Min license for wife to use my gun in home self defense

[deezwho]

Lets say I have a gun at home. I go out of town regularly on business. If someone breaks into my house, I want my wife to be able to use my guns to defend herself.
She's not interested in carrying out of the house at this time.

Is FID enough in that case? Or will she still need Class A if it's a semi-auto with a "standard" capacity pre-ban mag?

 

[prolene70]

I would have your wife apply for an license. I had the exact same issue. Without a license, she could be open to gun possession charges even if she uses yours in self defense. Moreover, it is technically illegal for her to have access to your firearms without a proper license. Look up the story in NYC where the abused wife of a NYC cop used his firearm to dispatch him, was acquitted of murder, but then was brought up on firearms charges because she was unlicensed. You don't want that to happen to your wife.

 

[appraiser]

she needs a LTC A, even if it is restricted it is still valid for home defense

If she can get to the guns, you are in violation of safe storage laws.

I would not count on jury nullification to save either of your backsides.

But if she can get to your Remington 870, which would be a better choice for her IMHO (we can discuss if you like) she only needs a FID

 

[prolene70]

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. Have her apply for the Mass license that covers the firearm you use for home defense. This would determine whether it would be FID, Class B, or Class A. Since you mention preban greater than 10 round magazines in what I think is a handgun, this would be Class A, restricted or unrestricted, depending on your town.

 

[deezwho]

That makes sense I suppose. So FID/Class B seems like it's not really appropriate for home self defense. Are those geared towards hunters or something?

 

[appraiser]

FID is rifles (low capacity) shotguns, mace pepper spray

LTC B is revolvers and low cap semi automatic handguns, no concealed carry

LTC A is the good stuff but it can be limited bt restriction to a number of things.

Seriously get a remington 870, put a tube extension on it, load it with #4 shot shell, and get her a FID

cheaper and better for her in the long run, because unless she is going to shoot on a regular basis and vbe proficient a handgun is going to be useless, where a shotgun is point and shoot with a better chance of hitting the intended target

 

[ninemilshooter]

There is no reason to NOT apply for a Class A, it costs the same, the requirements are the same and it takes the same amount of time.

Here is a good description of the difference between the two license types:

Class A and Class B LTC Differences.

 

[appraiser]

a license is useless without proficiency, unless she is going to go learn to shoot, and shoot on a regular basis she is more of a danger to herself and others with a handgun in her hands

 

[PaulR]

Tell her to keep the body warm and get home quick

 

[deezwho]

So in summary. Ill have her apply for A and see what she gets. AND, maybe I get an excuse to buy a shotgun.

 

[WPDC13]

Great question but the awesome mysteries of this F-ed up state will not allow for a proper answer. Once again, idiots writing the laws that they do not read or understand. There is a question in Gliddens book under FAQ that states a FID would suffice for possession in the home. It then goes on about if the firearm (which in MA stands for handgun....idiotic) was purchased with a permit to purchase. Convoluted at best, but stay on the safe side and have her get the LTC. You have to take the same class and it costs the same.

 

[montemuscle1970]

Let me ask a similar question with a minor twist, which may or may not matter.

My girlfriend and I aren't living together currently, and actually live in two different towns. But what if she is at my place, and I'm not there and she needs to use a gun to defend herself from someone? If we assume she needs some type of license at the minimum...lets say she has her class A unrestricted like mine, but its from a different town, can she use MY gun to defend herself in MY home? Or would she legally have to use a gun SHE owns, and would have to bring to my house when she was there?

She is applying for her class A, but hasn't yet.

Edit: Keep in mind, in this scenario, she doesn't legally reside in my household. We do both live in MA though.

 

[FreeWillie]

She can use yours.

Sent from the depths of Hell with TapaTalk V2

 

[ericcif]

Easy rule to remember, everything is illegal in MA. have her get her license

 

[Palladin]

one of the principle reasons my wife got her LTC A....
if she went for the gun, even though it may be locked up, I would have been charged.
stupid ****ing laws

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Any man who leaves his family alone and unarmed is a fool. Jack.

 

[edhead35]

Go for the LTC A. No reason not to. Same price.

 

[TLB]

Easy rule to remember, everything is illegal in MA. have her get her license

Except of course being illegal.

 

[Business]

Its a good idea to have your wife to get a LTC mostly because if yours gets ganked you don't have to get rid of your guns.

 

[szaino]

she needs a LTC A, even if it is restricted it is still valid for home defense

Legal site or basis for this statement.

 

[Len-2A Training]

one of the principle reasons my wife got her LTC A....
if she went for the gun, even though it may be locked up, I would have been charged.
stupid ****ing laws

THIS!

