BACK TO BACK COURT WINS
Commonwealth v. Harris
On Monday, the Judge in the Commonwealth v. Harris case allowed the Defense’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion centers on the fact that Ms. Harris was improperly charged and, even if she were to be “properly” charged, she falls under an exception that Ch. 135 put into the law.
Originating out of Palmer, MA, this case began with a traffic stop where Ms. Harris, a non-resident of MA, was found in possession of a loaded firearm. Under MA law in MGL c. 140 § 129C, it is legal for a non-resident to carry a firearm on their person while lawfully traveling through the Commonwealth. In this case, the gun was under her direct control and, had she not been pulled over, she did not intend to stop.
“While Ms. Harris’s case was successfully dismissed, it does not excuse law enforcement or the prosecutor from traumatizing a lawful citizen,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “Ever since the passage of Chapter 135 the state is using any excuse to publicly persecute and prosecute gun owners. They are literally using the judicial process as the punishment.”
“The power to prosecute has limits. You can’t convict someone for a crime that the Legislature never created. Today, the court recognized that and dismissed the case,” said Dan Hagan, Harris’s attorney. “Thanks to GOAL and a very intelligent judge, Danisha Harris received justice.”
Commonwealth v. Robertson
Yesterday, September 15th, the judge in Commonwealth v. Robertson allowed the defense’s motion to dismiss prior to him even being arraigned! Following a traffic stop stemming from a random license plate check, Mr. Robertson, an active-duty member of the US Air Force who holds a valid License To Carry, was charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a large-capacity feeding device.
Attorney Hagan filed the motion based firstly on the fact that there was no probable cause to stop Mr. Robertson in the first place. Secondly, firearms need not be registered in the Commonwealth until October of 2026 and the law is not enforceable at this time as it is premature. Third, based upon the fact that he was improperly charged for possessing the so-called “large-capacity feeding device.”
This case being dismissed prior to arraignment means that it will never hit his record or impact his military career or his ability to retain his LTC.
“This young service member never should have been pulled over, let alone have his entire future threatened,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “Both law enforcement and the prosecutors involved owe him much more than an apology. What we are witnessing with these cases is either an enormous amount of ignorance or malice. Neither is acceptable.”
“GOAL really saved this kid,” said Dan Hagan, Robertson’s attorney. “Without their support it is likely he would have ended up with a plea deal or conviction that would have ruined his life.”