Massachusetts Lawyers Specializing in Firearm Law

Does anyone know if any of the Comm2A listed lawyers participate in MetLAW? We have this plan at work where we pay a small premium monthly and we get access to reduced rates from legal professionals.
 
Anyone know where you could get some business cards for these folks or something one could keep in their wallet in case they needed to contact a lawyer immediately?
 
Four Seasons has several posted on its web site at the bottom of the Instructors page:

Legal Services and Certified Instructors

Peter T. Marano, Esq.
One Market St.
Lynn, MA 01903
Tel: 781-596-4247
[email protected]


Michael D. Brennan, Esq.
392 Union Avenue
Framingham, MA 01702
(508) 820-3070
[email protected]



Neil Tassel, P.C.
4 Longfellow Place, 35th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-228-2800
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaynardDad said:
I asked the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network if they have affiliated attorneys in Massachusetts. They answered that they have nine: two in Boston and one in each of Brockton, Framingham, Haverhill, Lenox, Malden, Oxford and Weymouth. I'm not a member yet, but it looks like it would be worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Network membership costs $125 per year and additional household members may be added to the membership for an additional $50/yr. each. Three-year memberships are available for $265 and 10-year memberships for $690.
Click to expand...

I might have to read deeper into this.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Attorney Jason A. Guida, Esq. - Experienced Massachusetts Firearms Attorney
Jason Guida, Esq.
10 Tremont Street
Suite 400
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Click to expand...

I had a great experience with Attorney Guida. He replied to my first contact email within 20 minutes and spoke with me on the phone within the hour. The guy was the Director of the Mass Firearms Bureau for years so he definitely knows his stuff. He explained all my options to me carefully and gave great advice. He was very helpful and understanding when it came to my situation financially as well. Definitely seems to be interested in helping gun licensees, applicants, owners, etc. Would use him again.

EDIT: almost forgot, here is his website. It's how I found him.
http://www.lawguida.com/intro.html
 
Atty Steven Burke helped me out and did a great job. Best part was that he stayed in contact and returned every call something I can't say all lawyers do.
 
Firearms Lawyer for Southeaster MA

I'm trying to find a Lawyer experienced with Firearm Laws in MA who is from the South Shore area.


(508) 820-3070
[email protected]

Forrest Law Offices
345 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830
Phone: (978) 373-2225
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (978) 373-2226
Web site: http://www.forrestlaw.com


Attorney Keith G. Langer
255 Harvard Lane
Wrentham, MA 02093-1069
Phone: (508) 384-8692
Fax: (508) 384-3547
http://www.kglangerlaw.com/

Attorney Peter T. Marano
One Market St.
Lynn, MA 01903
Tel: 781-596-4247
[email protected]

Attorney Stephen F. Burke
[email protected]
www.stephenfburke.com
413-746-9580 P.O.Box 3721
Springfield MA 01103

If anyone knows of any others, let me know and I'll add them.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You aren't likely to find one in the Quincy area. They are far and few between.

Contact Atty Jason Guida (yup he's North of Boston). He can get results as he knows all the players very well.
 
Karen, if it goes that route, would be a very good choice. She has done a lot for the 2nd Amendment. Years ago (more then 20) I heard her talking about firearm rules , very impressive. She was in the JAG back then.
 
Reverend said:
Karen, if it goes that route, would be a very good choice. She has done a lot for the 2nd Amendment. Years ago (more then 20) I heard her talking about firearm rules , very impressive. She was in the JAG back then.
Click to expand...

I've known Karen personally since ~1976. She's a good person and indeed was one of the original GOAL BOD members. She only retired from JAG a few years ago as a Major. I still would pick Jason over Karen for this sort of issue. Jason is young, full of piss and vinegar and was FRB Director for 5 years, having left that position ~3 years ago.
 
I'm new to the site, and although I'm listed on the thread earlier from Four Seasons site their listing was wrong (though now corrected). I'm a long time gun owner - still have the 10/22 I bought at Service Merchandise on my 18th birthday in 1983. I was a prosecutor for 14 years and have been in private practice since 2005 and can assist people with licensing and firearm concerns.

I can be reached at 617-227-2800 or at [email protected]. My website is www.nstassellaw.com.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but with all the legal knowledge and experience out there, how come nobody has filed lawsuits against the state between the Approved Weapons Roster, the 'may/shall issue' provisions, and arguing that the procedure(s) that we law-abiding go through to exercise our rights is a burden on us? I'd throw in the argument that permits imply that we need to ask the government permission to keep and bear, but that might not sit well with people.
 
Support2ARTKBA said:
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but with all the legal knowledge and experience out there, how come nobody has filed lawsuits against the state between the Approved Weapons Roster, the 'may/shall issue' provisions, and arguing that the procedure(s) that we law-abiding go through to exercise our rights is a burden on us? I'd throw in the argument that permits imply that we need to ask the government permission to keep and bear, but that might not sit well with people.
Click to expand...