Unlike "Free America" where a 14 yo is lauded for grabbing a family member's gun and shooting a home invader when the 14 yo was home alone (or with younger siblings), in MA this is a felony. The gun owner/parent WILL be charged with "illegal storage" for allowing an unlicensed person (of any age) access to the gun, AND the child WILL (likely) be charged with "illegal possession" of a gun w/o a permit (in addition to the possibility of murder/attempted murder/manslaughter . . . keep in mind we do NOT have a "castle law" but an "affirmative defense")!

Any man who leaves his family alone and unarmed is a fool. Jack.

Agreed, but some family members may refuse to get licensed! And result noted above is not a good one.

Getting my Wife to get her FID and LTC back 30+ years ago was an active argument! She wanted no part of guns and I insisted that it was for our legal protection (just try to prove a "negative" that the person doesn't have access to something in the house, good luck). If our Police Chief at the time wasn't a personal friend and made it extremely easy for her to apply (just call him at home and he'd meet her at the station, process took 5-10 minutes, no letters or employer signatures-actually required on the form) it would never have happened.

Spinning 30 years later and she's a 2A supporter, Life Member of GOAL, NRA and SAF, member of BR&P and usually gets to practice once/month, sometimes more in better weather and owns a few guns of her own (otherwise uses mine).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let me ask a similar question with a minor twist, which may or may not matter.

My girlfriend and I aren't living together currently, and actually live in two different towns. But what if she is at my place, and I'm not there and she needs to use a gun to defend herself from someone? If we assume she needs some type of license at the minimum...lets say she has her class A unrestricted like mine, but its from a different town, can she use MY gun to defend herself in MY home? Or would she legally have to use a gun SHE owns, and would have to bring to my house when she was there?

She is applying for her class A, but hasn't yet.

Edit: Keep in mind, in this scenario, she doesn't legally reside in my household. We do both live in MA though.

A licensed person can use ANY gun (borrowed from anyone in the state) that is appropriate for the license. Guns in MA are not "licensed to the person" like NY does.

Its a good idea to have your wife to get a LTC mostly because if yours gets ganked you don't have to get rid of your guns.

Theoretically true, but may well not work out that way. As I discuss in my MA Gun Laws seminar (and info vetted with multiple police officers), if they "yank" your LTC, MGL REQUIRES that they confiscate everything (and I'm ASSURED that this means EVERYTHING in the residence, regardless of who owns it)! If the PD immediately turns it all over to the bonded warehouse, it is "gone" for all practical purposes. If they hold it, yes you can issue a letter to have everything turned over to any person with LTC that you designate (this assumes cause is NOT a 209A RO). But if the PD has "disposed" of them, it is too late. See Jarvis v. Village Vault for proof of this, you can read it at Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.

 

[deezwho]

Not that Im planning on it. BUT, if ones LTC was to get suspended/revoked can you have your licensed friend pick up the guns and GTFO before the cops show up? OR will they go look at my FA10s and force me to hand over anything Ive registered?

 

[edhead35]

I have a friend whose wife will not get a license. She says she could never shoot someone. In free America I am sure she wouldn't hesitate defending herself if she or her children were in danger, but here it would be criminal. Insane......

 

[Len-2A Training]

Not that Im planning on it. BUT, if ones LTC was to get suspended/revoked can you have your licensed friend pick up the guns and GTFO before the cops show up? OR will they go look at my FA10s and force me to hand over anything Ive registered?

Only if you are willing to go to jail for violation of C. 269 S. 10 . . . failure to turn over permit and ALL guns you own (regardless of where they are) immediately is a criminal offense! This is MA after all!!!

 

[dcmdon]

one of the principle reasons my wife got her LTC A....
if she went for the gun, even though it may be locked up, I would have been charged.
stupid ****ing laws

Can you cite any cases of someone being charged under a situation like this in MA.

If you are married to a woman (or a man) and you are properly licensed for whatever is in the house. If she (he) used it in lawful self defense within the house while not having any license, I doubt anyone would be prosecuted.

Prove me wrong.

 

[montemuscle1970]

Honestly, if the unlicensed person used your gun to defend their self in their home or yours (dwelling), it would have to be shown that what they did was reasonable in the first place. Granted it is, then from the parts of the law I've seen on using deadly force to defend yourself, there isn't really any mention of what items/weapons are acceptable. If the court finds that your significant other used the appropriate amount of force to handle the situation, then I think the only person that would be charged is the licensed gun holder for not having the gun properly secured and inaccessible to others.

Who wouldn't think it was reasonable to use a firearm if they had access to it, theirs or not, granted the force used was reasonable? If their only option was to use deadly force against their attacker and they used a gun that fell out of the attackers pocket for instance, who wouldn't use that? Or a knife? Assuming they had nothing else and the attacker is choking the life out of them, for instance. I think if the court finds them to be within their right to kill their attacker as a last resort, then they may disregard the method, granted it wasn't something they owned illegally.

In this case, their husband's or wife's gun. But I would think they may want to pursue prosecution with the person who left their gun kicking around in a separate case.

Again, who the hell knows? Its MA!

