Proposition 2 and LTC / Firearm Purchases

[glide]

Now that prop 2 has been signed into law; how does that impact the checkbox when purchasing a firearm or applying for an LTC?

Would the use of marijuana now deem you an "unqualified" or "unsuitable" person as it did in the past?

I'm not advocating drug use or the handling of firearms under the influence of any substance, but am curious if this would now fall into the same category as drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.

 

[MACGYVR]

Nothing changes. It is just a civil offense now, same as loitering, disturbing the peace etc

It is still illegal to use or posess weed. Just don't get to make friends on cell block D if under an ounce.

 

[fbirdquik6]

I'm not advocating drug use or the handling of firearms under the influence of any substance, but am curious if this would now fall into the same category as drinking beer or smoking cigarettes.

No now it falls into the same catagory as speeding or having an open container of alcohol (if your of age of course)

 

[glide]

Nothing changes. It is just a civil offense now, same as loitering, disturbing the peace etc

It is still illegal to use or posess weed. Just don't get to make friends on cell block D if under an ounce.

I thought one of the major changes was that it did not wind up on the CORI report. If that's the case I would think they would institute a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy.

But I guess that would require a change to some paperwork, which obviously the local law enforcement in the bay state cannot figure out...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...marijuana_offenders/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4

"Many complain that their current citation books lack a check-off box for marijuana possession and they have yet to receive updated ticket books, although temporary forms are available through a state website."

 

[JonJ]

It can still play into "Suitability" for LTCs.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

Nothing changes. It is just a civil offense now, same as loitering, disturbing the peace etc

It is still illegal to use or posess weed. Just don't get to make friends on cell block D if under an ounce.

it changes a lot in regards to firearms licensing

 

[MACGYVR]

Going forward a new offense may affect your suitability.
Just as if you had a bunch of unpaid parking tickets could affect suitability. Hell failing to brush your teeth affects suitability with some towns it seems.

Past offenses though I do not think were addressed. So if 10 yrs ago you got picked up with 1/2ounce. It is still there and is not ever going away from a CORI.

If you got ticketed in your town tonight for posession and you have a LTC/FID your CLEO could revoke it if he felt like it.

Its the Mass system. There is no clear answer.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Nothing changes.

Wrong. A Marijuana conviction before Prop 2 was a statutory disqualifier - the chief could not issue an LTC even if he wanted to. Under the new law, it is not a statutory disqualifier.

 

[JonJ]

Wrong. A Marijuana conviction before Prop 2 was a statutory disqualifier - the chief could not issue an LTC even if he wanted to. Under the new law, it is not a statutory disqualifier.

Correct.

[N]either the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penalty, sanction, or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.

 

[depicts]

In MA, if a chief wants to deny a license for suitability, it won't matter much if you have a "ticket" for pot, or an arrest for under one ounce. You lose.

I believe in Mass, the question is are you "ADDICTED TO THE USE OF"....... as a criteria. The question has never been, have you ever USED pot. Secondly, you're asked if you have a conviction for a drug offense or violent crime. If you do you are already disqualified from getting a firearms license.

Answer what you're asked. Pay attention.

Somewhere like 30%-40% of adults in this country admit to having tried pot. Neither the police or any of us want the problems that would come with prosecuting to the max, any such minor offense. Half the country would be in jail.

We now have a president elect who makes the third President in a row who will be an admitted former drug user, joining the ranks of cocaine and pot using former chief exec's Bush and Clinton.

 

[maee]

For one thing, I think you are confusing State with Federal law. The form 4473 is a Federal form that precludes purchase of firearms by drug users. Prop. 2 is a state law that doesn't change anything with the 1968 GCA.

 

[Half Cocked]

From EOPS/AG's Office:


FIREARMS LICENSING:

Does a civil citation for possession of marijuana issued under Section 32L disqualify an applicant for a firearms license?

No. After January 2, 2009, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana will be a civil infraction under G.L. c. 94C, § 32L. This infraction will not show up on a CORI report. The text of the new Section 32L clearly states that these infractions should not serve as a disqualifier for any government program or privilege: “[N]either the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penalty, sanction, or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.”



For firearms license applications filed after the effective date of the Question 2, does a prior conviction for possession of marijuana still serve as a disqualifier?

Yes. Question 2 does not turn past convictions for possession of marijuana into civil offenses. It simply decriminalizes the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana or THC after January 2, 2009.

Until January 2, 2009, a conviction for possession of marijuana in any amount would come under G.L. c. 94C, § 34, and appear as “possession Class D” on the CORI report. A section 34 conviction may encompass controlled substances other than marijuana, and may involve quantities more or less than an ounce, none of which appears on the CORI report or on the court’s docket entries.

The prohibition on governmental disqualifications, which will appear in the new Section 32L, refers to “an offender.” The term “offender” thus refers to an offender under § 32L, not a person with a past criminal conviction under § 34.


May the licensing officer reject an applicant for a license to carry as an unsuitable person based on possession of marijuana?

The prohibition of disqualifications means that the licensing officer cannot reject an applicant on the ground that he or she has been issued a single or multiple citations for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in violation of Section 32L. A licensing officer, however, may be able to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she is a known user of controlled substances, has a substance abuse problem, or is suspected to be linked to drug dealing.

