Return of Firearmarms...Charges dismissed

[David Balkus]

About 2 yrs ago,I was charged with mutiple storage violations.Friday,all charges were dimissed.My ex has a 209A..no abuse only and firearm surrender order on me,which she is useing to keep me from seeing my daughter"which has failed".Now the the case is dismissed.How does one go about getting the Items seized from ones home and released to someone that can legaly posses them,as the case is closed?
I would at this time like to thank every single one of the N.E.S. Family for being my companion thoughout the past few years.Guess its time to start my search for my ways to change the system in Ma.If my father could put his life on the line as a vetran to defended our freadom..Its the least I can do..
Thank YOU

 

[vellnueve]

You need a lawyer.

 

[OLAK]

First as Vellnueve said you need a lawyer!

As far as I know, if you have a 209A you will not get your fid or licence back.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As far as I know, if you have a 209A you will not get your fid or licence back.

Definitely true while the 209A is in effect. Some departments will reinstate an LTC after a 209A expires; some will do it some of the time; and at least one treats it (by policy, not law) as a lifetime disqualifier.

 

[David Balkus]

I had all but three of them transfered to someone that could legaly have them..I now wish to do the same with the remainder so as to be able to get my property back when I am once again able to do so legaly..

 

[gene]

There are aspects of the case you mentioned that would benefit from a lawyers experience. Whether the judge vacated and expunged the order and when, whether or not one can prove fraud to get the record vacated even today if not are more complicated questions than can be answered through general advise. Having had a 209A in a divorce is not an automatic disqualifier by itself in getting back your license assuming it's been properly vacated and expunged.
Especially in a case that as you mentioned, there was no actual threat of violence.

The 209A system has been well abused in the divorce and seperation process and many chiefs and lawyers know it. A lawyer would review your case and provide the right advice in an attempt to avoid denial. Given the recent decisions on the second, the time strike might be good. You need your documents in order as well as a good defense and if you didn't fight tooth and nail when the order was first issued with a lawyer to get it vacated, perhaps more so.

The longer the order was in effect and the details of the surrounding the issuance of that order has a substantial impact on the lawyers ability to defend you. I would not get a lawyer that doesn't specialize in firearms related cases because it will likely drag out forever and a lawyer that doesn't have the background probably couldn't give you good advise as to whether the pursuit would be more likely be a vain attempt in the court system from the git go.

I would speculate that lawyers have more tools dealing with these issues than they did before the supreme court decisions. Pure speculation on my part but I do have experience in whether the 209A is an immediate disqualifier. Success in this endeavor will likely be decided by very few people and the better your defense and history, the more likely you are to be successful in part or whole.

Be prepared to to take the fight outside the normal application process.

 

[RobXD]

just curious ,how can you have 209a and be able to see your daughter...

 

[appraiser]

You need Jesse Cohen, he is a member on the board, PM him.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Having had a 209A in a divorce is not an automatic disqualifier by itself in getting back your license assuming it's been properly vacated and expunged.

It is, by policy, in Wakefield - and said policy has been backed by both the state level district and appellate courts.

just curious ,how can you have 209a and be able to see your daughter...

Visitation rights (sometimes with a supervision requirement) are not uncommon in 209A situations. Once example is the case of the man who had visitation rights with his kid, and violated this 209A by getting out of his car to hold the door to the apartment building that the kid could not open by himself when being returned to his mother. He was convicted.

 

[gene]

Rob Boudrie;1504987]It is, by policy, in Wakefield - and said policy has been backed by both the state level district and appellate courts.

You can't take two lines of what I said and make an argument that he will never be able to own his firearms again with the proper legal support! He has every right if the conditions are dictate to get the record totally expunged and removed from the CORI system if he has a defense, especially if there was fraud and can prove it.

The abuse by city and town is just that, ABUSE! I personally know people that have had a 209A filed on them and are walking around today with their LTC's without restrictions.

Visitation rights (sometimes with a supervision requirement) are not uncommon in 209A situations. Once example is the case of the man who had visitation rights with his kid, and violated this 209A by getting out of his car to hold the door to the apartment building that the kid could not open by himself when being returned to his mother. He was convicted.

Not extreme examples at all are they? The parts/background you left out in making your point is most important to your example.

 

[David Balkus]

I have been able to prove,despite over 27 tries on her part to have me demonized,that I pose no risk to my daughter,or anyone else..Lesson learned"Don't piss off your old lady:

 

[gene]

I have been able to prove,despite over 27 tries on her part to have me demonized,that I pose no risk to my daughter,or anyone else..Lesson learned"Don't piss off your old lady:

If the 209A is no longer in force and according to Rob you don't live in Wakefield, you should talk to a lawyer especially if you have multiple cases and repeated documentation that show she was filing for anything other than a real threat. The 209A has various conditions spelled out in it as it relates the level of threat you supposidly present up to and including the times and days you can visit, call your children....

The body of information in the 209A is important as are all the time lines and conditions.

 

[rep308]

I am surprised that it has take this long for someone to suggest to call a lawyer and not post this kind of information on a public forum. You sound like you got screwed, but you don't need a printout of this thread entered in evidence in a possible court case

 

[gene]

I am surprised that it has take this long for someone to suggest to call a lawyer and not post this kind of information on a public forum. You sound like you got screwed, but you don't need a printout of this thread entered in evidence in a possible court case

There is no evidence in any of these post that I can see might be used against him? His 209A is a matter of record and he's done nothing here but ask advice and was advised to see a lawyer from the beginning.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Did anyone read the OP?????

