Massachusetts Using Legal Defense as Punishment

In the United States, citizens have the inherent right to the presumption of innocence when they are accused of a crime. This means that it is the government’s burden to prove their guilt and a person’s innocence is maintained unless the government can do so.

Another key principle that governs how the US legal system works is that “everything which is not forbidden is allowed.” This usually means that if something is not specifically prohibited by law, then it is legal. Here in the Commonwealth, gun owners seem to be facing a complete reversal in how the judicial system works for everyone else.

Ever since the passage of Chapter 135 in 2024, prosecutors seem to view the new legal landscape in Massachusetts as an opportunity to test the limits of these traditional limitations on government power. Traditionally, if someone can present irrefutable evidence of an exemption, like in a so-called “assault style firearms” case, such prima facie evidence would usually cause the state to decline to prosecute. Since 135, we have been seeing prosecutors shift the burden of proof onto gun owners by forcing them to pursue innocence in court through an “affirmative defense,” and the courts seem to be allowing it. This basically means that regardless of any plain exemptions, the absence of a specific prohibition, or even a convoluted piece of law, the prosecutor will file charges and force the citizen to face trial and prove they should not be convicted. This tactic usually guarantees the citizen will have to pay very high legal defense fees and may even destroy their public and professional reputation. GOAL’s Mike Harris often uses the phrase: “The process is the punishment.”

Anti-gun prosecutors and judges seem to be so incredibly eager to establish new judicial history and destroy the Second Amendment in Massachusetts that they are willing to turn more than 250 years of common law on its head. The passage of Ch 135 cleared a path for anti-gun officials in the Judiciary to rewire the way gun owners are treated by the courts, by removing their presumption of innocence through convoluted legal maneuvers, forcing them into expensive and arduous court proceedings.

"Affirmative defense"

Is a defendant's claim that introduces new facts and arguments, which, if true, would defeat the plaintiff's or prosecution's case even if the plaintiff's allegations are true. It shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove these additional reasons often by a preponderance of the evidence, thereby excusing their actions or invalidating the claim.