Many Americans have a clear idea of what a firearm is. Most would say that it is a gun of some kind capable of firing cartridges using the chemical reaction of explosive gunpowder. However, not all states agree – and various jurisdictions define firearms in different ways. For example, New Jersey defines BB guns in exactly the same way as "traditional" firearms. A recent firearms case in Massachusetts clarifies how the Commonwealth defines firearms – particularly in the context of unlicensed possession.
Commonwealth Reverses Charge After Clarifying Legal Definition of "Firearms"
In November of 2024, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts reversed a charge of unlicensed firearm possession, noting that what the defendant actually held was not, in fact, a "firearm" under the proper legal definition.
The case stems from a 2021 incident in which police discovered the unconscious defendant in a parked car at 2:00 AM. Police noticed drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle and carried out a search, finding a bag of fentanyl and a stun gun in the process.
In 2022, the defendant was charged with various weapons and firearms offenses – including "possession of a firearm without a license" and "possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony." Although the drug charges stemmed from trafficking allegations, the firearms charges were solely concerning the defendant's possession of the stun gun (also known as a Taser).
Later, the defendant argued that the firearm charges should be dismissed because the stun gun does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun. While the judge agreed to dismiss the charge of possession during a felony, the unlicensed possession charge stood.
The defendant then appealed. The appeals court subsequently reviewed the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts, which includes the phrase:
"[...] constructed in a shape that [resembles] a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun [...]"
The Commonwealth did not dispute the defendant's description of his own stun gun, which included the phrase:
"A clunky electrical razor or even a small brick."
The Commonwealth had no other choice but to accept that the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts cannot include stun guns that do not resemble firearms. The appeals court seemed bewildered as to how this could have happened since it opens the door for all kinds of "covert weapons" that should clearly be illegal.
The appeals court also noted that when the resemblance requirement was added to the firearm definition, the term "stun gun" was still absent. As a result, this represents a totally unintentional (and somewhat absurd) outcome for the defendant, albeit a clearly positive one.
Contact an Experienced Firearms Defense Lawyer in Boston
If you are serious about fighting for your Second Amendment rights, contact an experienced firearms defense lawyer in Boston. Edward R. Molari has experience representing those accused of unlicensed possession, self-defense, illegal modifications, and many related offenses. Schedule a consultation today to learn more – and get started with a real defense strategy.