 

[dcmdon]

Honestly, if the unlicensed person used your gun to defend their self in their home or yours (dwelling), it would have to be shown that what they did was reasonable in the first place. Granted it is, then from the parts of the law I've seen on using deadly force to defend yourself, there isn't really any mention of what items/weapons are acceptable. If the court finds that your significant other used the appropriate amount of force to handle the situation, then I think the only person that would be charged is the licensed gun holder for not having the gun properly secured and inaccessible to others.

Who wouldn't think it was reasonable to use a firearm if they had access to it, theirs or not, granted the force used was reasonable? If their only option was to use deadly force against their attacker and they used a gun that fell out of the attackers pocket for instance, who wouldn't use that? Or a knife? Assuming they had nothing else and the attacker is choking the life out of them, for instance. I think if the court finds them to be within their right to kill their attacker as a last resort, then they may disregard the method, granted it wasn't something they owned illegally.

In this case, their husband's or wife's gun. But I would think they may want to pursue prosecution with the person who left their gun kicking around in a separate case.

Again, who the hell knows? Its MA!

WRONG - this is the problem with MA people. You don't have to "show that what you did was reasonable".

They have to PROVE that what you did was UNREASONABLE. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Further, in a dwelling, you do not have to retreat, provided you reasonably believe that you or someone else is at risk of grave injury or death.

Weapons are not mentioned because there are many ways to use Deadly Force.

Take a look at the MA Jury instructions in this link. It may open your eyes.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...s/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

Either way. Anyone who counsels their wife/girlfriend/responsible children not to use an accessible firearm in self defense, because they are not licensed, is an idiot of the highest order, with absolutely no understanding of the basic ethical concept of self defense.

If someone is in my house unlawfully and intends to harm me or my family, my wife and I unleash holy hell upon that person(s) to the best of our ability. Period. End of discussion. This philosophy is perfectly consistent with the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of MA.

 

[montemuscle1970]

WRONG - this is the problem with MA people. You don't have to "show that what you did was reasonable".

They have to PROVE that what you did was UNREASONABLE. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Further, in a dwelling, you do not have to retreat, provided you reasonably believe that you or someone else is at risk of grave injury or death.

Weapons are not mentioned because there are many ways to use Deadly Force.

Take a look at the MA Jury instructions in this link. It may open your eyes.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...s/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

Either way. Anyone who counsels their wife/girlfriend/responsible children not to use an accessible firearm in self defense, because they are not licensed, is an idiot of the highest order, with absolutely no understanding of the basic ethical concept of self defense.

If someone is in my house unlawfully and intends to harm me or my family, my wife and I unleash holy hell upon that person(s) to the best of our ability. Period. End of discussion. This philosophy is perfectly consistent with the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of MA.

Yeah I already read that. The prosecution has to prove what you did was unreasonable. If you shot and killed someone with a gun you don't have a license for or own, it might be pretty damn easy. So I say you have show that you acted reasonably and that you convince the jurors that they would have acted the same. I'm speaking from the defendants point of view. They try to show unreasonable, and you must show reasonable. You're sort of splitting hairs. Potato, puhtato.

And I wouldn't be counseling my girlfriend NOT to defend herself. In fact, she'd have her own keys or combo because I trust her. The legal questions are just discussion about how to handle it afterwards. You make it sound like any of us are the ones who made these ridiculous laws.

And if someone breaks into your house and tries to harm you or your family, you need to defend yourself within a "reasonable" limit. "Holy hell...to the best of our ability" might be excessive when presented in court. Remember that no one else was there. If the guy had his eyes gouged out and was full of 20 bullets from two different guns, you may have a hard time proving your case.

From the pdf you just cited:

"If the defendant (used deadly force, which is force intended or likely
to cause death or great bodily harm) (or) (used a dangerous weapon in a
manner intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm), the
Commonwealth must prove one of the following three things beyond a
reasonable doubt:

Third, that the defendant used more force to defend himself (herself)
than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances."


A persons "philosophy" is not law. Anywhere.

 

[dcmdon]

Nope. But agin, I ask anyone to come up with any case anywhere in the Commonwealth where someone was prosecuted for using a firearm inside their home on an obvious intruder. Cases where there are some grey areas about someone who might have been invited in don't count. Cases where the gun was not legally possessed in the home don't count. (although I'd like to see if there are any of them) In the case we've described, the firearm is legally in the home because one of the occupants owns it legally.

I'm talking about a clear intrusion into the home.
I will admit, that the MA law is a bit disturbing in the fact that it contains the whole spectrum of force stuff applicable in your home.

Even in CT, the assumption is that if someone is in your home uninvited they represent the potential for grave bodily harm and you are immediately justified in the use of deadly force.

As for what to do afterwards, its simple. "This man broke into my home, I feared for my life and the lives of my children, so I shot him. I'm not going to say any more, I'd like to call my lawyer".

Don