Comm2A challenges MA LTC denial for minor drug offenses

[jrosenberger]

Here's the Comm2A press release:

Comm2A files suit over lifetime ban for anyone convicted of minor drug related offenses

Comm2A, the organization dedicated to preserving rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, has filed suit in federal court against Police Chiefs in Salisbury and Natick for denying plaintiffs the right to possess a firearm for self defense.

Massachusetts law currently imposes a lifetime ban on the issuance of a license to carry to anyone convicted of even minor drug related offenses.

"Practically speaking, what this means is that someone who plead guilty to possession of less than an ounce of marijuana when they were a teenager, paid a fine and served no jail time, isn't eligible for an LTC, even if they’ve led an exemplary, law-abiding life for the past thirty or forty years. " said Brent Carlton, President of Comm2A. "This represents an utterly unreasonable denial of a fundamental right and in no way can be justified by the legitimate need to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible or dangerous individuals."

Both plaintiffs have a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and have faced no other charges in the past 30-40 years. One plaintiff was convicted in 1982 and fined $10.00. The other plaintiff was convicted in 1973 and fined $300.00. Neither plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the time of their conviction.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is currently a civil offense in Massachusetts punishable by a $100 fine and by law cannot be used to deny someone a License to Carry.
Comm2A and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Lee, Massachusetts attorney Jeff Scrimo.

Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) is a grassroots civil rights organization dedicated to promoting a better understanding of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Unlike Schrader, who lost at circuit and recently had en banc review denied, this is an as applied challenge. The relevant MA statue imposes an LTC denial for anyone who "has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of a ... violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances..."

The MA marijuana decriminalization referendum enacted in 2008 makes possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana a civil offense and explicitly says it can have no effect on violators beyond a $100 civil fine. So, ironically, a 30 year old conviction is a lifetime ban, but one yesterday would be no problem.

 

[newq]

That cross contradiction is BS. I am very cautious to approach subjects like this because frankly Drug addicts in early adulthood generally remain on/off drug users fighting addiction the rest of their lives.

It is difficult to find sympathy for people who truthfully damage the abilities of the rest of us to keep our rights. Trust me I see the conflict here and beleieve all things in the eyes of the law should be equal but, I would certainly be hard pressed to fight for something like this.

In this day and age I am thankful we retain the right to keep and bare arms. I dont need the extra chore of explaning why a former drug addict may need to carry a weapon. I see it but it is hard to get behind. If anything I almost believe that both previous and current offense should disqualify these individuals. I dont need someone impaired carrying a gun. I may get flamed for this but I dont recommend someone who is not stable, in control of themselves and has all of their bearings to be able to carry a firearm.

 

[Boom Boom]

That cross contradiction is BS. I am very cautious to approach subjects like this because frankly Drug addicts in early adulthood generally remain on/off drug users fighting addiction the rest of their lives.

It is difficult to find sympathy for people who truthfully damage the abilities of the rest of us to keep our rights. Trust me I see the conflict here and beleieve all things in the eyes of the law should be equal but, I would certainly be hard pressed to fight for something like this.

How sad. You're making a leap of logic that doesn't fly. A stupid teenager caught with small amount of pot does not equate to a drug addict, never mind a lifelong drug addict. I've personally seen more than a few drug addicts self-destruct during my nearly five decades of existence. The stupid teenager and the drug addict tend to have little or nothing in common, including the drug. Never forget that we live in a society where most everything is being criminalized at a fast pace, oddly while drugs are being decriminalized. At some point, that criminalization will ensnare you and/or your loved ones and you will end up staring squarely at the shoe on the other foot. As a perfect example, consider gun legislation being proposed now around the country that is aimed at criminalizing gun owners who've done nothing wrong and who legally own their guns beyond any doubt. The day you become a felon simply for possessing those guns is the day you will whistle a completely different tune, regardless of whether you become a felon for failing to (re-)register your guns within some short time frame or perhaps because you were caught driving some nominal amount over the speed limit. Karma is such a bitch.

