DuPont v. Nashua Police Department
113 A.3d 239
N.H.2015Background
- In 1998, DuPont was convicted in Massachusetts of operating a motor vehicle under the influence; this misdemeanor carried up to 2.5 years, rendering him ineligible to possess firearms under pre-2014 MA law.
- MA Firearm Licensing Review Board (FLRB) in 2005 found him suitable to possess firearms and restored his right to possess firearms in the Commonwealth.
- In 2007, Nashua Police Chief Seusing issued a license for DuPont to carry firearms, renewed in 2012; in 2009, DOS issued him an armed security guard license.
- Before June 29, 2010, DOS learned of the 1998 conviction and revoked DuPont’s armed security guard license; a separate unarmed license was issued that day.
- In 2013, Nashua PD background-checked DuPont for a federal Curios and Relics license and learned of the 1998 conviction; the police chief revoked his NH license.
- DuPont appealed, settling in 2011 with DOS: the Department would reissue his armed security license in exchange for dismissal of the Hillsborough South case and other concessions; the case was later non-suited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does restoration of firearm rights trigger §921(a)(20) exemption? | Restoration of firearm rights under MA law should count as civil rights restored. | Civil rights under §921(a)(20) are limited to core rights or require full restoration; restoration of a single right is insufficient. | Yes; restoration of the firearm right suffices to trigger the exemption. |
| Does Logan v. United States control whether restoration exempt applies? | Logan does not categorically foreclose restoration of firearm rights as an exemption end; it depends on what rights are restored. | Logan controls by holding that rights retained or lacking any dispensation are not exempt. | Logan does not compel the exclusion; restoration of the firearm right qualifies under the exemption. |
| Is restoration of the firearm right alone enough given other civil rights retained? | Restoring firearm rights, along with core civil rights, should trigger §921(a)(20). | Restoration of firearm rights alone is not enough unless multiple civil rights are restored. | Restoration of the firearm right, with retention of core rights, is enough to bring the conviction within the exemption. |
| Did the Massachusetts restoration gesture vouch for trustworthiness to possess firearms? | Massachusetts’ explicit restoration act signals trustworthiness to possess firearms. | Judicial interpretation should focus on federal restoration standards rather than state gestures. | Massachusetts restoration vouches for trustworthiness; §921(a)(20) exemption applies. |
| Should the petitioner’s federal firearms eligibility be determined under state restoration when state acted to restore rights? | State restoration overrides federal prohibition under §922(g)(1). | FOPA and §921(a)(20) require a federal statutory interpretation of restoration; state restoration may or may not suffice. | State restoration of firearm rights defeats §922(g)(1) prohibition; petitioner may possess firearms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2007) (civil rights restored exemption depends on rights actually restored)
- Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1990) (civil rights restored standard broader than core rights)
- Caron, 77 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (restoration of some civil rights can suffice when others are restored or never lost)
- Estrella, 104 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 1997) (circuits recognize broader view of civil rights restored under §921(a)(20))
- McGrath v. United States, 60 F.3d 1005 (2d Cir. 1995) (FOPA purpose to credit restoration of civil rights for firearms)