Looking for certian cites / caselaw

[Republic of Mass]

1) regarding no-retreat law in mass (i think this one was caselaw)

2) regarding immunity from civil suit if a shooting was ruled as defensive

3) regarding a dealer being required to see LTC before alowing a customer to handle a firearm

 

[Adam_MA]

3) regarding a dealer being required to see LTC before alowing a customer to handle a firearm

Don't know about the first 2 but if #3 is true, then how do gun shops (like Four Seasons) have guns out on the floor for folks to pickup and handle?

BTW there was a discussion here on the board about this, and it isn't law that they have to see it first, but rather a common practice/policy to do so.

 

[calafro]

Regarding #s 1 & 2, check this link

http://www.packing.org/community/general/thread/?thread=1345

 

[Len-2A Training]

Re: Looking for certain cites / caselaw

1) regarding no-retreat law in mass (i think this one was caselaw)

2) regarding immunity from civil suit if a shooting was ruled as defensive

3) regarding a dealer being required to see LTC before alowing a customer to handle a firearm

1. This was Not case law but resulted from Comm. of Mass. v. Gloria Schaefer (sp?) back in the early 1970s (guess). She was convicted, sent to jail and later there was a hue and cry and a new law was passed that "make it an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE" to claim self-defense. This means you get charged with murder/manslaughter and raise the law as your defense to why you shouldn't spend the rest of your life in jail (after you lose everything you own paying for a good defense). Gloria Schaefer was a Sharon resident who shot her estranged ex-husband when he broke into her home, after previously threatening to burn them (including their children) to death as they slept. My source of this info was the arresting officer, my late police chief.

2. Doesn't exist in MA! You WILL be sued! You may win or lose.

3. As stated, it doesn't appear to be law, but normal practice. I tend to think that CHSB (or MSP before them) pushed MA dealers to do this. You might ask a dealer who does this, where it comes from.

 

[Republic of Mass]

Re: Looking for certain cites / caselaw

2. Doesn't exist in MA! You WILL be sued! You may win or lose.

Humm, Im quoting another post, and Im sorry for asking for the cites actualy. Someone had posted the MGL with cite...

Secondly, under state law(MGL Chapter 231 Sec. 85U) if you need to use deadly force, and injure or kill the assailant, and it is ruled a justafiable shooting or homicide, you cannot be prosecuted criminally, or sued civilly.

Ill have to research this when i get to work and can pull out the real law books

 

[DR]

Ill have to research this when i get to work and can pull out the real law books

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

That sure looks to me to be protection from suits arising from a justified shooting in your own home.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Interesting!

I'll bet you still can find instances where they will sue . . . they probably sue under "civil rights violation" (aka termination of scumbag) in Fed'l Court. But a suit is still a suit and you still have to pay megabucks to defend yourself. [State law can't prevent someone from invoking a suit under Fed'l law.]

Most cases of justifiable civilian shootings in MA are not home invasions (which, luckily are rare), they are more likely to be a store clerk, someone in a parking lot, etc. (i.e. anywhere but home).

 

[dwarven1]

Interesting!

I'll bet you still can find instances where they will sue . . . they probably sue under "civil rights violation" (aka termination of scumbag) in Fed'l Court. But a suit is still a suit and you still have to pay megabucks to defend yourself. [State law can't prevent someone from invoking a suit under Fed'l law.]

Most cases of justifiable civilian shootings in MA are not home invasions (which, luckily are rare), they are more likely to be a store clerk, someone in a parking lot, etc. (i.e. anywhere but home).

Wonder if you can sue said intruder (if he survives) for violating YOUR civil rights? (He picked my home to break into because I'm gainfully employed!)

 

[Scrivener]

“[Civil immunity] Doesn't exist in MA! You WILL be sued! You may win or lose.”

That will come as a great shock to anyone familiar with M.G.L. Chapter 231 Sec. 85U. As was noted above, this EXPRESSLY provides civil immunity against lawsuits brought by an unlawful intruder justifiedly shot in one’s home - or his estate.....

“I'll bet you still can find instances where they will sue . . . they probably sue under "civil rights violation" (aka termination of scumbag) in Fed'l Court.”

Really? I was not aware that conducting home invasions was among our “civil rights.” Moreover, there is no state action involved in a citizen defending his/her home against such invasion. I doubt any federal lawsuit based upon a civil rights violation would survive a Motion to Dismiss.

I await the recitation of such lawsuits - WITH citations and results.

As for the facts in the Shaffer case, here is what the court found:

COMMONWEALTH v. SHAFFER, 367 Mass. 508 (1975)
326 N.E.2d 880
Page 510

On the morning of the homicide, the defendant was having breakfast with the victim when an argument ensued. At one point, the victim rose, saying, "Never mind. I'll take care of you right now." The defendant threw a cup of tea at him and ran downstairs to the basement playroom, where the children were having breakfast and watching television.

Shortly thereafter, the victim opened the door at the top of the basement stairs and said, "If you don't come up these stairs, I'll come down and kill you and the kids." She started to telephone the police, but hung up the telephone when the victim said he would leave the house. Instead, he returned to the top of the stairs, at which time the defendant took a .22 caliber rifle from a rack on the wall and loaded it. She again started to telephone the police when the victim started down the stairs. She fired a fatal shot. More than five minutes elapsed from the time the defendant went to the basement until the shooting took place.

NOTE: The victim was NOT Shaffer's husband, from whom she was not yet divorced. It was her fiance.

Another successful "shack-up"........... [roll]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

... and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

If the defending individual had sufficient assets, I would not be surprised if plaintiff's counsel could argue that the means used were not "reasonable", and then select a jury without any NRA or GOAL members. The way MA courts are, I would not be surprised if the judge would allow NRA membership, GOAL membership or gun ownership as the basis of a for-cause challange and thus without limit as to number.

I know that in the case of auto accidents, A police finding of "not at fault" at the scene is not sufficient to protect the person found by the police to be "not at fault" from suit, so I would not expect a no bill/not guilyy/no charges filed to be sufficient to insulate the individual from plaintiff's counsel's attempt to argue the mens used were not reasonable.

At minimum, the criminal would probably be able to collect some $$ just so the defendant could stop writing out checks to defense counsel.