Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court says way Boston man was convicted on illegal gun and ammo charges violates the Second Amendment, but says he still deserves jail time for the large-capacity magazine he had

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a Supreme Court decision last year that lets people pack guns for protection outside the home means it has no choice but to overturn a Boston man's conviction for the gun and bullets Boston and Watertown police found in his glove box - but the court upheld his 2 1/2 to 3-year sentence for one of the magazines they also found.

The ruling does not strike down the Massachusetts gun-control law, one of the strictest in the nation, but means prosecutors will have to present evidence that somebody they are prosecuting broke the law by not getting a permit for the weapon. Before today's decision, it was up to defendants to prove they had a license - prosecutors did not have prove that they did not have one.

In Carlos Guardado's case, which stems from his 2019 arrest in the parking lot of an auto-parts store on Arsenal Street in Watertown, prosecutors did not present evidence that Guardado had a license for the silver handgun or several bullets, which police found after being tipped off by an informant who knew him, because up until last year's Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts law mostly considered guns illegal in the absence of a license, which left the proof burden up to defendants.

The state's highest court concluded that when the Supreme Court specifically stated that carrying a gun outside the home for personal protection was a Constitutional right, it shifted the courtroom evidence balance - Massachusetts defendants should not have to prove anything in court about a gun they're found with, instead, it is up to prosecutors to prove defendants did something wrong, which in Massachusetts means failing to register a gun.

The Commonwealth may impose licensing requirements upon the possession of firearms, but in enforcing those requirements, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant failed to comply with them.

The court continued, however, that the Supreme Court's decision only applied to guns that somebody could use for personal protection, and that large-capacity magazines don't fit that definition.

We previously have held that G. L. c. 140, § 131M, a statute that proscribes possession of large capacity feeding devices, "is not prohibited by the Second Amendment, because the right [to bear arms] 'does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'" Cassidy, 479 Mass. at 540.

The court rejected arguments by Guardado's attorney that all the charges should be tossed in part because even Massachusetts law allows somebody to have a gun at his place of business and because the warrantless search that led to the discovery of the gun violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The court concluded that although Guardado was arrested in the parking lot of the auto-parts store where he worked, the parking lot was shared with a neighboring company and there was nothing marking off any part of the lot as just for auto-parts customers and workers, so it wasn't technically part of his workplace.

The court also found that the police from either side of the Charles had enough reason for an emergency search of Guardado's car based on the tip from an informant who had provided correct information in the past to Boston Police and who gave specific enough information about Guardado's car and gun to look for the weapon, even if it was in the glove compartment rather than the backpack the informant said it was in.

The court added that because they were responding to a gun control, a Watertown detective had the right to pat frisk Guardado out of fear he might have a weapon on him that he could use against officers.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling256.69 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The court concluded that although Guardado was arrested in the parking lot of the auto-parts store where he worked, the parking lot was shared with a neighboring company and there was nothing marking off any part of the lot as just for auto-parts customers and workers, so it wasn't technically part of his workplace.

The SJC hates guns. In almost every gun case you read about here, the SJC sides with the police deciding their warantless search was valid. As a result, the SJC is repeatedly eroding the 4th Amendment. That's a horrible price to pay for gun control.

up
Voting closed 0

This ruling functionally invalidate MAs LTC system? Seems like a potential for broad impact here.

up
Voting closed 0

This ruling is a nothingburger. Prior to Bruen it was easier to convict for possession without a license because there was a presumption that having a weapon in public was illegal but for having a license. Under MA precedent, that allows the state to put the burden on the defendant to prove they have a license (it is an affirmative defense).

Because Bruen clarified the 2nd amendment covers a right to bear a firearm outside the home, that presumption (ie, that a weapon is being carried outside the home is illegal) is no longer valid. MA must now prove as a fact that the defendant lacked a license. That's not very hard; they can just look the defendant up in MIRCS and see whether they have one or not and present their process to the jury. The only reason it benefited this guy was because Bruen was decided while the trial/appeal was going on.

up
Voting closed 0

"Massachusetts defendants should not have to prove anything in court about a gun they're found with, instead, it is up to prosecutors to prove defendants did something wrong, which in Massachusetts means failing to register a gun."
The next paragraph sums it up.
"The Commonwealth may impose licensing requirements upon the possession of firearms..."
LTC licensing system was held up.
Under Bruen, the Commonwealth has to actually prove he broke the law. That's not really an overwhelming burden.

up
Voting closed 0

"...being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of choads to keep loaded handguns in their glove compartments so they can shoot people who beep their horns at them should not be infringed."

Thanks oh wise originalists* of the Supreme Court

*amoral dirt-bags seated illegitimately or bought by right-wing billionaires

up
Voting closed 0

1. The gun was illegally kept. Next time the Commonwealth will say something like, "Hey. Look. No LTC A or B. Pistol's illegal."

2. More than half of the states allow permit less (Constitutional) carry.

3. The 'large capacity magazine' ruling possibly presents its own difficulties. ""is not prohibited by the Second Amendment, because the right [to bear arms] 'does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'" Cassidy, 479 Mass. at 540." For several reasons, one being that large cap magazines are allowed under LTC-A for 'any lawful purpose', one purpose being self defense and are "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes".

4. It was 6-3. "The majority ruled that states are allowed to enforce "shall-issue" permitting, where applicants for concealed carry permits must satisfy certain objective criteria, such as passing a background check, but that "may-issue" systems that use "arbitrary" evaluations of need made by local authorities are unconstitutional."

"amoral dirt-bags seated illegitimately or bought by right-wing billionaires"
I think you might be a bit harsh in your opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

I guess you think you refuted my point that a well-regulated militia, intended to DEFEND the republic lets remember, does not equal a choad driving around with gun in his glove compartment? Are the Russians going to invade while he's on his way to 7-11 to pick up some pork rinds? Oh wait, many gun nuts think the Russians are on their side now.

The fact that other states allow unfettered waving around of loaded guns in public, or constitutional carry as you falsely qualify it, is not an argument, it's a sign that these states' suicidal law-makers have been co-opted by the gun lobby. Look at the per capita gun violence in those states versus Massachusetts, I beg you.

Yeah 6-3. Thomas, as everyone now knows, in the pocket of a right-wing billionaire. Gorsuch, illegitimately occupying a seat vacated with a year left on Obama's term. If you can do the math, that's now 5-4 sane gun regulation. That's not even mentioning Kavanaugh's suspect finances or Trump nominating and somehow seating Barrett in the weeks after the election. Polls say the majority of Americans do not recognize the legitimacy of this court, nor should they. This court shouldn't be adjudicating the outcome of the puppy bowl.

up
Voting closed 0

"Your gun holds nine bullets? Have a nice day."

"Your gun holds eleven bullets? That's 2.5 years imprisonment for you."

up
Voting closed 0

How hard is it to prove or disprove whether someone has a license? Shouldn't it be about 30 seconds of searching in an online database?

up
Voting closed 0