Tag: Massachusetts

Key Changes in Massachusetts Firearm Laws for Nonresidents in 2024

On By jaguidaIn Legal UpdatesLeave a comment

Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, signed into law on October 2, 2024, has made it unlawful for nonresidents of Massachusetts to participate in target competitions with handguns or semi-automatic rifles/shotguns.

Pistol competitions, such as those sponsored by the USPSA, have been held at clubs throughout Massachusetts for many years. These competitions provide revenue to cash-strapped clubs and attract shooters from throughout New England. Unfortunately, the provision of Massachusetts law that allowed nonresidents to participate in pistol or revolver competitions, G.L. 140, sec. 131G, was repealed by Chapter 135. There appears to be no other exceptions for nonresidents to lawfully participate in pistol competitions without first obtaining a Massachusetts nonresident license to carry (LTC).

Similarly, Chapter 135 modified many of the provisions of G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C that allowed nonresidents to transport rifles and shotguns into Massachusetts. The new statute directs the Massachusetts State Police to develop a list of states that have permits similar to a Massachusetts firearms identification card (FID) as well as a list of states that issue hunting permits with similar requirements as Massachusetts. Nonresidents older than 18 years of age may possess rifles or shotguns in Massachusetts if a) their home state appears on the approved list (which has not been created yet) b) their home state issued them an approved hunting permit (this list also has not been created yet) c) they possess a nonresident Massachusetts hunting license d) while at a range and e) while traveling through Massachusetts if locked in a case and unloaded. In all situations, a nonresident MAY NOT possess a semiautomatic or large capacity rifle or shotgun without a valid Massachusetts LTC.

Black powder hunting also appears to have been affected by Chapter 135. Antique weapons are defined as muzzleloading rifles, shotguns and pistols that cannot be redesigned for conventional rimfire or centerfire ammunition. These weapons do not require a Massachusetts firearms license to possess. However, G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(p), which allowed possession of black powder rifles, shotguns AND ammunition has been repealed. At least one Massachusetts court decision held that the Legislature must specifically exempt black powder ammunition for unlicensed individuals to carry the ammunition lawfully. (Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 461 Mass. 821 (2012)).

Law enforcement is still coming to terms with the new provisions of Chapter 135 and it will likely take time and court challenges before we know for certain how all of the new nonresident provisions should be interpreted. In the meantime, nonresidents should take caution before traveling into Massachusetts with a firearm.

Expungement comes to Massachusetts!

On By jaguidaIn Helping Clients6 Comments

In late 2018 Massachusetts began accepting petitions to expunge certain offenses which occurred prior to a person’s 21st birthday (juvenile offenses), offenses that appear on a person’s record due to fraud and offenses that are no longer criminalized.

The new expungement process requires the petitioner to meet certain strict guidelines, overcome an eligibility review by the Office of the Commissioner of Probation and be granted relief by the Court after a hearing.

Our office is now handling expungement petitions for qualified clients.  Please complete our Expungement Eligibility Questionnaire to see if you qualify.

Criminal Charges Dismissed After Lawful Self-Defense

On By jaguidaIn Helping Clients2 Comments

On a recent summer afternoon my client, a valid LTC holder, and his wife went to a shopping mall in a South Shore community.  When they pulled into the parking lot they observed a large male arguing with a female and noticed that a crowd was gathering near the disturbance.  As my client exited his vehicle, he observed the male shove the female into the passenger seat of a nearby car and jump on top of her.

Concerned that he was witnessing an abduction or perhaps something worse, my client ran quickly towards the parked vehicle.  As he approached, the male assailant aggressively sprung from the driver’s side door and took a fighting stance.  My client jumped back, removed his firearm from his pocket holster in a low ready position and put his left hand up, yelling “Stop, Stop!”  The assailant retreated and my client re-holstered his weapon.  The police arrived a short time later and the male assailant was arrested for domestic assault and battery.  My client was interviewed, his firearm was seized and he was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon.

In Court, it was essential to prove that my client used no more force than was reasonably necessary to protect himself.  Our evidence showed that my client wisely disengaged and called the police once it became clear that his assailant was no longer a threat.  After a hearing, the Court agreed that my client drew his weapon in lawful self-defense and dismissed the charges.

The use of a firearm in self-defense should always be a last resort.  If you are ever involved in a self-defense situation, please call my office as soon after the incident as possible.

Medical Marijuana Cards, LTC’s and Firearms Possession

On By jaguidaIn Legal Updates12 Comments

Federal Law

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) released a newsletter in 2016 reinforcing its position on the use of medical marijuana. In short, BATFE has determined that any person who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes is an unlawful user of controlled substances and prohibited under Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.  BATFE has instructed FFL dealers to 1) inform customers to answer “yes” to question 11(e) on Form 4473 if they disclose that they hold a medicinal marijuana card and 2) withhold the transfer of firearms and ammunition to any person who they have reasonable cause to believe possesses a medical marijuana card.  BATFE’s position on medicinal marijuana was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Nevada in August of 2016.

In 2019, BATFE released guidance on when a former medical marijuana card holder will be eligible to possess firearms:

“The following scenarios will be used to determine the disqualification period in regard to possession of a medical marijuana user card:
1.
One year from the date of the medical marijuana user card’s expiration date; or
2.
One year from the date of “admission” of possession of the medical marijuana user card, if no expiration date is available; or
3.
One year from the date the medical marijuana user card is relinquished.”

LTC/FID in Massachusetts

The effect of medicinal marijuana cards on Massachusetts firearms licensing remains cloudy.  On one hand, G.L. c. 140, sec 131(e) requires a licensing authority to determine whether the possession of a firearm by an LTC applicant would be a violation of state or federal law.  On the other hand, the medicinal marijuana law states clearly that people who qualify for medicinal marijuana cards shall not be denied any right or privilege under state law.  There have been no published cases to date addressing this issue and there are no known cases of LTC/FID denials due to medical marijuana use.  However, if you are denied an LTC or FID due to your possession of a medicinal marijuana card, please contact my office at (617) 383-4652.

Resources:

The original 2011 ATF opinion can be read here:

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

The June 2016 newsletter can be read here:

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs/newsletter/explosives-industry-newsletter-june-2016/download

Wilson v. Lynch, 2016 WL 4537376, ____ F.3d____ (2016) can be read here:

Click to access 14-15700.pdf

A recent news article on this matter can be read here:

http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/07/16/massachusetts-marijuana-guns

UPDATE: The 9th Circuit has upheld BATFE’s opinion that any person who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes is an unlawful user of controlled substances and prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.  Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court held that this ban does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

The case can be read here:

Click to access 14-15700.pdf