Commonwealth v. Clint A. Cornelius
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 10, 2010
Docket No: 08-P-1655
Firearms, Firearms without License
Superior Court judge decided three questions of law that are the topic of the appeal:
1) Does G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a) require proof that a defendant "carried" a firearm?;
2) Does the satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) satisfy the firearm possession exemption in G.L. 269, sec. 10(a)(4) by itself?; and
3) Whether satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) is a defense for violation of G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m)?
Facts
In late February, 2007, Defendant drove from his home in Georgia to Mt. Holyoke College in South Hadley to visit his girlfriend, a student of the college. Defendant stayed with his girlfriend in her dormitory, which she shared with a roommate. On February 26, 2007, the college public safety department ordered the defendant's car to be towed to a private lot. The next day, the defendant borrowed his the roommate's car and transferred some belongings from his car currently in the tow lot. These items included a number of weapons the defendant brought with him from Georgia, including a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle. The roommate protested when she learned of these items and the defendant returned the items to his car in the tow lot.
On or around March 5, 2007, the roommate reported the defendant to the public safety department. Pursuant to a warrant, the defendant's car was searched and the following were seized: .45 caliber pistol with two high-capacity magazines, 12 gauge shotgun, .308 caliber semi-automatic rifle with four high-capacity magazines, 76 rounds of pellet-type shotgun ammunition, and 1494 rounds of .308 caliber full metal jacket ammunition. In addition, the shotgun was loaded with two rounds of ammunition.
Defendant alleges that he intended to stay in Massachusetts and that he was in the process of seeking an apartment at the time of his arrest.
Issue 1: Does G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a) require proof that a defendant "carried" a firearm?
In looking at the legislative history surrounding G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a), the court recognized that a 1990 amendment to the statute omitted the word "carries." Therefore, from the time of this amendment the statute simply prohibits the knowing possession of a firearm without a license. With this in mind, the court found that the statute does not require proof that a defendant "carried" a firearm in this instance.
Issue 2: Does the satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) satisfy the firearm possession exemption in G.L. 269, sec. 10(a)(4) by itself?
G. L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) provides a sixty-day grace period for certain persons, temporarily exempting them from the requirements of sec. 129C, which generally prohibits the owning or possessing of any firearm unless an issuance of a firearm identification card. The Commonwealth argues that the firearm exemption in sec. 10(a)(4) should be read literally and requires that persons fulfill both G.L. c. 269, sec. 129C and sec. 131G in order to be exempt from the general rule against firearm possession or ownership. The court relied upon Commonwealth v. Wood, 398 Mass. 135 (1986), which observed these two statutes encompass different groups of people (new residents and returning residents as opposed to nonresidents carrying certain firearms) and thus, it would be almost impossible for an individual to ever satisfy both sections simultaneously. Therefore, by satisfying the exception in G.L. c 140, sec. 129C(j), new residents and some returning residents satisfy the firearm exemption in G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a)(4) by itself.
Issue 3: Whether satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) is a defense for violation of G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m)?
G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m) makes it illegal to knowingly have in one's possession, or knowingly having control of, a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device, in a vehicle, without being in possession of a valid class A or B license issued under G.L. c. 140, sec 131 or 131F. Defendant argues that his fulfillment of G.L. c. 140, sec 129C(j) (allowing for temporary exception to to new residents or returning residents for 60 days) provides a defense against G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m) that he would violate for possessing the high-capacity magazines.
The court does not view the fulfillment of sec. 129C(j) as a valid defense because sec. 10(m) explicitly does not raise the possession of a valid firearm identification card as a valid defense for possessing high-capacity storage devices. Additionally, sec. 129C(j) does not make mention of high-capacity devices and the specific definition for a high-capacity device describes it as a secondary designation applying to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a "firearm, rifle, or shotgun." Therefore, the court does not find that the fulfillment of sec. 129C(j) provides a defense to a violation of sec. 10(m).
Prepared by AAO
