irrelevant, as the revokees are "prohibited persons" under federal law, and committing a federal felony by possessing guns or ammo even if they have a MA LTC.
Also, the guns were bought legally under MA law. If they had FLRB relief from a 2.5 year misdemeanor and made a purchase, they did so in violation of the BATFE interpretation of 18USC922(g).
This has nothing to do with juvenile records, but offenses for which the FLRB has negated the MA firearms prohibition.
The issue of juvenile offenses being unsealed for the purposes of firearms licensing in MA is another screw job, but a separate one from the FLRB related revocations.
Last edited:
Some of the affected people were in fact juveniles when the offenses were committed. 17 years old, which I may be wrong are not Juvenile in ma
how about federal?
Some of these affected also have Current CR FFLs
Last edited:
In theory the state hasn't been breaking any federal laws. The state has been issuing LTCs/FIDs to federally Prohibited Persons, giving them permission slips to own guns that are only valid as far as state law, putting them in jeopardy of violating federal law.
It's like medical marijuana in the sense that a state permission slip to own marijuana doesn't protect you from the DEA. Except marijuana patients know what they're getting into, while these gun owners thought they were free and clear.
So i am one affected by this, bad lawyer in1995 and stuck w a conviction. Went through the flrb last year and got my ‘rights restored ‘. Purchased a 45 about a month ago, bought a .38 on Sunday both privately before i heard about all of this. I quickly transfered both firearms into my wifes name. I have no notification on my ltc being revoked yet and still shows valid on the portal. I actually have a request for a vaf appeal.. guess i know how that’s going to turn out.
Transfering your firearms was a VERY smart idea. Your vaf application will likely be denied because you likely ARE federally prohibited. You may not have your license revoked. It looks like many or most chiefs are playing the wait-and-see game on this, kicking the can until people are forced to renew.
If you do get a revocation letter, you should contact Comm2A here: Questions / Help - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org)
So far, we know the following towns are proactively revoking licenses, there are likely more:
- Chelsea
- Chicopee
- Gloucester
- Monson
- Milton
- Nantucket
- Seekonk
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
We at Comm2A have seen VAF appeals denied based on OUI w/FLRB relief.
Welcome. Best of luck to you and all those affected.
Rhetorical, unless you want to answer. How'd you find NES? Now go tell ALL your friends!