He's asking HOW he can get the 3 guns TRANSFERED to a LTC-holder of his choice!!

He's not asking about getting them back in HIS HANDS!

Now to the OP's real questions . . .

- Getting a firearms attorney should be your first step. If in Eastern MA, my recommendation would be Jesse Cohen in Framingham. If in Western MA, my recommendation would be Joe Hickson (jhickson here IIRC).

- It is likely that in 2 years the PD shipped them off to storage. If so, the fees to get them back is likely in the thousands by now and they have been sold by the bonded warehouse (legal if held for 6 months).

Best of luck.

 

[Len-2A Training]

just curious ,how can you have 209a and be able to see your daughter...

Here's how a scenario may play out (from info heard on my scanner from a local PD) . . .

Party with custody shows up at PD and party with 209A shows up at the PD to take the kid, drop-off is reversed. So PD (with an officer present for the hand-offs) acts as babysitter under the ruling by a probate judge for visitations.

 

[stinx]

(Party with custody shows up at PD and party with 209A shows up at the PD to take the kid, drop-off is reversed. So PD (with an officer present for the hand-offs) acts as babysitter under the ruling by a probate judge for visitations.)

My PD will not do this, they will supervise a transfer but will not have an officer supervise a visitation. DCF is responsible for that if its deemed neccesary.

 

[dick backus]

There sounds like there is more to this story then what has been told.

 

[Titan]

(Party with custody shows up at PD and party with 209A shows up at the PD to take the kid, drop-off is reversed. So PD (with an officer present for the hand-offs) acts as babysitter under the ruling by a probate judge for visitations.)

My PD will not do this, they will supervise a transfer but will not have an officer supervise a visitation. DCF is responsible for that if its deemed neccesary.

In supervised visitation, the supervising party can be anyone that the court and the parties agree to. It doesn't have to be, and I suspect, rarely is...the police.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You can't take two lines of what I said and make an argument that he will never be able to own his firearms again with the proper legal support! He has every right if the conditions are dictate to get the record totally expunged and removed from the CORI system if he has a defense, especially if there was fraud and can prove it.

The abuse by city and town is just that, ABUSE! I personally know people that have had a 209A filed on them and are walking around today with their LTC's without restrictions.

You are correct - I also know of such cases.

The chief's position as stated in Howard v. Wakefield is that a 209A issued by a judge represents a finding that the individual poses a threat of violence, and that the expiration of the 209A does not erase the fact that the individual has a history of being found post a threat of violence. Howard lost his appeal at the district and appellate court level, however, that was in the pre Heller/McDonald era when all applicable case law clearly stated that firearms ownership in MA was a collective, not an individual, right. With proper representation in the right court, an individual would stand a better chance today.

As to expungement - you're talking about an uphill fight ($$$), and the issuing departments are generally not going to buy into the "legal fiction" theory that the applicant is entitled to answer NO when asked about expunged convictions or ROs.

In any case, someone in such a situation would be better off seeing an attorney who understands firearms law and hopefully avoid the initial denial by doing the proper homework.

 

[gene]

Generally speaking in the past even if the judge ordered a 209A expunged and vacated, the record of the 209A still remained on a persons CORI. Didn't matter whether it was issued fraudulently or not. CHSB assured this was the case and fought the fight to maintain the status quo and lost partially.

Within the last few years due to the fact that the CORI is being looked at by employers and others and the 209A is a black mark. People have managed to go back and have the CORI wiped although it's not cheap and usually you are required to prove fraud. It sounds like the town you are referring is abusing their authority because most of the world knows that 209A'a have been a standard in nasty divorces to maintain control. No violence need occur and there have been few if any penalties if any for false filings. The 209A can be thrown out the first time the person it was taken out against appears before a judge.

Almost anyone can file a 209A against another party under the right circumstances. Obviously the best thing you can do is to fight them vigorously when they are first issued. Hopefully you will get them vacated and expunged when you first appear in court. There are lawyers that specialize in this area today since the ruling was made I think about 3 years ago that a judge can order the record removed from the CORI much to the displeasure of the CHSB.

I am guessing that the prior example in the case of Wakefield using the 209A as a life time disqualifier might not be as justifiable as it might have been before the recent 2A decisions. I can say that if it was me, I would fight this with my dying breath and every cent I made to reverse the decision. Obviously the best coarse of action is to make the fight when it's issued but as we all know, divorce in MA has a way of turning fathers paupers when they can.

 

[appraiser]

That dickhead of a Chief is long gone from Wakefield, The "new" Chief who has been there a few years now (5?) might be more reasonable.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Within the last few years due to the fact that the CORI is being looked at by employers and others and the 209A is a black mark.

I believe employer CORI checks have a different level of access than LE checks. LE checks include everything. Authorized private sector checks have a different level of access and may exclude items like expired ROs, charges not resulting in conviction, etc. LE always sees everything.

That dickhead of a Chief is long gone from Wakefield, The "new" Chief who has been there a few years now (5?) might be more reasonable.

Thanks for the update.

People have managed to go back and have the CORI wiped

.... Even so, such applicants can expect to be denied for lying on the LTC application if they don't mention this, as the question is "has a 209A even been issued". This can even happen with departments that might issue if they were told about the expired and expunged 209A. Departments don't generally buy in the "legal fiction" concept that one is legally allowed to answer NO to any question about an expunged record, and an expungement does not reach into every department's records and every officer's memory and scrub the data.

 

[Martlet]

Good luck with that.