On July 11 the SJC decided a case called Vega v. Commonwealth. It includes this gem:
This means that if unlicensed firearm possession presents a menace of dangerousness, then including it as a predicate offense furthers the legitimate and compelling government interest of preventing extremely serious crime by arrestees. We conclude that unlicensed firearm possession is a dangerous menace.
A then Justice of this court explained in 2009 why unlicensed firearm possession is dangerous to the community:
"When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence. . . . The risks associated with the possession of any firearm quite clearly are increased when those firearms are unlicensed. It is generally understood in the Commonwealth that there are licensing requirements applicable to firearms, and that it is unlawful to violate them. That the owner or user of an inherently dangerous instrumentality subject to licensure chooses not to abide by licensing requirements suggests powerfully that that person has obtained the weapon for an unlawful purpose that involves violence or the threat thereof. This is nothing more than common sense. . . . The fact that some otherwise law-abiding individuals may possess unlicensed firearms due to neglect or mistake does not alter the basic nature of the act in most situations or reduce the danger of death or serious personal injury that accompanies the use of the great majority of firearms that have not satisfied licensing requirements. . . . [A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."
Young, 453 Mass. at 718-721 (Cowin, J., dissenting).