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***
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!
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!
Because the agenda is to disarm the public and leave them helpless between the state run drug dealers and the police/military.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!
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.
Let me answer your question by restating it: "Why does this matter?"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).
I posted in the other thread (Lawsuit filed against FLRB) before I saw this one. I get it now.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).
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.)I know part of the issue is finding a "clean" plaintiff that doesn't incriminate himself as a PP.
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.The Governor should stop feigning ‘panic’ to strip guns away from these people, “immediately”, people who lawfully held them for years with no abuses.
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.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?
This has nothing to do with juvenile records, but offenses for which the FLRB has negated the MA firearms prohibition.The people affected 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.
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 maThe 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, and 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.
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.
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.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.
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.