An elephant is eaten one bite at a time. Going after the system directly, or with arguments like "permit to exercise a right", are doomed to failure in the marsupial tribunals MA passes off as a court system. At the federal level, one must attack a very specific violation of constitutional rights - and the feds are very accepting of the fact that the state has the right to regulate gun ownership. This means a limited attack surface, and the need to be precise in targeting. Shotgun approaches, like the one GOAL took years ago attempting to have the 1998 law voided, are doomed to failure.

Comm2A has a case in progress (Draper V. Coakley) challenging the non-list. The non-list (ie, AG's regulations) have done more to keep a diverse assortment of handguns out of MA than the statutory list. In addition to listed guns not available (ie, Glocks), there are numerous gun manufacturers who have not submitted guns to testing because they have no way to be sure that their compliance with the AG's regulations will be accepted as such by the AG. If we win this case, it will be a game changer. Neva been done befo!

There have already been cases on the "may issue" issue (see Hill v. New Bedford), and Comm2A is always looking for new ones with good plaintiffs that don't have a lot of baggage. Setting precedent to undo decades of "It is not the role of the court to evaluate the suitability of an applicant, but to determine if the chief felt he had a reason to deem the applicant unsuitable" is not easy.

Then there are the cases in progress regarding restrictions on LTCs.
 
Support2ARTKBA said:
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but with all the legal knowledge and experience out there, how come nobody has filed lawsuits against the state between the Approved Weapons Roster, the 'may/shall issue' provisions, and arguing that the procedure(s) that we law-abiding go through to exercise our rights is a burden on us? I'd throw in the argument that permits imply that we need to ask the government permission to keep and bear, but that might not sit well with people.
Click to expand...

You should spend more time reading the stickies here and the threads on Comm2A before trying your "shotgun approach", shooting from the hip. There are a few of us here that have been involved in battling these laws for a long, long time and have a clue how things really work . . . and what it takes to get a fair hearing on our issues.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
An elephant is eaten one bite at a time. Going after the system directly, or with arguments like "permit to exercise a right", are doomed to failure in the marsupial tribunals MA passes off as a court system. At the federal level, one must attack a very specific violation of constitutional rights - and the feds are very accepting of the fact that the state has the right to regulate gun ownership. This means a limited attack surface, and the need to be precise in targeting. Shotgun approaches, like the one GOAL took years ago attempting to have the 1998 law voided, are doomed to failure.

Comm2A has a case in progress (Draper V. Coakley) challenging the non-list. The non-list (ie, AG's regulations) have done more to keep a diverse assortment of handguns out of MA than the statutory list. In addition to listed guns not available (ie, Glocks), there are numerous gun manufacturers who have not submitted guns to testing because they have no way to be sure that their compliance with the AG's regulations will be accepted as such by the AG. If we win this case, it will be a game changer. Neva been done befo!

There have already been cases on the "may issue" issue (see Hill v. New Bedford), and Comm2A is always looking for new ones with good plaintiffs that don't have a lot of baggage. Setting precedent to undo decades of "It is not the role of the court to evaluate the suitability of an applicant, but to determine if the chief felt he had a reason to deem the applicant unsuitable" is not easy.

Then there are the cases in progress regarding restrictions on LTCs.
Click to expand...

Regarding specific constitutional violations: "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" doesn't pass the muster?
 
Support2ARTKBA said:
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but with all the legal knowledge and experience out there, how come nobody has filed lawsuits against the state between the Approved Weapons Roster, the 'may/shall issue' provisions, and arguing that the procedure(s) that we law-abiding go through to exercise our rights is a burden on us? I'd throw in the argument that permits imply that we need to ask the government permission to keep and bear, but that might not sit well with people.
Click to expand...

Here's what 'Nobody' is doing.
 
Support2ARTKBA said:
Regarding specific constitutional violations: "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" doesn't pass the muster?
Click to expand...

Not if you want to win a case. You have to argue the specific points decided in Heller and McDonald, not the simple wording in the constitution.

You can rant all you want about "shall not be infringed" but working with the actual court system, and winning, is a bit more complex than that.

If you donate to Comm2A, you can consider yourself part of the "nobody" that Mr. Dragger is referring to.
 

Similar threads

Cannot Purchase Firearm during the renewal process ?
Replies
20
Views
595
AMV
A
LTC in Natick
Replies
2
Views
184
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
CA Law Restricting Magazine Limits Struck Down
Replies
2
Views
183
Ae1m
Ae1m
Is a locked, center console a legal place to temporarily leave a pistol in Massachusetts?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
  • Locked
Tyrannical Gun Law HD 4420
Replies
7
Views
293
Mountain
Mountain
Back
Top Bottom