• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Castle Doctrine/Home Defense - Massachusetts

R

RLeeA

Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
13
Likes
2
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I've read the Castle Doctrine via Goal.org and I understand we in MA appear to have the right to defend ourselves and family if there is a threat of great bodily injury or death. Does anyone know how the use of a warning shot (as a deterrent) would be handled by MA law? I've heard of an instance (not in MA) where a warning shot was used and the authorities confiscated the home owners gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you use a firearm in a self-defense situation, you will be in deep poo-poo.

There is no castle doctrine in Mass. If you have to shoot, shoot. You will likely lose possession of that gun, probably your LTC for the duration, and maybe more. You may not defend property with deadly force.

It's the Judged by Twelve v. Carried by Six....thing....

The ultimate example is the guy, about 4 years ago, that shot, and killed, a crazy that was in the act of stabbing a psychiatrist, in her own office. He was sans LTC for 6 months, while it was "investigated"....though there were multiple witnesses, and a grateful Doctor.

Welcome to Mass Gun Laws, and NES.
 
Warning shots are bad, not to mention illegal. You can shoot if there is a threat of death or great bodily harm. If you fire a warning shot, then it is going to be incredibly hard to prove that you were in fear for your life.

What I read on Goal's website is a bit misleading. MA has no Castle Doctrine, it has an affirmative defense law. Which means that you'll likely be arrested and your defense attorney would be able to assert that you were in fear for your life as a defense for the charges at trial. Rarely, that works early enough in the process that the case doesn't go to trial. Note the rarely part.

- - - Updated - - -

You beat me by two minutes, you must type fast! [smile]

MisterHappy said:
If you use a firearm in a self-defense situation, you will be in deep poo-poo.

There is no castle doctrine in Mass. If you have to shoot, shoot. You will likely lose possession of that gun, probably your LTC for the duration, and maybe more. You may not defend property with deadly force.

It's the Judged by Twelve v. Carried by Six....thing....

The ultimate example is the guy, about 4 years ago, that shot, and killed, a crazy that was in the act of stabbing a psychiatrist, in her own office. He was sans LTC for 6 months, while it was "investigated"....though there were multiple witnesses, and a grateful Doctor.

Welcome to Mass Gun Laws, and NES.
Click to expand...
 
General Laws
PART IVCRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
(Chapters 263 through 280)
(Chapters 263 through 280) PREVNEXT
TITLE IIPROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES PREVNEXT
CHAPTER 278TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT PREVNEXT
Section 8AKilling or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense PREVNEXT
Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

- - - Updated - - -

MisterHappy said:
If you use a firearm in a self-defense situation, you will be in deep poo-poo.

There is no castle doctrine in Mass. If you have to shoot, shoot. You will likely lose possession of that gun, probably your LTC for the duration, and maybe more. You may not defend property with deadly force.

It's the Judged by Twelve v. Carried by Six....thing....

The ultimate example is the guy, about 4 years ago, that shot, and killed, a crazy that was in the act of stabbing a psychiatrist, in her own office. He was sans LTC for 6 months, while it was "investigated"....though there were multiple witnesses, and a grateful Doctor.

Welcome to Mass Gun Laws, and NES.
Click to expand...

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8a
 
if you are dumb enough to threaten the life of another person, then you deserve everything that you get. they dont deserve a warning shot
 
In MA, you can expect to be arrested, and charged with a crime, AFTER shooting the guy that just scooped your two year old daugthers eyeballs out with a spoon who was in the process of finding the next family occupant.

This isnt an anti LEO rant. Many of them are guys like us.....I blame the festering pusshole called Bacon Hill. As others have pointed out- remember the MGH stabbing?
 
Warning shots are a very bad idea. First, you are responsible for the final resting place of each and every bullet you ever fire. Where are you going to shoot that you know it won't hit an innocent?

Second, if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, then why aren't you shooting at the perp? And if you aren't in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, then why are you shooting at all?
 
Use the search feature and you will find plenty of info to help you out. Most long time members such as MrHappy are knowledgeable about MA law. A lot of new members give conflicting info.
Go green and it will open a treasure trove of info for you.
 
After reading this thread and based on contributors, I would believe it easier to not defend yourself. Then sue the State of MA for failing to properly provide protection given they have denied you the ability to do so.
 
Good luck with that too. If you have to shoot someone to save your own life whatever comes next is better than being dead but it will be a PITA to deal with.
 
watchman said:
Then sue the State of MA for failing to properly provide protection given they have denied you the ability to do so.
Click to expand...

If you could find a lawyer to take that case, you would lose. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that police are under no obligation to protect you.
 
Lank said:
Assuming you and I are on the same side of the discussion- you expect me to believe one shred of 8a?

It only states that it CAN be used as a DEFENSE, in a court case.