 

[newq]

How sad. You're making a leap of logic that doesn't fly. A stupid teenager caught with small amount of pot does not equate to a drug addict, never mind a lifelong drug addict. I've personally seen more than a few drug addicts self-destruct during my nearly five decades of existence. The stupid teenager and the drug addict tend to have little or nothing in common, including the drug. Never forget that we live in a society where most everything is being criminalized at a fast pace, oddly while drugs are being decriminalized. At some point, that criminalization will ensnare you and/or your loved ones and you will end up staring squarely at the shoe on the other foot. As a perfect example, consider gun legislation being proposed now around the country that is aimed at criminalizing gun owners who've done nothing wrong and who legally own their guns beyond any doubt. The day you become a felon simply for possessing those guns is the day you will whistle a completely different tune, regardless of whether you become a felon for failing to (re-)register your guns within some short time frame or perhaps because you were caught driving some nominal amount over the speed limit. Karma is such a bitch.

We are on very different planes here. I have quite a bit of experience with a sibling who fights drug addiction to this very day. While potheads in general are not necessarily a threat there are very few that remain just potheads. Either way I wouldnt recommend my sibling even own a firearm regardless of how long she has remained off the sauce. I know its frequently a mental struggle to keep off the stuff.

Criminalizing firearms is also very different than a fighting for the rights of a drug user. I recognize your point but my point is not that a teenager caught with pot should be doomed to this fate the rest of his or her life but more over then you are left to attempt to decypher if the person in question has ever cleaned their act up.

Hypothetical but follow me here a minute,

Joe Smith is caught at age 16 with some pot and it's been his only offense. He manages with a $100 fine and has no offenses as an adult and manages to avoid the legal system until it comes to light that he is responsible for robbing many people at gun point to support a drug habbit which spawned out of the only snapshot law enforcement had of him previously.

Being as though he had managed to avoid any criminal charges to date doesnt mean they are clean and responsible enough to carry and you cant prove it to me otherwise because I am related to living proof of a scenario just like the above mentioned. Perhaps I am too biased because I see the grip this shit has on people and know how decpetive it can seem when you are an outsider.



I guess the clencher for me on this is the banner even for minor drug related offenses. What would be the definition of minor ?

 

[Kilroy]

I'm not a huge proponent of gun ownership and carry for people with poor decision making skills. Therefore, my response is "meh."

 

[Boom Boom]

A kid caught once many thousands of moons ago with a small amount of pot does not equate to a "pothead". It seems like you're a bit jaded and externalizing some tough personal experiences by casting a wide, cold-hearted net. When you toss all sympathy and compassion out the door, expect none in return when your time comes. It's that karma thing again. Trust me. People really do reap what they sow, very often by casting bad vibes brought on by deep-rooted cynicism and anger. It's not healthy.

 

[occbrian]

A kid caught once many thousands of moons ago with a small amount of pot does not equate to a "pothead". It seems like you're a bit jaded and externalizing some tough personal experiences by casting a wide, cold-hearted net. When you toss all sympathy and compassion out the door, expect none in return when your time comes. It's that karma thing again. Trust me. People really do reap what they sow, very often by casting bad vibes brought on by deep-rooted cynicism and anger. It's not healthy.

 

[gmhowell]

While potheads in general are not necessarily a threat there are very few that remain just potheads. Either way I wouldnt recommend my sibling even own a firearm regardless of how long she has remained off the sauce. I know its frequently a mental struggle to keep off the stuff.

Let's try it this way:

While gun owners in general are not necessarily a threat there are very few that remain just gun owners. Either way I wouldnt recommend my sibling even own a relatively benign plant regardless of how long she has remained away from the range. I know its frequently a mental struggle to avoid randomly shooting stuff.

You've also ignored the point that the law in that state changed in 2008 because the legislature and governor (?or referendum?) find attitudes like yours towards pot ridiculous.

Thievery to support just a pot habit? I'm sure it happens all the time... I wonder how many of your co-workers pop a few oxys a day "just for back pain".

 

[amoebicmagician]

We are on very different planes here. I have quite a bit of experience with a sibling who fights drug addiction to this very day. While potheads in general are not necessarily a threat there are very few that remain just potheads. Either way I wouldnt recommend my sibling even own a firearm regardless of how long she has remained off the sauce. I know its frequently a mental struggle to keep off the stuff.

