Ma laws-- hypothetical question

[Lkwinnipesaukee]

I only have an FID card. If (or if I thought) someone was breaking into the house, would I be allowed to go into the safe and get a pistol and high cap rifle without consequence??
If that were to happen, regardless of the law I'd probably grab the first non-.22 I saw.

Thanks

 

[Len-2A Training]

As Darius explained at the "Art of Concealed Carry" class last week.

If you use a gun in self-defense (even in your own home) in MA, expect to be arrested and charged with murder or attempted murder.

As RKG explained twice now, the above charges will likely force the DA to drop any ancillary charges of gun possession, etc. Not a given, but seems likely from what we've been informed so far.

Now, I'll leave it to the lawyers to add their wisdom about your question.

 

[vellnueve]

In a situation like that, the lawfulness of the situation will be the last thing you think about. Like the old overused phrase goes "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

 

[KMaurer]

If I were sufficiently worried about the requirements of the law that I'd hesitate using a handgun to protect my life, I'd have made sure that I had something that my FID allowed me to have in the first place, such as a Remington 870 loaded with #00.

Ken

 

[vellnueve]

Shotgun beats handgun for home defense by far.

 

[Cross-X]

If death comes a-calling, reach for your nearest blaster. Your lawyers will sort it out later!

 

[FPrice]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or the internet. But if it is a case of a righteous (i.e., legal and justifiable) shoot, then any question of your access to such a firearm would probably be moot unless the DA really wanted to make an example out of an innocent man.

But I am sure that someone of the legal acumen of a C-X or a scrivener could make short work out of such an attempt.

 

[drgrant]

Shotgun beats handgun for home defense by far.

Yes and no; a handgun is often far more manueverable, and it's a hell of a
lot easier to use a flashlight and a handgun at the same time, eg, Harries
technique, etc. One might also be able to carry a small child with one
arm and a handgun, as well.

Shotguns also don't fit into fast action safes very well, either. One
could use a two pronged approach... eg, fast action safe/w pistol by
the bed, and a shotty in a bigger safe not far away.

That being said, if I heard really bad noises, I'd probably go for my 870
first, -if I had the time- . Everyone's situation is a bit different, though. Any
gun is -way- better than not having one at all. Guns being backed by
other guns, is even better.

-Mike

 

[sksguns]

Yes and no; a handgun is often far more manueverable, and it's a hell of a
lot easier to use a flashlight and a handgun at the same time, eg, Harries
technique, etc. One might also be able to carry a small child with one
arm and a handgun, as well. -Mike

T2 School of self defense.....carry a kid, shoot and ride a Harley all at the same time....

Always carry extra sunglasses.

 

[KMaurer]

Seems to gone right past everybody. If someone's concerned about legal issues involving an extrememly unlikely self-defense shooting, shoudn't that person be even more concerned about whether or not their license covers the firearms they have? You don't need to wait until somebody tries to attack you to catch shit from possessing a handgun without an LTC. If all you can get is an FID, then have something covered by an FID.

Ken

 

[bazfoo]

T2 School of self defense.....carry a kid, shoot and ride a Harley all at the same time....

Always carry extra sunglasses.

I agree with KMaurer. Stick to what the FID allows you. Why add another level of complexity to an already coplex situation.

 

[Scrivener]

Seems to [have] gone right past everybody. If someone's concerned about legal issues involving an extrememly [sic] unlikely self-defense shooting, shoudn't [sic] that person be even more concerned about whether or not their license covers the firearms they have?

I believe the OP still lives at home. Therefore, the guns in question are almost certainly his parents'. As such, they would be available for in-home defense, if needed, even though outside his FID card.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener, wasn't someone prosecuted for "allowing access" by a minor to guns? IIRC, license holders are supposed to ensure that said minor (with only FID) has no access to "higher level" guns. Even in a home invasion, in MA, I could see a zealous DA trying to prosecute the parents (if they survive) wrt access to handguns for the minor. So the OP (in scenario) may only be prosecuted for murder/attempted murder (and have to convince a jury that self-defense was legal). But the parents could be prosecuted separately for allowing the minor access to the handgun, even if such access saved their lives. Of course a jury would have to be insane to convict in such a case. . . but this is MA!

Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong here.

 

[Scrivener]

Scrivener, wasn't someone prosecuted for "allowing access" by a minor to guns? IIRC, license holders are supposed to ensure that said minor (with only FID) has no access to "higher level" guns.

The cases I was involved with started with an UNlicensed minor; i.e., no legal basis whatsoever for possession and no exigent circumstances. In one said idiot offspring pried off the back of dad's gun cabinet to give her druggie boyfriend a gun so he could protect himself from the Medellin Cartel; the other was the idiot offspring allowing his UNLICENSED minor friends to learn how the lock could be jimmied.

Neither is really on-point with a licensed family member using a firearm outside his class of license in a home-defense scenario.

 

[Dick]

Neither is really on-point with a licensed family member using a firearm outside his class of license in a home-defense scenario.

Is there a difference in the eyes of the law between someone who only has an FID accessing and using a handgun and someone who has no license at all doing the same thing? (I'm not suggesting anything one way or the other, only trying to learn something)

 

[Lkwinnipesaukee]

Yes, the high cap guns are my fathers.

Attemped murder? Someone comes into MY house at 3am, points a gun at me, I shoot them and its attemped murder? Just because the gun is capable of holding more than 10 rounds?

What is wrong with this pathetic, disgusting socialist state we live in??

 

[drgrant]

Yes, the high cap guns are my fathers.

Attemped murder? Someone comes into MY house at 3am, points a gun at me, I shoot them and its attemped murder? Just because the gun is capable of holding more than 10 rounds?

It's important to note that THAT charge would come not from the gun you
used, but from the act itself. In MA self defense" is a rather "guilty until
proven innocent" sort of affair, from what I understand. If you kill/shoot
at an intruder, its not uncommon for a crappy DA to file such
charges.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Yes, the high cap guns are my fathers.

Attemped murder? Someone comes into MY house at 3am, points a gun at me, I shoot them and its attemped murder? Just because the gun is capable of holding more than 10 rounds?

What is wrong with this pathetic, disgusting socialist state we live in??

People missing the point, for one...

No-one, except you, is saying that any attempted murder charge would necessarily be filed, still less merely because the gun used was outside the scope of an FID card. Whether such a charge is filed will depend upon the facts of the case.

The issue you actually presented is whether use of a gun outside the scope of the shooter's license to defend against a home invasion would be chargeable as a form of unlawful possession. Grasp the distinction.

And self-defense is an affirmative defense; i.e., one the person asserting it must prove.