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

[Picton]

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.”

I think I read that differently?

"absent some extenuating factor, such as failure to comply with licensing requirements" is the judge saying it's okay for the state to punish someone for failure to comply. I think. I've not read the full ruling, though.

I think this could be of direct benefit to people like those Moops on the 128 from last year, the Rhode Islanders who were passing through and got jammed up for possession. Could be.

 

[42!]

BS clickbait.
You should at least read the article.
Not only did the judge not say an LTC isn't required, he specifically affirmed that it was. Learn to f'ing reaad.

“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,”

It was just some poor jury instructions, and it was only one of the charges.

FAKE NEWS

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I think I read that differently?

"absent some extenuating factor, such as failure to comply with licensing requirements" is the judge saying it's okay for the state to punish someone for failure to comply. I think. I've not read the full ruling, though.

I think this could be of direct benefit to people like those Moops on the 128 from last year, the Rhode Islanders who were passing through and got jammed up for possession. Could be.

I’m definitely NAL but reading the full judgment summary I believe my reading to be correct: the judge came out swinging and I dare say has been waiting for a case like this to come along post Bruen to set MA free.

But again, I am not a lawyer.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

BS clickbait.
You should at least read the article.
Not only did the judge not say an LTC isn't required, he specifically affirmed that it was. Learn to f'ing reaad.

It was just some poor jury instructions, and it was only one of the charges.

FAKE NEWS

I dunno this seems crystal clear to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but I’m not sure how.

“…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.”

(Emphasis mine)

ETA: possible this is just very narrowly a decision on the poor instructions to the jury in the defendant’s original trial.

 

[42!]

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?

Under oath, my name is officer so-and-so, I checked the LTC database and his nome wasn't there. That seems easy enough.

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.”

I think you missed this part. MA does not have this. MA has a licensing system and specific limitations, not general. Also Bruen specifically allowed for a licensing system with restrictions.

I dunno this seems crystal clear to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but I’m not sure how.

“…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.”

(Emphasis mine)

ETA: possible this is just very narrowly a decision on the poor instructions to the jury in the defendant’s original trial.

Now you're getting it. The guy got off because the judge took a shortcut on the jury instructions and the prosecutor took a shoot cut by not getting at least one cop to say they checked the database.

None of this has any bearing on anything else.

 

[Picton]

I dunno this seems crystal clear to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but I’m not sure how.

“…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.”

(Emphasis mine)

I'll reorder the statement to reflect my read: "Possession outside the home is constitutionally protected conduct. Unless the defendant fails to comply with licensing requirements, the Commonwealth cannot punish that conduct."

ETA: possible this is just very narrowly a decision on the poor instructions to the jury in the defendant’s original trial.

It is.

I think the value of this decision is still very important symbolically, however. Lower state courts now have a clear sense that the SJC will apply Bruen, which is probably going to have an impact on decisions by those lower courts... even the ones who disagree with Bruen on personal grounds. They now know that the SJC agrees with Bruen on legal grounds.

 

[mcb]

FRB sweating right now, we have seen their record keeping

 

[71montess]

BS clickbait.
You should at least read the article.
Not only did the judge not say an LTC isn't required, he specifically affirmed that it was. Learn to f'ing reaad.

It was just some poor jury instructions, and it was only one of the charges.

FAKE NEWS

That’s what I read.

 

[Echo 225]

New law coming soon.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Emailed FPC anyway, see if they can take a look.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I shared the decision summary with ChatGPT then asked

Q: could the decision lead the way to striking down the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm?

A: The decision in Commonwealth vs. Carlos Guardado does not directly challenge the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm. However, it does address the burden of proof in cases involving firearms possession, which could have implications for future cases or legal challenges.

The court's decision emphasizes that due process requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the licensing requirement is in danger of being struck down, it does demonstrate the court's willingness to consider the constitutional rights of individuals related to firearms possession and regulation.

In the future, it is possible that this decision, along with others like New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, could be used as a foundation for legal challenges to existing firearms regulations, including licensing requirements. However, the current decision does not directly challenge the licensing requirement itself.

The court determined that due to the Second Amendment's protection of an individual's right to carry a firearm in public (as established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license in order to convict them of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The licensing requirement remains in place, but the burden of proof has shifted in criminal cases involving firearms possession.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I shared the decision summary with ChatGPT then asked

Q: could the decision lead the way to striking down the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm?

A: The decision in Commonwealth vs. Carlos Guardado does not directly challenge the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm. However, it does address the burden of proof in cases involving firearms possession, which could have implications for future cases or legal challenges.

