Hundreds of gun owners may lose gun licenses | MassCops

Hundreds of gun owners may lose gun licenses

Discussion in 'Firepower!!!' started by kwflatbed, Jun 15, 2018.

  1. kwflatbed

    kwflatbed MassCops Angel Staff Member

  2. pahapoika

    pahapoika Subscribing Member

    So does this mean every case that went before the review board null and void or just certain cases ?
  3. Goose

    Goose The list is long but distinguished. Staff Member

    Sounds just like certain cases where people that were prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law due to certain misdemeanor convictions were granted licenses in error.
    CCCSD likes this.
  4. USM C-2

    USM C-2 MassCops Member

    It's been a long time since I did any licensing, but I'll try to recap. Anyone else with more current knowledge, feel free to contradict me!

    Federal law (18 USC 922 G) lists categories of "Prohibited persons" who may not possess firearms or ammunition. One of those disqualifiers is being convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment by more than one year.

    In every other state I know of, any crime punishable by imprisonment by more than one year is a felony. Except Massachusetts, which has misdemeanors up to 2 and 1/2 years.

    There was a federal court ruling, IIRC, stating that for purposes of 922 G a Massachusetts misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment up to and including 2 years would not be disqualifying.

    This left all Massachusetts 2 and 1/2 year misdemeanors as the equivalent of disqualifying offenses, while leaving all 2 year or less misdemeanors as not disqualifying. Not because of a strict reading of 922 G, but due to the court holding that the Massachusetts applicants were being disqualified for misdemeanors, while the applicants in every other state were only being disqualified for felonies.

    So... that's the state of the law as I understood it. I used to be able to tell you which crimes were DQ's... B&E, 2nd and subsqeuent OUI, a few others maybe.

    From the news story what I can gather is that some folks with DQ convictions weren't flagged by the CHSB. I had to review BOP's myself, even if the CHSB didn't flag them. Seems like that may not be the case now.
    Kilvinsky, Goose and CCCSD like this.
  5. Treehouse413

    Treehouse413 MassCops Member

    I had a guy that was flagged. He received a pardon. I called firearms record bureau (FRB) he was good to go
    pahapoika likes this.
  6. Treehouse413

    Treehouse413 MassCops Member

    Pretty much sums it up
    USM C-2 and Edmizer1 like this.
  7. Edmizer1

    Edmizer1 MassCops Member

    The push to move for 2 year to 2.5 year misdemeanors went through in the mid 90s. As we know, there has probably been zero people incarcerated for a first offense misdemeanor for 2.5 years. This was done to put the liability of losing certain rights in play which means you would have to fight even the most minor crimes. It makes defendants that have resources hire defense attorneys. This was done by our defense attorney controlled legislature. As was just noted, this is unique to Mass. All of these misdemeanors should be rolled back to max 2 years.

    The other dirty secret is older people I have seen with convictions for crimes like A+B and OUI. Their BOP will show a G conviction for A+B or an OUI with a $20 fine. This was back when there were no CWOP's or CWOF's, pre-trial probation, ect. People just took the G and paid a small fine. There were no other options. Now they are screwed years later.
    USM C-2, pahapoika and Goose like this.
  8. Kilvinsky

    Kilvinsky I think, therefore I'll never be promoted.

    DON-ALD, please straighten this shit out! Thank you.
    wrangler, Goose and pahapoika like this.
  9. pahapoika

    pahapoika Subscribing Member

    Seems to me if these are very old cases the state should do something to rectify it. Maybe grant a new trial ?

    To take away someone's livelihood after all these years just seems wrong.
    Kilvinsky and Goose like this.
  10. Kilvinsky

    Kilvinsky I think, therefore I'll never be promoted.

    I have to respectfully disagree. It IS wrong, totally wrong and 1000000% wrong.
    pahapoika likes this.

Share This Page