Typical. This incompetent, ineffective governer of a state which is so frequently soft on criminals and hard on law abiding citizens decides to pass another law which will further confuse the legal status of actions which would be 100% legal if they occurred a 30 minute drive due north.
The SJC actually got a ruling correct, for once - mere posession of an inanimate object without a license, devoid of any violent intent, does not make someone dangerous. The ruling explicitly allowed for holding a defendant in the case that there IS evidence of intent to commit a crime with said firearm. If the hundreds of existing laws are such that you're unable to hold a dangerous criminal, then EXAMINE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM instead of passing yet another feel-good law which will only further confuse lawful citizens. Better yet, since the 80% decrease in lawful gun owners that occurred following the Gun Control Act of '98, why don't we also pass *ALL* of the roughly 100+ additional firearms laws currently submitted and see whether *THOSE* will do anything to decrease crime?
You mean they don't? You mean that they've been proven time and time again to be ineffective at keeping guns from criminals but supremely effective at restricting hunters, battered women, and others that should have access to guns from lawfully obtaining that access?
Then again, what else can you expect from a state which calls a child in posession of spent brass from a Memorial Day parade a criminal?
C.140 § 121:
The following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise have the following meanings: [...] “Ammunition”, cartridges or cartridge cases, primers (igniter), bullets or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun
C.140 § 129C:
No person, other than a licensed dealer or one who has been issued a license to carry a pistol or revolver or an exempt person as hereinafter described, shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition unless he has been issued a firearm identification card