The court's decision emphasizes that due process requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the licensing requirement is in danger of being struck down, it does demonstrate the court's willingness to consider the constitutional rights of individuals related to firearms possession and regulation.

In the future, it is possible that this decision, along with others like New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, could be used as a foundation for legal challenges to existing firearms regulations, including licensing requirements. However, the current decision does not directly challenge the licensing requirement itself.

The court determined that due to the Second Amendment's protection of an individual's right to carry a firearm in public (as established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license in order to convict them of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The licensing requirement remains in place, but the burden of proof has shifted in criminal cases involving firearms possession.

So many words murdered; so little actually said.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

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

Care to quote that language? Because I don't see t.

“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.”

Read the highlighted language and the case again. Quoting:

We therefore conclude that the absence of a license is an essential element of the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm pursuant to G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a). General Laws c. 278, § 7, which provides that licensure is an affirmative defense, is no longer applicable to G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a). See Munoz, 384 Mass. at 506, quoting Jones, 372 Mass. at 405 (G. L. c. 278, § 7, applies only "to situations where '[a]s [a] matter of statutory construction, the prohibition is general, the license is exceptional'"). Rather, to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm, the Commonwealth must prove "as an element of the crime charged" that the defendant in fact failed to comply with the licensure requirements for possessing a firearm.

So the dance changes as follows:
Prosecution: I call Scott Ciccone to the stand.
Q: Mr. Ciccone, what is your job?
A: I'm Program Manager for Firearms Records Bureau of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Q: And does the Defendant have a firearms license?
A: No.
Q: Did they have one in the past?
A: No.
Q: Had they applied for one as of the date of the arrest?
A: No.
Q: No further questions.

Again, yawn.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Now you're getting it. The guy got off because the judge took a shortcut on the jury instructions and the prosecutor took a shoot cut by not getting at least one cop to say they checked the database.

Not quite. Pre-NYSRPA, neither was considered necessary. The statute made a license an affirmative defense, so the neither the judge nor the prosecutor had to say anything unless the defense raised the issue.

 

[RKG]

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.

At the micro level, I concur.

However, this decision should cause those PDs, Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting members, et al. who want to impose extra requirements for obtaining an LTC to pause. I read this as saying, implicitly, that requiring an LTC passes constitutional muster only because it is available as of right by a non-DQ person.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Comm2A responded to me with

“We are aware of the ruling. The ruling just shifts the burden of proof onto the Commonwealth to prove that someone does not have a permit if they are prosecuted for carrying/possession without a license. Previously, it was an affirmative defense situation, meaning if you were accused of not having a license, it was up to you to prove the Commonwealth wrong at trial. The SJC has shifted the burden of proof back to where it should have been all along. “

So there it is then. Good, but not earth shaking.

 

[Cap]

I shared the decision summary with ChatGPT then asked

Q: could the decision lead the way to striking down the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm?

A: The decision in Commonwealth vs. Carlos Guardado does not directly challenge the Massachusetts requirement to obtain a license to own a firearm. However, it does address the burden of proof in cases involving firearms possession, which could have implications for future cases or legal challenges.

The court's decision emphasizes that due process requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the licensing requirement is in danger of being struck down, it does demonstrate the court's willingness to consider the constitutional rights of individuals related to firearms possession and regulation.

In the future, it is possible that this decision, along with others like New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, could be used as a foundation for legal challenges to existing firearms regulations, including licensing requirements. However, the current decision does not directly challenge the licensing requirement itself.

The court determined that due to the Second Amendment's protection of an individual's right to carry a firearm in public (as established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license in order to convict them of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The licensing requirement remains in place, but the burden of proof has shifted in criminal cases involving firearms possession.

Is "I asked ChatGPT" the new "I looked it up on wikipedia"?

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I "I asked ChatGPT" the new "I looked it up on wikipedia"?

Pretty much. Fwiw it did pass a bunch of bar and medical exams. Handy.

Just be aware it's "woke" so if you're looking for straight answers on things like Jan 6, 9/11, JFK Kennedy Assassination, etc, you're SOL.

 

[chris_1001]

I "I asked ChatGPT" the new "I looked it up on wikipedia"?

"Let me ChatGPT that for you"

 

[pastera]

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

Nope - the SJC is the ultimate court for Mass Law, period. No redo on this one
From the opinion:

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.

So Mass has clearly recognized the right of a person to bear arms in public as a federal constitutionally protected right - and the US Constitutional protection within the bill of rights overrides state laws in all cases.

This doesn't clear out licensing but it creates a crack in the SJC's corrupt (non) logic

 

[pastera]

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.”

Correct but in admitting that bearing arms in public is a protected right, then licensing becomes a very hard hurdle to overcome if licensed carry is the only method of bearing arms in public.
Going to take a while but this is a good sign.

Next is to get rid of the lie that standard magazines are not protected:
"

Accordingly, the defendant's convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession 4 of ammunition cannot stand. 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. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 527, 540, cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 276 (2018), quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2008) (right to bear arms "does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes").1

They recognize that one has the right to all of the necessities to bear arms except a standard magazine because the 2nd "does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". But under Caetano they were slapped down that the 2nd covers ALL bearable arms along with the fact that millions of people possess standard and large capacity mags for lawful purposes.

 

[pastera]

I dunno this seems crystal clear to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but I’m not sure how.

“…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.”

(Emphasis mine)

ETA: possible this is just very narrowly a decision on the poor instructions to the jury in the defendant’s original trial.

Correct - the holding does nothing for anyone in general except that particular defendant and then not a whole lot because the state can prove that he didn't have a license quite easily.
However, unless the defendant is federally prohibited he has an avenue that restricting a right to those who can afford punitive fees is not constitutional.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is very good news, as it is a bit of progress in the right direction.

Historically with anything gun related the defendant has had a burden of proof to prove she/he/it was acting within the law, and the state did not have the burden of proof to prove the defendant did not. In effect, having an LTC was the basis for an affirmative defense with the court and jury assuming you do not have one unless you prove otherwise.

Applying the same logic of "burden of proof because it is a right gosh dangit" to licensing would slam the door shut on the appeal standard of hearsay evidence allowed, no right to confront your accuser or even know who denounced you to the police, no right to confront the actual officer whose police report is used against you, with the report accepted as fact, no discovery allowed, etc. Sure, it's a long way from here to there but better baby steps forward rather than backward.

 

[Mass-diver]

Lol at “high capacity” mags not being protected.

I hear pretty soon we are only going to be allowed to have 1rd mags, maybe 2rds. After all what’s high capacity? 15rds? 10ths? 5rds?

Absurd

 

[pastera]

Lol at “high capacity” mags not being protected.

I hear pretty soon we are only going to be allowed to have 1rd mags, maybe 2rds. After all what’s high capacity? 15rds? 10ths? 5rds?

Absurd

Caetano:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added).3 It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Yet the Supreme Judicial Court did not so much as mention it.

As to what is an arm, SCOTUS defines it as:

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581.

Given that the SJC recognized that the gun and ammo were protected but distinguishes the magazine as unprotected by applying not only pre-Bruen but pre-Caetano logic shows that they are struggling to give up the least ground even though they know they will lose eventually

 

[Coyote33]

Given that the SJC recognized that the gun and ammo were protected but distinguishes the magazine as unprotected by applying not only pre-Bruen but pre-Caetano logic shows that they are struggling to give up the least ground even though they know they will lose eventually

Can't they object or appeal now, based on Bruen and Caetano? If not, why not?

 

[pastera]

Can't they object or appeal now, based on Bruen and Caetano? If not, why not?

He could but hopefully will not
Bad plaintiffs make for bad case law.
Caetano was a good plaintiff only because the SJC said she could have gone for an LTC and used a gun to protect herself which would put a mother in the position to shoot her child's father in order to protect herself.
Otherwise she was not a very good plaintiff given her past as a stripper and less than savory lifestyle.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Can't they object or appeal now, based on Bruen and Caetano? If not, why not?

They can appeal to the US Supreme Court, but I doubt they’d take this case. They’ll wait for the inevitable split across circuits.

 

[Marty McFly]

I didn't read the thread but I'm up for renewal this year. Looks like I'm saving myself a hundo.

 

[Coyote33]

I'll reorder the statement to reflect my read: "Possession outside the home is constitutionally protected conduct. Unless the defendant fails to comply with licensing requirements, the Commonwealth cannot punish that conduct."

That reads a lot more clear. Question is, if that is what they meant, why didn't they just say that?

...
I think the value of this decision is still very important symbolically, however. Lower state courts now have a clear sense that the SJC will apply Bruen, which is probably going to have an impact on decisions by those lower courts... even the ones who disagree with Bruen on personal grounds. They now know that the SJC agrees with Bruen on legal grounds.

Speculation, but I hope that is at least partially true.