Poorly written Globe article (I know) hints you no longer need an LTC to carry in Massachusetts

[Freddy B]

SJC throws out gun possession conviction, citing Supreme Court decision that expanded right to carry weapon in public - The Boston Globe

The state’s highest court on Thursday tossed a man’s gun possession convictions from a 2019 case but left his conviction for possessing a large capacity magazine intact, citing a 2022 US Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights across the country.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Mesatchornug]

SJC throws out gun possession conviction, citing Supreme Court decision that expanded right to carry weapon in public - The Boston Globe

The state’s highest court on Thursday tossed a man’s gun possession convictions from a 2019 case but left his conviction for possessing a large capacity magazine intact, citing a 2022 US Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights across the country.

www.bostonglobe.com

Archive link:

https://archive.ph/TMOhN

and, the decision (I think)

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/04/13/e13315.pdf

 

[aphextwin11]

I'm confused. It doesn't seem like they're overturning the conviction based on a MA LTC imposing an unconstitutional licensing requirement to carry outside the home, as opposed to a procedural matter where they should've let the jury know the state needed to prove b/a/r/d he wasn't licensed (which he wasn't).

Can someone explain this in a more understandable way? Even if the SJC reversed the decision citing Bruen not longer requiring someone to be licensed in MA to carry, what would be the legal implications at the district courts, 1CA, etc? (I'm not familiar with the court hierarchy state vs federal).

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I just want to be able to understand.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

I didn't read the whole decision, but it seems to be about how the Commonwealth needs to properly submit evidence that a person does not have a LTC.

I suggest that courts handling prosecutions for possession of a firearm without a license should consider adopting a procedure similar to that in Fed. R. Evid. 803(10)(B) as a discovery order and in the filing of pretrial conference reports. This would provide an orderly and uniform procedure for determining whether the Commonwealth may rely on a certificate that there is no firearms license in the name of the defendant, and give the prosecution sufficient time to secure a testifying witness if the defendant objects.10 This procedure might also serve to mitigate, to some extent, the burden on the Commonwealth that would otherwise result if it were required to produce a testifying witness in every trial involving a charge of unlicensed possession of a firearm.

 

[knucklehead]

whatever this judge did he just set precedent unless the state appeals it.

 

[Picton]

He added that after the high court’s Bruen ruling, it is “now incontrovertible that a general prohibition against carrying a firearm outside the home is unconstitutional. ... Because possession of a firearm outside the home is constitutionally protected conduct, it cannot, absent some extenuating factor, such as failure to comply with licensing requirements, be punished by the Commonwealth.”

That's a big admission from the SJC, regardless of the substance of the decision or its specific meaning in future cases. It signals that the SJC understands that the game has changed.

 

[MAJoe]

It does seem the SJC won’t be in favor of overturning prohibitions on standard capacity magazines.

Because there is no constitutional right to possess a large capacity magazine, we affirm the defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device

If I’m reading this article correctly though, he was convicted on possession of firearm/ammo without an LTC, but the required jury instructions weren’t provided. So, they appealed. Instead of ruling on the jury instructions, the judge invoked Bruen which made the point moot as possession of a firearm (by a non-prohibited person) cannot be a crime, regardless of state licensing requirements.

I wonder if he’ll still serve the 2.5yr on just the mag charge.


Edit: I’m more confused reading the ruling. They say possession of a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. But the Commonwealth didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant didn’t have an LTC. So… if they did prove that then he’d be guilty? Also, you can have a firearm in your place of business without a license??

 

[Freddy B]

the judge invoked Bruen which made the point moot as possession of a firearm (by a non-prohibited person) cannot be a crime, regardless of state licensing requirements.

This is the part that gave me a chubby.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Trust me if you were carrying in MA without an LTC the state would still come up with a reason to throw the book at you. If it were one of us it would be triple secret bad and they'd be using secret laws 'off the books'.

 

[MAJoe]

The more I read the ruling, the more I see this as a total one-off set of circumstances and there’s clear guidance provided on how the state can avoid this in the future (by providing admissible records that the individual does NOT have an LTC). Interesting case and surprising outcome, but this won’t happen again.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

The more I read the ruling, the more I see this as a total one-off set of circumstances and there’s clear guidance provided on how the state can avoid this in the future (by providing admissible records that the individual does NOT have an LTC). Interesting case and surprising outcome, but this won’t happen again.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[GL2020]

I’m not seeing how Bruen even plays into this. ultimately the state did not show the possession was unlawful because the charge was “unlawful possession”.

Not happy about the stance on magazines.

 

[Penniepup1]

You don’t need to put “poorly written“ and Globe in the same sentence. We understand ”The Globe.”