Criminalizing firearms is also very different than a fighting for the rights of a drug user. I recognize your point but my point is not that a teenager caught with pot should be doomed to this fate the rest of his or her life but more over then you are left to attempt to decypher if the person in question has ever cleaned their act up.

Hypothetical but follow me here a minute,

Joe Smith is caught at age 16 with some pot and it's been his only offense. He manages with a $100 fine and has no offenses as an adult and manages to avoid the legal system until it comes to light that he is responsible for robbing many people at gun point to support a drug habbit which spawned out of the only snapshot law enforcement had of him previously.

Being as though he had managed to avoid any criminal charges to date doesnt mean they are clean and responsible enough to carry and you cant prove it to me otherwise because I am related to living proof of a scenario just like the above mentioned. Perhaps I am too biased because I see the grip this shit has on people and know how decpetive it can seem when you are an outsider.



I guess the clencher for me on this is the banner even for minor drug related offenses. What would be the definition of minor ?

what planet are you living on? I literally do not know ONE SINGLE PERSON who did not smoke at least a little pot in high school.

The only ones who are drug addicts now, out of all the friends I made in school, were popping pills and drinking and totally pre-occupied with altering their conciousness at all times.

I even know a bunch of people that smoked pot for YEARS, and then got their shit together and are totally productive members of society. Come to think of it, they were productive members of society then.

I'm not trying to make a case to legalize weed, I frankly don't care one way or the other, but I think that there is a world of difference between youthful indiscretion with weed and someone who uses cocaine on the regular.

Distinctions should be made, because if they are not, it's just one more group of people disqualified, and if we don't stick up for them there will be no one left to cry out when they come for US

 

[Broder]

I will state the obvious. This is just another angle being worked to exclude more law abiding people from firearms ownership. Why doesn't the state go after the criminals committing the gun crimes?

Here is a case in point. Although just about any case involving gun crime is a case in point. I just did a google search on the terms "baltimore" and "shooting". A Beltsville shooting from yesterday was the first thing that popped up.

http://www.wbal.com/article/98321/3/template-story/Man-Charged-For-Shooting-Two-At-A-Nail-Salon

I have done this before so I was 99% sure the shooter would 1) be in possession of the gun illegally and 2) would have a criminal record. The shooter is 35 year old Tuan Minh Pham of Beltsville. Below is his one Maryland court record. I would be surprised if he did not have cases in other states.

Case Information
Court System: DISTRICT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY - CRIMINAL SYSTEM
Case Number: 1T00078268Tracking No:121001130714
Case Type: CRIMINAL
District Code: 10Location Code:01
Document Type: WARRANTIssued Date:07/15/2012
Case Status: ACTIVE
Defendant Information
Defendant Name: PHAM, TUAN MINH
Race: ASIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER
Sex: MHeight:506Weight:160DOB:11/10/1976
Address: 9354 SOMERSBY CT
City: LAURELState:MDZip Code:20723 - 0000

Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately. The disposition is listed below the Charge)

Charge No: 001Description:ATT 2ND DEG. MURDER
Statute: CR.2.206Description:ATT 2ND DEG. MURDER
Amended Date: CJIS Code:2 0920MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 002Description:ATT 2ND DEG. MURDER
Statute: CR.2.206Description:ATT 2ND DEG. MURDER
Amended Date: CJIS Code:2 0920MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 003Description:ASSAULT-FIRST DEGREE
Statute: CR.3.202Description:ASSAULT-FIRST DEGREE
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 1420MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 004Description:ASSAULT-FIRST DEGREE
Statute: CR.3.202Description:ASSAULT-FIRST DEGREE
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 1420MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 005Description:FIREARM USE/FEL-VIOL CRIME
Statute: CR.4.204Description:HGV USE/FEL-VIOL CRIME
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 5299MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 006Description:FIREARM USE/FEL-VIOL CRIME
Statute: CR.4.204Description:HGV USE/FEL-VIOL CRIME
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 5299MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Charge No: 007Description:RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Statute: CR.3.204.(a)(1)Description:RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 1425MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 07/14/2012 To: 07/14/2012 Victim Age:

