I think you misunderstand the
Coren case vis-a-vis subsection 10(h) and the legislative history of subsection 10(h). If you have time, maybe you can research the legislative changes to sub (h) and post up.
Coren addresses 10(h) in footnote 14:
[Note 14] Coren was also convicted of illegal possession of ammunition in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h), as appearing in St. 1990, c. 511, § 3, and this conviction was filed with his consent. See note 1, supra. While St. 1998, c. 180, § 69, rewrote § 10 (h), effective October 21, 1998, Coren was indicted under the earlier version, because the alleged offense occurred on July 2, 1994. See Commonwealth v. Feijoo,
419 Mass. 486 , 487 n.1 (1995). Because the version of the statute in effect on July 2, 1994, contained no requirement that a defendant be outside of his or her residence at the time of illegal possession, our reversal of the gun possession conviction has no bearing on the conviction of illegal possession of ammunition.
Bottom line: Coren did not invalidate 10(h), but merely noted that different versions (with substantially different provisions) were applicable at different times.