 

[Half Cocked]

I thought one of the major changes was that it did not wind up on the CORI report. If that's the case I would think they would institute a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy.

They failed.......Since you could never have been convicted of marijuana possession in the past in never did show up on a non-governmental CORI check. Now that it is a civil offense it is public record. Every citation a person receives will be public record.

It backfired on them.

"Many complain that their current citation books lack a check-off box for marijuana possession and they have yet to receive updated ticket books, although temporary forms are available through a state website."

They are not the same citation books that are used for motor vehicle offenses. They are citation books for citing by-law and local ordnance offenses under C40 Section 20D which every city and Town already should have for leash law violations, building code violations, health code violations etc......

 

[MACGYVR]

WOW!

I am blown away here that this is now law in Mass.
What kind of pet projects were attached to this law?

The specific wording banning the use of the civil violation as a disqualifier is unbeliveable!

I do like how they left that loophole in there though at the end for being deemed unsuitable. So they can't cite the actual violations you may have even if its 1000 of them, but they can get you for related reasons.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The specific wording banning the use of the civil violation as a disqualifier is unbeliveable!

Remember, this was a law by petition, not one authored by our betters. The authors apparently wanted to make sure the $100 was the only penalty, not the tip of an iceberg where the state piled on extra penalties (like driver's license revocation, etc.). I doubt the firearms angle was on their radar screen.

 

[Half Cocked]

I do like how they left that loophole in there though at the end for being deemed unsuitable. So they can't cite the actual violations you may have even if its 1000 of them, but they can get you for related reasons.

The part about the chief still being able to deny for suitability for being an addict or linked to drug dealing is simply an opinion by EOPS. Not written into the law.

 

[rbert0005]

It's real simple. Don't posses or smoke it and you will be fine.

Bob

 

[terraformer]

For one thing, I think you are confusing State with Federal law. The form 4473 is a Federal form that precludes purchase of firearms by drug users. Prop. 2 is a state law that doesn't change anything with the 1968 GCA.

I was wondering when this would come up. I believe as you state that the question is user of drugs, not addict so a possession "ticket" should be enough to land you a perjury charge on the fed form if you state No and if you state Yes, you won't be able to purchase. Or so if my understanding of the fed form holds.

 

[GOAL]

If these answers were from either EOPS or the AG in writing, I would love to get a hard copy! Especially for the last answer. Has the state changed its long term policy and now the chief can only deny you on a statutory matter rather than a personal policy?

From EOPS/AG's Office:


FIREARMS LICENSING:

Does a civil citation for possession of marijuana issued under Section 32L disqualify an applicant for a firearms license?

No. After January 2, 2009, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana will be a civil infraction under G.L. c. 94C, § 32L. This infraction will not show up on a CORI report. The text of the new Section 32L clearly states that these infractions should not serve as a disqualifier for any government program or privilege: “[N]either the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penalty, sanction, or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.”



For firearms license applications filed after the effective date of the Question 2, does a prior conviction for possession of marijuana still serve as a disqualifier?

Yes. Question 2 does not turn past convictions for possession of marijuana into civil offenses. It simply decriminalizes the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana or THC after January 2, 2009.

Until January 2, 2009, a conviction for possession of marijuana in any amount would come under G.L. c. 94C, § 34, and appear as “possession Class D” on the CORI report. A section 34 conviction may encompass controlled substances other than marijuana, and may involve quantities more or less than an ounce, none of which appears on the CORI report or on the court’s docket entries.

The prohibition on governmental disqualifications, which will appear in the new Section 32L, refers to “an offender.” The term “offender” thus refers to an offender under § 32L, not a person with a past criminal conviction under § 34.


May the licensing officer reject an applicant for a license to carry as an unsuitable person based on possession of marijuana?

The prohibition of disqualifications means that the licensing officer cannot reject an applicant on the ground that he or she has been issued a single or multiple citations for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in violation of Section 32L. A licensing officer, however, may be able to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she is a known user of controlled substances, has a substance abuse problem, or is suspected to be linked to drug dealing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Has the state changed its long term policy that the chief can only deny you on a statutory matter rather than a personal policy?

There is no change in policy, however, the new law contains a specific prohibition on using the record of a marijuana citation as a disqualifier for any state license or benefit. I am not aware of any other law that contain this very specific prohibition against use of a conviction (or "finding of responsibility" since it's a civil citation) against someone in any state licensing procedure.

The advisory simply tells the chief they must engage in semantic gymnastics if they deny because of a citation. In order to avoid risk of a rejection being overturned, the chief needs to say "It's because the applicant is a user or marijuana", not "it's because the applicant has a citation on his record".

 

[Half Cocked]

If these answers were from either EOPS or the AG in writing, I would love to get a hard copy! Especially for the last answer. Has the state changed its long term policy and now the chief can only deny you on a statutory matter rather than a personal policy?

It is on the EOPS web site. I would think GOAL would be aware of this.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsmod...ewide_ballot_initiative_question_2&csid=Eeops

As Rob stated they can still deny you as being unsuitable for being a drug user and or dealer just not for being issued a citation per C94C-32L.

