Archive for June, 2018
Author: The Past:
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367, was passed by the Ma. House and Senate making it law on 6-29-2004. It created the Firearms Licensing Review Board, (FLRB). Firearm license applicants disqualified by a prior misdemeanor conviction could now file a petition for review, (see Gun Sense #20) now moot, in front of a seven member board. The petition could be filed 5 years after the conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole.
The Firearms Reform bill s.2367 merely took the existing state references to Federal law, and fixed the language to a point in time in 1994. Lawmakers followed that Federal language supposedly in 2004 as well, and believed the net effect on Ma gun owners should be zero.
Under M.G.L c. 140/ 130B, since 2004, people who were previously denied a firearm license were able to sometimes successfully petition the FLRB to regain or gain a firearm license. Police chiefs would ultimately have the final say but normally were comfortable with the findings of the FLRB.
PRESENT DAY:
Recently,…..
To read this chapter in full, and any other articles in the Gun Sense series, it is available as an Ebook and a Paperback at Amazon under:
Gun Sense Massachusetts Gun Law Information and Common Sense Firearm Safety By Mark R. Shean Sr.
Posted in 
Submitted by Mark Shean Sr. author of GUN SENSE, on Amazon.
BATFE Advises Ma. Firearm Licensing Review Board NOT to Restore Licenses
In a 2004 firearm licensing reform bill, GOAL was successful in establishing the Firearm Licensing Review Board (FLRB). The Board’s purpose was to restore Second Amendment Civil Rights to those who have had their rights taken away for having committed minor misdemeanors. According to the state, approximately 350 people have successfully acquired an FID Card or LTC by the Board.
Recently, GOAL has been made aware the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has advised the Department of Criminal Justice Informational Services (DCJIS) that the FLRB is issuing FID Cards or LTCs to persons who are considered to be prohibited under federal law. As a result, the DCJIS has shared a letter they have sent to the BATFE confirming their opinion.
Essentially, the BATFE is claiming that all of those that were granted an FID Card or LTC are still statutorily prohibited under federal law. Under federal law 18 U.S.C § 922(g) convictions for all of the applicants were misdemeanors punishable by more than 2 years. This would mean that the crime cannot be forgiven unless it is expunged or vacated somehow.
There has always been an issue with federal law not recognizing a so-called partial restoration of rights. They have always claimed that if a person loses their Second Amendment Civil Rights, they cannot be restored piece meal. Either they are fully restored or they are not. This would be similar in fashion to voting rights. If you were convicted of a crime that resulted in the loss of voting rights, the government would not accept a process that would restrict your right to vote in certain elections.
Another issue brought up by the BATFE was a 2007 United States Supreme Court case called Logan v. United States 552 U.S. 23. The use of this ruling involves language stating that civil rights cannot be restored that have not been taken. Essentially what the ruling is saying is that if the actual law a person violated does not itself include as a penalty the loss of rights, then the rights have not been taken. So for example, the penalty clause in the driving under the influence statute would have to list the loss of civil rights.
Our problem here is that the BATFE does not seem to equate the loss of a license to the loss of a civil right. In their eyes, the civil right is maintained, but the “privilege” of a license is lost. This is a very contorted way of looking at things to be sure.
GOAL has been informed that with the BATFE’s opinion, FID Cards or LTCs for those previously approved by the FLRB will no longer be renewed by the state. The state does have the authority to revoke a license, so they simply won’t renew them. However, local licensing authorities can make a decision to either revoke them or simply let them run out.
GOAL is consulting our friends at the national level to see if there is a way to rectify this problem. It is bad enough these good folks lost their rights once, now it is going to happen to them again.
DCJIS Letter:
FLRB Statute: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section130B