Related Person Information
(Each Person related to the case other than the Defendant is shown)

Name:UPTON, EDWARD
Connection:COMPLAINANT/POLICE OFFICER
Agency Code: CBAgency Sub-Code:13Officer ID:5094

NameE VASTEY-JONES, CLAUDE
Connection:ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY
Address: STATE'S ATTY'S OFFICE
3451 COURTHOUSE DRIVE
City: ELLICOTT CITY,State:MDZip Code:21043 - 0000

Source: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

1. There was an active warrant out for the guy before the shooting.
2. Before yesterday's shooting he already had the following 7 charges pending: two charges of attempted 2nd degree murder, two charges of first degree assault, two charges of firearm use in a felony violent crime, and one charge of reckless endangerment.
3. I would be interested to know his citizenship status and whether or not he was lawfully in the country at time of the shooting.
4. The WBAL story doesn't say whether or not he owned the gun legally but I think its highly unlikely given the above.

Tuan Minh Pham is not the exception to the rule. He is the typical gun criminal. Why are state governments wasting their time going after a guy that experimented with pot 30 years ago but have otherwise lived a lawful and probably productive life? Why are they wasting time trying to make it so difficult for guys like me with no criminal history of any kind to own firearms that it's not worth even trying. This is starting to feel like the Twilight Zone.

 

[Clovis]

Um...Broder you may be right about the "suspect" being wanted for other crimes, but the shooting occured in July of 2012 which is what the charges apparently stem from. According to the story as I read it, he has been sought by the police for this shooting from 2012 and just turned himself in yesterday. He does not appear to have been involved in another shooting yesterday. I don't know whether or not he had the gun illegaly or not. In fact after 8 months, the gun may be long gone. If it was legal I wonder if the spent shell casings helped with finding the guy? Doubt it, they filed the warrants the day after the shooting back in July so they knew who he was.

 

[press1280]

While this is obviously silly that a small amount of pot 30 years ago can forever deprive you of fundamental rights, I think this suit is probably going to go down in flames. It's simply too soon for this. We can barely get federal judges on our side for squeaky clean individuals to get carry permits. I think it may be years yet (5-10) before lawsuits like these become successful. I hope I'm wrong but we've found out the Federal judiciary still holds pre-Heller views when it comes to guns.

 

[newq]

A kid caught once many thousands of moons ago with a small amount of pot does not equate to a "pothead". It seems like you're a bit jaded and externalizing some tough personal experiences by casting a wide, cold-hearted net. When you toss all sympathy and compassion out the door, expect none in return when your time comes. It's that karma thing again. Trust me. People really do reap what they sow, very often by casting bad vibes brought on by deep-rooted cynicism and anger. It's not healthy.

While you may be correct about externalizing personal experiences, making it appear conflicted or somehow bad is just ignorant. We all are shaped by life experience , learning and recalling your past prevents you from making the same mistakes in the future.

You perhaps are biased maybe because you enjoy it yourself? It doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to your sympathy for drug use. If you choose to use, that's your choice. I don't like it but, you should not seek or need my approval. I also don't wish to alter your point of view. I just don't think I will ever be dissuaded by your opinion as you will never be dissuaded by mine.

Unfortunately the majority of you feel that by attempting to degrade your opposing view points that you invalidate the opinion. fortunate for me opinions don't need validation. I am not sure why you feel that you can shame someone into accepting your point of view. Truthfully it reminds me of when they were attempting to force people into accepting homosexuality as an accepted legitimate lifestyle by trying to shame people accusing them of being hate mongers if they opposed gay lifestyles.

Isnt it conflagrated to mention that someone is deserving of bad karma, almost wishing it on them? Isnt that ensuring that you will recieve bad karma? We reap what we sow right?

 

[jrosenberger]

While this is obviously silly that a small amount of pot 30 years ago can forever deprive you of fundamental rights, I think this suit is probably going to go down in flames. It's simply too soon for this. We can barely get federal judges on our side for squeaky clean individuals to get carry permits. I think it may be years yet (5-10) before lawsuits like these become successful. I hope I'm wrong but we've found out the Federal judiciary still holds pre-Heller views when it comes to guns.