 

[chris_1001]

From what I read. Guns and ammo are protected by 2A. No license required in ma.

BUT. A post ban “high cap” mag is not because they are not legal unless LEO etc.

I know I know. I’m being optimistic…

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Archive link:

https://archive.ph/TMOhN

and, the decision (I think)

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/04/13/e13315.pdf

Wait. What???

“Because possession of a firearm in public is constitutionally protected conduct, in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, due process requires the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license,” wrote Justice Frank M. Gaziano in Thursday’s SJC ruling.”

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Wait. What???

“Because possession of a firearm in public is constitutionally protected conduct, in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, due process requires the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license,” wrote Justice Frank M. Gaziano in Thursday’s SJC ruling.”

Ah. So as long as you meet the licensing requirements you don’t need the actual license he’s saying,

Wow. Is MA going to be the next CC state???

“He added that after the high court’s Bruen ruling, it is “now incontrovertible that a general prohibition against carrying a firearm outside the home is unconstitutional. ... Because possession of a firearm outside the home is constitutionally protected conduct, it cannot, absent some extenuating factor, such as failure to comply with licensing requirements, be punished by the Commonwealth.”

 

[chris_1001]

Wait. What???

“Because possession of a firearm in public is constitutionally protected conduct, in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, due process requires the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license,” wrote Justice Frank M. Gaziano in Thursday’s SJC ruling.”

That confused me. It’s now on the state to prove you don’t have a license?

Nothing on the books, therefore you don’t have one.

Or

How do we prove something that does not exist?

 

[71montess]

Wait. What???

“Because possession of a firearm in public is constitutionally protected conduct, in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, due process requires the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license,” wrote Justice Frank M. Gaziano in Thursday’s SJC ruling.”

Which means he does need a LTC.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This judge have an NES handle?

Incredible.

Who appointed him?

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Which means he does need a LTC.

Nope see above. The judge basically affirmed the Constitution is his license, as long as he met the MA licensing requirements, he didn’t need the actual license itself.

Wild.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This judge have an NES handle?

Incredible.

Who appointed him?

A: Chucky Baker. Surprise! Nice job Chuck!

 

[safetyfirst2125]

whatever this judge did he just set precedent unless the state appeals it.

Where will they appeal to?

 

[Parker Schreiber]

This is a nice ruling for the defendant, but for future cases, it's a yawner.

In a criminal case, the State has to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The SJC just ruled that includes proving the accused didn't have a license. The prosecution didn't introduce any evidence that they didn't, so no proof, no conviction.

So as much we might wish otherwise, the ruling did nothing to expand our rights in Mass. It just means that the prosecution has to add a step to their dance at trial.

 

[Picton]

I’m not seeing how Bruen even plays into this. ultimately the state did not show the possession was unlawful because the charge was “unlawful possession”.

Not happy about the stance on magazines.

It plays into it because the SJC mentioned it specifically, and admitted it guarantees the right to carry outside the home.

Again, I'm not saying this decision does anything substantively helpful for us. But it's a signal. SJC is saying it understands it has to reckon with Bruen, rather than Hochul-ing it in future decisions.

In that vein, it indicates a high degree of public subservience to SCOTUS. Which is great. And which will be even greater once SCOTUS strikes down mag bans.

 

[ware]

Damn wish theyd do something about large cap mags.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

@Freddy B I’d suggest changing the thread title. The article looks accurate. This is a big deal.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This is a nice ruling for the defendant, but for future cases, it's a yawner.

In a criminal case, the State has to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The SJC just ruled that includes proving the accused didn't have a license. The prosecution didn't introduce any evidence that they didn't, so no proof, no conviction.

So as much we might wish otherwise, the ruling did nothing to expand our rights in Mass. It just means that the prosecution has to add a step to their dance at trial.

Nope. You missed his part: he didn’t need a license since the 2A is his license says the judge.

“He added that after the high court’s Bruen ruling, it is “now incontrovertible that a general prohibition against carrying a firearm outside the home is unconstitutional. ... Because possession of a firearm outside the home is constitutionally protected conduct, it cannot, absent some extenuating factor, such as failure to comply with licensing requirements, be punished by the Commonwealth.”

 

[aphextwin11]

Wow. Is MA going to be the next CC state???

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Calling all NES lawyers….if you have any clients who had cases open / pending after Bruen, this MA SCJ is inviting you to come forward for relief (see the judgment).

Also pro-2A orgs should now go after the licensing law in MA in light of this decision. All that’s needed is to meet the requirements, but you don’t need an actual license, this MA SCJ is saying.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Maura will NOT be pleased.