You will be arrested. You will lose your LTC-A. You will pay thousands in legal fees.

Sorry man, 8a is pretty weak IMHO.
Click to expand...

Except that isnt the case... its very possible, but EVERYTHING from the incident, to the responding officers, to the ADA and DA is situational.

I'm confident that in the more clear cut of situations (armed bad guy with known violent history forced entry at night) the worst one is most likely to face is the gun confiscated for the investigation.

IIRC there have been cases of armed self defense with no indictment of the good guy, but I dont have time to google foo it.

Mike



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
crazymjb said:
Except that isnt the case... its very possible, but EVERYTHING from the incident, to the responding officers, to the ADA and DA is situational.

I'm confident that in the more clear cut of situations (armed bad guy with known violent history forced entry at night) the worst one is most likely to face is the gun confiscated for the investigation.

IIRC there have been cases of armed self defense with no indictment of the good guy, but I dont have time to google foo it.

Mike



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE

Surrending a weapon w/o a conviction is more than I care to tolerate.

No conviction no confiscation/revocation.

Additional comment- in MA- is anything "clear cut"? I know what you are implying, but I have zero confidence in getting a fair shake...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GaryO said:
Use the search feature and you will find plenty of info to help you out. Most long time members such as MrHappy are knowledgeable about MA law. A lot of new members give conflicting info.
Go green and it will open a treasure trove of info for you.
Click to expand...

The search feature is helpful. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RLeeA said:
I've read the Castle Doctrine via Goal.org and I understand we in MA appear to have the right to defend ourselves and family if there is a threat of great bodily injury or death. Does anyone know how the use of a warning shot (as a deterrent) would be handled by MA law? I've heard of an instance (not in MA) where a warning shot was used and the authorities confiscated the home owners gun.
Click to expand...
Couple things - as was stated, MA does have "castle doctrine", but it is a very neutered version of it, and I don't really consider it to be castle doctrine.

The "right" to defend yourself is not granted by law in my opinion. It's granted by common sense. If your life and that of your family is threatened, you should be prepared to defend yourself and your family and also be prepared to deal with the legal consequences later. I honestly hope I never have to use force to defend my family, but if my back is against the wall, I will make damn sure my family is safe and I will deal with the legal horseshit later.
 
Last edited:
The castle doctrine DOES apply in Massachusetts as the principle that you do not have a duty to retreat from an attack by someone unlawfully in your occupied dwelling before using force to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force in the event that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent the death or grave bodily harm of themselves or another person.

In Massachusetts this right does not extend to your curtilage.

If the chicken littles don't concur, I suggest they go read Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.

IANAL

ETA whether the DA chooses to prosecute you or not cannot be predicted, but any attorney worth his/her salt should gain an acquittal in those circumstances, especially if you have followed all the commonly accepted post-defensive firearm use guidelines. It IS MA law:

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a): In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
 
Last edited:
IMHO and I am sure some on this list will jump on me for thism but,
You are much better off carrying a pepper spray to fend of a would be attacker of whom youy don't know if they would be of bodily harm. The moment you pi;; out your weapon, you cross the line, assuming you win, your weapon will be confiscated as evidence, even if you just fired a warning shot, and you will have a legal battle.

If you can, run away, if you can't and are big enough, punch them, if not, pepper spray them.
If all that does not help, you can not run away, and you fear for yours, or somebody elses life, then you brandish. The book says you shoot at that point, because you have established that if you don't, you will be killed the next moment,

At that point, when it is a matter of life and death, you can decide of a warning shot. The good old schools says .. no. I
f you are as desperate that the firearm is out...you shoot to sop your attacker.
Now, I doubt it that any one on this list who is not LEO or military has really ever been that far out in the situation.
We all theoreticall prepare ourselves for this moment, and I have seen many macho comments on this list abotu how thewy would shoot a cop who would search them illegally and other B.S., but when it comes down to it, we really don't know what will happen, and I don't think that anybody does really have the right answer.
 
"Warning Shot" should be a term you should forget. No good can come of it. Ever. A warning shot is a good way to walk yourself right into prison or other serious legal repercussions. Even if you are legally justified in shooting the BG, admitting to a warning shot pretty much destroys the "immediate" portion of "immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm" required in the law. The first thing a non gun owner jury (which is what you will get in most places in this part of the country) is going to think is "If they had time for a warning shot the threat must not have been that immediate".

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Red Raven Defense
Replies
19
Views
475
RPLHVAC
R
Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities
Replies
23
Views
433
mothybee
mothybee
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
610
Nhusa
N
ATF raids home of Clinton Airport's manager
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
3K
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Fact Check: Brady Campaign Falsely Claims Guns ‘Are Rarely Used Successfully in Self-Defense’
Replies
0
Views
37
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom