938 N.E.2d 892
Mass. App. Ct.2010Background
- Superior Court judge reported three questions to the Appeals Court under Rule 34 amid a 10-count indictment charging violations of G. L. c. 269, § 10.
- Indictment alleges defendant knowingly possessed or controlled firearms or ammunition in Massachusetts.
- Questions addressed: (1) whether § 10(a) requires proof the defendant carried a firearm; (2) whether § 140, § 129C(/) exemption by itself satisfies § 10(a)(4); (3) whether § 129C(/) is a defense to § 10(ra).
- Commonwealth narrative: February–March 2007 events at Mount Holyoke College involve搬 weapons moved between cars; weapons seized March 8, 2008.
- Court held: Q1 and Q3 No; Q2 Yes; residency facts to be decided in case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §10(a) require proof that the defendant carried a firearm? | Commonwealth contends ‘carries’ is required. | Defendant contends no ‘carry’ element post-amendment. | No; carrying not required. |
| Does 129C(/) exemption alone satisfy §10(a)(4) exemption? | Commonwealth argues literal reading needing both 129C and 131G. | New resident view rejects need for both provisions. | Yes; 129C(/) exemption suffices for a limited period. |
| Is 129C(/) a defense to §10(m) offenses? | Exemption might negate liability under §10(m). | Claimed exemption could shield from §10(m). | No; 129C(/) does not defense §10(m). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150 (2008) (holding that guilt requires knowing possession of a firearm without license; ‘carries’ not required after amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Wood, 398 Mass. 135 (1986) (new resident carrying firearm may be exempt from license requirements for 60 days)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 449 Mass. 207 (2007) (discusses licensing and possession framework post-amendment)