Unsuitabilty semantics.

 

[MassMark]

Dudes - let's spark up....

 

[GOAL]

This is what makes me a little hesitant about trusting the post on the EOPS website. It is just that, simply an unofficial opinion with no name signed to it. I always warn people about such things. You don't want to be the test case. Keep in mind that a Chief does not have to have a reason to deny you an LTC. Under the current court rulings it is up to the applicant to prove suitability, for which there is no standard.

 

[Half Cocked]

This is what makes me a little hesitant about trusting the post on the EOPS website. It is just that, simply an unofficial opinion with no name signed to it. I always warn people about such things.

Are you serious? So one should not trust anything on your website either by that thinking.

It bears the name of Kevin Burke. Seems pretty good to me. Especially in light of the language of Question 2.

Have you read the full text of Question 2?

 

[clinotus]

I was wondering when this would come up. I believe as you state that the question is user of drugs, not addict so a possession "ticket" should be enough to land you a perjury charge on the fed form if you state No and if you state Yes, you won't be able to purchase. Or so if my understanding of the fed form holds.

Interesting.

 

[terraformer]

Interesting.

Not just interesting, I would love to know what our more legal minds think of this.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

The question actually reads on the 2001 variation of 4473, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, Marijuana..." ad infinitum, blah, blah???

Since "de-criminalizing" pot in the question 2 left it still against the law, just not a misdemeanor, I believe it still holds. But there may be a legal distinction here not apparent to the casual citizen.

 

[Half Cocked]

Not just interesting, I would love to know what our more legal minds think of this.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

The question actually reads on the 2001 variation of 4473, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, Marijuana..." ad infinitum, blah, blah???

Since "de-criminalizing" pot in the question 2 left it still against the law, just not a misdemeanor, I believe it still holds. But there may be a legal distinction here not apparent to the casual citizen.

Mere possession does not equate to use.

My wife possesses and transports alcohol all the time (packy runs for me). She has never had a drink in her life.

 

[MACGYVR]

then there is the whole federal law issue.

form 4473 is a federal form. So even though in mass you would not be an unlawful user, federally you are as posession is still illegal on the federal level.

Example. Flying into logan. You somehow got a 1/2 bag of pot out of Jamaica. You are standing there going through passport, you get to baggage and the drug dog comes by and goes nuts. Does the customs agent simply confiscate and ticket on the state level, or do they arrest you on a federal charge?

Similar thing happened with medical pot. It was someplace on the west coast that had legalized it. But the DEA was still arresting people for posession if they were caught buying from a dealer.

It is all murky to me.

In the end stay away from the stuff and there is nothing to worry about.

 

[Half Cocked]

then there is the whole federal law issue.

form 4473 is a federal form. So even though in mass you would not be an unlawful user, federally you are as posession is still illegal on the federal level.

It is still illegal to possess in Ma. It is just not criminal. Think of it like Speeding. It is illegal but not criminal.

The question posed was whether possession equates to "Unlawful user" as it reads on the Federal 4473.

The 4473 does not ask about possession just "unlawful user and addicted to etc.."

 

[terraformer]

Mere possession does not equate to use.

My wife possesses and transports alcohol all the time (packy runs for me). She has never had a drink in her life.

OK, this is splitting hairs a single cell wide. If you possess it, you most likely use it. If you claim you don't use it, you therefore must be intending to give it to someone else. Outside of other basic things like possessing it because you are a cop who confiscated it, what other option is there. You either possessed it to use, forcing one to say "Yes" on question #3, or you possessed it with the expressed intent to distribute it and you are guilty of far more and likely now truly prohibited. What middle ground exists here that provides a third, reasonable option?

You appear to be a reasonable cop. Sometimes based on other posts of yours recently (the ones on dangerousness hearings comes to mind*) it comes across you may believe all of your colleagues are reasonable too. Most probably are, but those of us who are outside the CJ system and who have little to no experience with it don't want to rely on the guy across from us being reasonable, nor do we want to rely on the jury being reasonable. We want it spelled out clear as day so any idiot can look at it and say, Yes, or No as to guilt. No BS, no interpretations, no relying on competent lawyers, no hoping the DA isn't running for Asst. AG and wants to make an example of you, etc.

I realize you can't always get it wrapped up in a pretty bow, but it seems like, in this state especially, there is a lot of wiggle room in whether or not someone is guilty of something and a lot of times the law seems to be written to make sure people are guilty of things, and then rely on the prosecution part of the equation to sort out the truly bad people from those caught up in the BS. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

* PS: I agree with you there that the dangerousness hearings seem like they are doing what folks here want to see done. I do also see the other side that says why should a hearing be required. They nailed the perp with gun while being a prohibited person so why do we need to determine if they are dangerous to throw their asses in jail. They just committed a major felony for which the booby prize is 10 yrs in the can. Why the extra hurdle that interjects subjectivity and wiggle room into the mix and which virtually guarantees some people will be treated differently than others based on various factors, some of which are non-deterministic such as race, economic class, etc.