There are a few distinctions that make this case stronger than you might think. The plaintiffs aren't seeking to carry outside the home, they're seeking to possess a handgun in the home, which falls squarely under Heller/McDonald. It's confusing because MA requires a 'license to carry' to simply possess a handgun. Under MA law, the plaintiffs *are* allowed to possess non-large capacity long guns. That makes this prohibition very similar to the ones overturned in Heller/McDonald. It prohibits a class of arms to persons who are allowed to have another class of arms. Also, to me, prohibiting for a 30 year old conviction and not for a 30 day old conviction for the same offense fails even rational basis.

 

[newq]

There are a few distinctions that make this case stronger than you might think. The plaintiffs aren't seeking to carry outside the home, they're seeking to possess a handgun in the home, which falls squarely under Heller/McDonald. It's confusing because MA requires a 'license to carry' to simply possess a handgun. Under MA law, the plaintiffs *are* allowed to possess non-large capacity long guns. That makes this prohibition very similar to the ones overturned in Heller/McDonald. It prohibits a class of arms to persons who are allowed to have another class of arms. Also, to me, prohibiting for a 30 year old conviction and not for a 30 day old conviction for the same offense fails even rational basis.

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware that MA law required a carry permit for simply possessing a firearm. I assumed their laws were very similar to marylands where an individual may posess but not carry. As stated previously I do not support unequal consequence for same infractions. Fairness under the law should punish OR protect all individuals unilaterally.

I can get behind that. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why there should be a prohibition on ones right to defend themselves in their own home. That is absurd and irrational. The punishment in my opinion does NOT fit the crime.

 

[Saginaw]

Do I have this RIGHT?

Some of us are willing to take the right to own and bear arms of others for a mistake in their life that may or may not be repeated with no recourse for them to earn that right back. But yet as a society we accepted the parole of a man who killed a family member with a hammer and wonder why he shot a first responder. If criminals are able to be reformed and put back on the streets (which I think is the overall problem with crime today) a guy that smoked pot thirty years ago should have a chance don't you think?

and where are all these restrictions heading just check out California

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gskk-X_uAb9qNH1XH1dGVww&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg

 

[Indiana Jones]

Why was he possessing marijuana? I dont possess things that are illegal, and I have no problems.

 

[Broder]

Um...Broder you may be right about the "suspect" being wanted for other crimes, but the shooting occured in July of 2012 which is what the charges apparently stem from. According to the story as I read it, he has been sought by the police for this shooting from 2012 and just turned himself in yesterday. He does not appear to have been involved in another shooting yesterday. I don't know whether or not he had the gun illegaly or not. In fact after 8 months, the gun may be long gone. If it was legal I wonder if the spent shell casings helped with finding the guy? Doubt it, they filed the warrants the day after the shooting back in July so they knew who he was.

Yea, that was a fail on my part. Time to take a break. lol

 

[Biggfoot44]

Speaking as someone who came of age in the relavent time periods in Md , pot use then was extremely prevenet. Substantially more prevalent than drinking a beer , even during the years of 18yo beer sales. The percentage of person who never smoked pot was about the same as those who never had a date before age 25 . Strict application would mean essentially an entire generation is barred from firearms ownership.

And of that cohort fewer in later life had drug problems than the general population has alcohol problems.

FWIW , I am one of the stastical freaks who never did to this day. And THAT was my stumbling block on more than one background investagation. It was expected , and allowences made for as long as you were forthcoming. I had a PD background Investagator tell me that 95% of applicants used pot or hash , and as long as it wasn't recent it was ok , please stop holding back.

Oh and the ones that did happen to go off the deep end mostly were in trouble with the law , or dead within a few years.

So , the point is misdemeanor pot offenses should be treated similar to misdemeanor alcohol offenses , if not misdm generally.

If one were to wish to be maxium punative , then a stipulation of not in prev number of years ( like 5 or 10 ).

 

[newq]

If one were to wish to be maxium punative , then a stipulation of not in prev number of years ( like 5 or 10 ).

I believe this to be totally reasonable and acceptable.