The Brief
What You Need to Know. No More, No Less.
How the Donnell Decision Could Overturn Gun Possession Convictions in Massachusetts
In Commonwealth v. Donnell, the SJC ruled that Massachusetts's discretionary gun license law for nonresidents violated the Second Amendment. If you were charged under §10(a) or §10(h) and your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen was decided, you may be eligible to have your conviction vacated.
UPDATE: Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025), significantly changes the analysis of this post. You can read how here.
Massachusetts SJC Strikes Down “May Issue” Firearms Law for Out-of-State Residents: What It Means for Defendants
In the wake of a major decision issued this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has struck down the Commonwealth’s former “may issue” gun licensing scheme for out-of-state residents. In Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the Court ruled that the discretionary license process violated the Second Amendment. For anyone charged under M.G.L. c. 269 §§ 10(a) or 10(h), this ruling may open the door to significant relief, even vacating a conviction entirely.
What Was the Issue?
Massachusetts previously required out-of-state residents to obtain a temporary license to carry a firearm through a process that gave wide discretion to the licensing authority. Under the now-invalidated law, the colonel of the State Police could deny applications “based on such terms and conditions as [they] may deem proper.” The SJC found this discretionary scheme unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical traditions.
Who Is Affected?
If you’re an out-of-state resident who was charged under §10(a) or §10(h) after Bruen (June 23, 2022) but before the legislature changed the law (August 10, 2022), you are in the same position as Mr. Donnell and are entitled to dismissal of those charges.
Even if you were charged before Bruen, you might still be eligible for relief, as long as your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen came down. This primarily applies to defendants convicted after trial who had an appeal pending as of June 2022.
What About Massachusetts Residents?
The Donnell decision only addressed out-of-state residents, but its reasoning could soon extend to in-state residents who were subject to similar discretionary licensing schemes. The SJC is currently reviewing that issue in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, with a decision expected later this year. Depending on that outcome, in-state defendants convicted under §10(a) between 2015 and 2022 may also have grounds for relief.
What Should You Do?
If you’re serving a sentence for unlawful firearm possession as an out-of-state resident, or were convicted but haven’t exhausted your appeals, now is the time to act. The Donnell decision could be the key to dismissing your case or overturning your conviction.
If you think your case might be affected, I’m happy to review your record and help determine whether a motion to vacate or dismiss is appropriate.
What Is Leaving the Scene of an Accident in Massachusetts?
Even minor accidents can result in charges if a driver fails to stop and provide information.
Leaving the scene of an accident is a serious charge in Massachusetts that applies when a driver fails to stop and provide information after a crash. The law requires drivers to stop, identify themselves, and provide assistance if needed.
The severity of the charge depends on whether there was property damage, personal injury, or death. Even in cases involving only minor damage, leaving the scene can result in criminal charges, fines, and license consequences.
The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew they were involved in an accident and intentionally left the scene without complying with the law. In some cases, the issue is whether the driver was aware that contact occurred at all. Identity is often very difficult for the Commonwealth to prove with this charge.
These cases often involve witness statements, surveillance footage, and vehicle damage. Early investigation is important, especially where identity or knowledge is disputed. If you have had a recent collision, contact an attorney right away.
What Is Malicious Destruction of Property in Massachusetts?
Property damage charges often turn on intent and the value of the damage.
Malicious destruction of property involves intentionally damaging someone else’s property without justification. The charge can apply to a wide range of conduct, from damaging a car to breaking personal belongings or vandalizing property.
The severity of the charge depends on the amount of damage. If the damage exceeds a certain value, the charge can be treated as a felony. Lower-value cases are typically misdemeanors but can still carry serious consequences.
The Commonwealth must prove that the damage was intentional and done with malice. Accidental damage or misunderstandings do not meet this standard. Disputes over ownership or permission can also play an important role in the defense.
These cases often arise out of personal conflicts. A strong defense focuses on intent, the extent of the damage, and whether the incident has been exaggerated or mischaracterized.
What Is Threatening to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts?
Not every angry statement is a crime. Massachusetts law requires proof that the threat was real and intended.
Threatening to commit a crime is a separate offense in Massachusetts that does not require any physical action. A person can be charged based on words alone if those words express an intent to commit a crime against another person or property.
The Commonwealth must prove that the statement was a true threat and not just a joke, exaggeration, or protected speech. The context of the statement matters. Courts look at how a reasonable person would interpret the words and whether they would cause fear but also whether the defendant was aware or consciously disregarded a substantial risk the statement would be viewed as a threat.
Many cases involve text messages, social media posts, or arguments that escalate. The issue is often whether the statement was serious enough to be considered a real threat. Statements made in anger or frustration do not automatically meet that standard.
Because this charge overlaps with free speech protections and the First Amendment, it is often defensible. Careful analysis of the language used and the surrounding circumstances can make a significant difference in how the case is resolved. I will often file a motion to dismiss on these charges based on the defenses mentioned. Contacting an attorney as soon as possible is key in defending this charge.
What Is Assault and Battery on a Police Officer in Massachusetts?
Assault and battery on a police officer often arises during arrests and turns on what actually happened in a fast-moving situation.
Assault and battery on a police officer is a more serious version of a standard assault and battery charge. It applies when the alleged victim is a police officer performing their official duties. The charge is a felony and carries enhanced penalties compared to a typical assault and battery.
To prove the charge, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant intentionally touched the officer without justification and that the officer was engaged in the performance of their duties at the time. The prosecution must also prove that the defendant knew the person was a police officer.
Many of these cases arise during arrests or heated encounters. The key issues often involve what actually happened in the moment and whether the officer used excessive force. If the officer’s actions were unlawful, that can affect whether the defendant’s conduct was justified.
These cases frequently rely on body camera footage, witness testimony, and police reports. A careful review of that evidence by an experienced attorney is critical to determining whether the charge can be challenged or reduced.