Proposition 2 and LTC / Firearm Purchases

[Coyote33]

You must have missed the discussion here:
New laws dig up old dirt to deny MA LTC renewals?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

True. The EOPS opinion is simply advice on how a chief can use that authority without falling into the trap of stating the denial is based on one of the very few things that MGL says cannot be used to disqualify one for any form of state license or benefit.

 

[Half Cocked]

You either possessed it to use, forcing one to say "Yes" on question #3

Agreed

or you possessed it with the expressed intent to distribute it and you are guilty of far more and likely now truly prohibited

.

This is the difference. The question asks you if you are an "unlawful user or otherwise addicted to".

It does not ask you if you are a distributor of.

I agree that if you possess and do not use that there is the most likely chance that you are a distributor but that does not make you a prohibited person until you are caught and convicted.

Also..unlesss one were to habitually receive marijuana possession citations it is possible to have received one in the past and to have stopped using marijuana and therefore at the time of the purchase you would not be an unlawful user any more.

What middle ground exists here that provides a third, reasonable option?

That you are a distributor that has yet to be caught and convicted or you have quit the use of the drugs.

 

[Half Cocked]

True. The EOPS opinion is simply advice on how a chief can use that authority without falling into the trap of stating the denial is based on one of the very few things that MGL says cannot be used to disqualify one for any form of state license or benefit.

Rob,

Just for a point of clarification, the language of question 2 does not state "state licenses". That is a popular interpretation but it does not state that specifically.

"An Act Establishing A Sensible State Marihuana Policy," neither 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. By way of illustration rather than limitation, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall not provide a basis to deny an offender student financial aid, public housing or any form of public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, to deny the right to operate a motor vehicle or to disqualify an offender from serving as a foster parent or adoptive parent. Information concerning the offense of possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall not be deemed "criminal offender record information," "evaluative information," or "intelligence information" as those terms are defined in Section 167 of Chapter 6 of the General Laws and shall not be recorded in the Criminal Offender Record Information system.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Boy, this is getting heavy! I just load my Python with a hollow point in one chamber and five joints in the others. Jack.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just for a point of clarification, the language of question 2 does not state "state licenses". That is a popular interpretation but it does not state that specifically.

True, but many people thing the term any means any, and that the PD is an agency, authority or instrumentality of the commonwealth:

neither 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.

The EOPS would appear to agree, as evidenced by their advisory.

 

[Half Cocked]

The EOPS would appear to agree, as evidenced by their advisory.

Rob...I agree as well..my only point is that it does not specifically include "state licenses" and although EOPS as well as you and I agree that it applies to an LTC it may not ultimately apply to "all state licenses".

 

[FunYun]

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.

I would say you would end up dealing with Homeland Security and Customs on the Federal level on a international flight. Since you have technically not enter the country till your through customs.

As to the DEA crap, Cali has medical weed. They also have licensed growers and distributors. The DEA continually comes in and raids them. I don't think I have heard of them arresting buyers, but definitely the 'legal' growers/dealers.

The way I see this new law is, mere possession is not a dis-qualifyer. Though multiple possessions could lead to an assumption of habitual use or dealing, which is a dis-qualifier.

The 4473 is a federal form and only asks of illegal use, not possession.

Personally, if you manage to get caught constantly, your probably not to bright.

 

[FunYun]

Rob...I agree as well..my only point is that it does not specifically include "state licenses" and although EOPS as well as you and I agree that it applies to an LTC it may not ultimately apply to "all state licenses".

may [not] impose any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.

Those are very strong words. Someone would be hard pressed to prove not letting someone buy a firearm is not any of the above.

 

[Coyote33]

I wonder whether this has affected anyone now that some time has passed. (Sorry, just purging old unread notifications out of my email inbox.)

 

[drgrant]

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're making a mountain out of a pile of dust here.

Read the wording on that question again. It's imminently clear to me that the question is stated in the present tense. This means that if you had pot a week ago and no longer have it that you cannot perjure yourself on that question by answering "no" because you don't currently meet the qualifiers stated in that question. It says "Are you" not "Have you been..."

The whole thing is really a dumb question and is basically unenforceable. (unless they start administering drug tests as part of NICS...)

 

[LTCRN]

Does possession of dope as a juvenile (16) automatically disqualify one from obtaining a LTC? The incident occured over 25 yrs to a friend of mine, yes a friend, not me- I already have my license. Thanks for answering

 

[radioman]

Does possession of dope as a juvenile (16) automatically disqualify one from obtaining a LTC? The incident occured over 25 yrs to a friend of mine, yes a friend, not me- I already have my license. Thanks for answering

I'm also interested in this question(step son)