2A win in MA.

[GaryS]

A quirk in MA law makes the sentence for a first time drunk driving conviction a disqualifier to own firearms. Even though it's a misdemeanor under state law, the sentence of up to 2 1/2 years makes it a felony under federal law.

Locally, it's known as a Misdefelony. Both the ATF and the MA Firearms License Review Board (FLRB) consider it a lifetime prohibitor for firearms possession. It gets a bit more complicated than that due to the term "restoration of rights," and it's explained quite well in the Memorandum of Decision from the Superior Court.

This could, and likely will, be appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court, but it's important that the Superior Court found in the plaintiffs favor.

Here is a link to the decision,

https://comm2a.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Capano-v.-Dunne.pdf

 

[woodsltc]

Even though it may be appealed it's good news ..... & "any good news" is welcome right now.

Don

 

[dsf]

Regarding gun ownership Justice Thomas once pointedly asked "is there any other fundamental right permanently lost due to a misdemeanor conviction?" and I'm fairly certain he knew the answer.

People should think about this for a moment. We talk about guns from a collecting, going to the range, having fun and albeit it sometimes generally for self-defense, but maybe not with the proper emphasis.

Not just a DUI, but for many low level offenses, states like CA, NY, NJ and MA are willing to deny a person the ability to defend their lives and that of their family using the most useful tool available. To say that because they made a mistake, often a single and long event, they are forever prohibited, their lives are put at greater risk. Tough luck, you don't matter.

Put in the proper perspective it's very chilling. The state as an arbiter of who is worthy of effective self-defense and by default, living.

 

[GaryS]

That's part of the MA case as well. ONLY 2A Rights are lost by the sentence. Those convicted can still vote, sit on a jury, and hold political office.

That was the excuse the ATF used for refusing to restore 2A rights to those people. Their interpretation of the law is that because they don't lose all of their rights, then their rights aren't restored.

Regarding gun ownership Justice Thomas once pointedly asked "is there any other fundamental right permanently lost due to a misdemeanor conviction?" and I'm fairly certain he knew the answer.

People should think about this for a moment. We talk about guns from a collecting, going to the range, having fun and albeit it sometimes generally for self-defense, but maybe not with the proper emphasis.

Not just a DUI, but for many low level offenses, states like CA, NY, NJ and MA are willing to deny a person the ability to defend their lives and that of their family using the most useful tool available. To say that because they made a mistake, often a single and long event, they are forever prohibited, their lives are put at greater risk. Tough luck, you don't matter.

Put in the proper perspective it's very chilling. The state as an arbiter of who is worthy of effective self-defense and by default, living.

 

[llowry61]

Regarding gun ownership Justice Thomas once pointedly asked "is there any other fundamental right permanently lost due to a misdemeanor conviction?" and I'm fairly certain he knew the answer.

People should think about this for a moment. We talk about guns from a collecting, going to the range, having fun and albeit it sometimes generally for self-defense, but maybe not with the proper emphasis.

Not just a DUI, but for many low level offenses, states like CA, NY, NJ and MA are willing to deny a person the ability to defend their lives and that of their family using the most useful tool available. To say that because they made a mistake, often a single and long event, they are forever prohibited, their lives are put at greater risk. Tough luck, you don't matter.

Put in the proper perspective it's very chilling. The state as an arbiter of who is worthy of effective self-defense and by default, living.

But they make sure a felon can vote.

 

[n c rod]

Win in MA

We should expect more from our Government. They will be using MA. residents tax dollars to appeal a decision that possibly will restore a right that should not have been taken from WE THE PEOPLE in the first place. Friendly ol Massachusetts when it is about who and how their residents defend themselves and their loved ones. Bless the 2 souls that had the courage to bring this suit to right a wrong.

 

[glowe]

One needs to disconnect these two issues, drunk driving and gun ownership, or unintended consequences may be in the offing. One should not and cannot dismiss DUI as a minor offense. In my opinion, there should be a felony option for drunk drivers. Fortunately, most states consider it a felony if a fatality is involved, and that currently stands at one person every hour on US roads. I have to say that driving drunk with a firearm should be a felony period!

First of all, if you drink DO NOT DRIVE. Secondly, don't take your gun out drinking. If responsible gun owners do not support punishment for people who have no respect for laws and proper gun ownership, it will only give the anti-gun people more fodder.

My opinion, given at great risk for retribution, is that anyone driving drunk with a firearm is committing a felony and the laws should reflect this moving forward.

 

[cmj8591]

My opinion, given at great risk for retribution, is that anyone driving drunk with a firearm is committing a felony and the laws should reflect this moving forward.

I don't take any of this as giving drunk driving a pass. I don't like to speak for others, but minimizing DUI doesn't seem to be the argument here. In Mass., anything 2nd offense or more is a felony, as it should be. The problem is that someone who may have had a 1st offense DUI on their record from 40 years ago, went on to be a good citizen, had a gun permit without incident, suddenly lost their 2nd rights just because of that law change that adopted the Fed. definition of felony. It's not just DUI's either. Some guy who punched someone in a bar fight in 1961 when they were 21, went to court and pleaded guilty and paid the $50 fine, went on to live problem free, may have even been in the military or had positions of responsibility throughout their life. None of that matters. Your right to have a gun is gone. It is basically unfair, if nothing else. This is a good court decision for sure but I wouldn't expect it to stand if it makes it to the Mass. SJC.

 

[steelslaver]

I have no use for drunk drivers, but I do not believe you should loose guaranteed right for a misdemeanor.

BTW the Second Amendment does not give you the right to bear arms. That is a purely natural right. The Second simply bars the government from interfering with that right