Urgent help needed: "other dangerous weapon" and OC spray

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
47,431
Likes
22,400
Location
Near Framingham
Feedback: 29 / 0 / 0
Folks: I urgently need help on this. It is my understanding that the phrase "other dangerous weapon" in MGL Chapter 269 Section 10j has been ruled by MA courts to include OC spray. I urgently need a legal reference on this.
 
Safe assumpsion is yes, especially given MA’s previous restrictions on the item (FID and what not) and how it can still “only be used in self defense.” But hopefully @Len-2A Training or someone similar can shine some light on it.
 
BCPD regularly prosecuted and won these cases. Problem is that District Court cases aren't documented outside the courthouse. The BCPD prosecutor has been retired for a while. He's a personal friend and source of my info.
 
There's a big legal difference between mere possession on a school property and using it to actually threaten or commit a battery with it. BCPD was prosecuting possession.

I'd also like the case reference if it didn't involve an assault. I'll send my Email address by PM.
 
The case does involve an assault. However, the court holds that OC is a dangerous weapon per se, so I think that effectively covers possession.
 
COMMONWEALTH vs. WYNTON W., 459 Mass. 745 (2011)

This court concluded that the phrase "dangerous weapon," as it is used in G. L.c. 269, § 10(j) (prohibiting the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon on the grounds of any school, college, or university), must be interpreted as incorporating the common-law definition of that phrase, i.e., those objects that are dangerous per se (designed for the purpose of bodily assault or defense) and those things that become dangerous weapons because they are used in a dangerous fashion.

Commonwealth v. Lord, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 265, 269 n.6, & 271 (2002) (although not included in § 10 (b), chemical mace is per se "dangerous weapon" under common law)

WYNTON W., COMMONWEALTH vs., 459 Mass. 745
 
COMMONWEALTH v. Anthony D. WALCOTT.

17–P–461

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: February 8, 2018

That decision covered mace and it happened before the law was changed to legalize carrying defensive sprays without a license. This is a 2018 decision that explicitly covers carrying OC spray.

With that analysis in Lord, we held that "old style mace" was dangerous per se. Lord, supra at 269, 270. While we expressly left open the question whether pepper spray was dangerous per se, id. at 270 n.10, we now answer that question in the same manner, for many of the same reasons. Like conventional mace, a pepper spray canister is "dangerous per se because it was designed for the sole purpose of bodily assault or defense and was constructed to inflict serious bodily harm through incapacitation, and because, in these circumstances, the defendant used it in a manner consistent with its design." Id. at 269–270.
 
There's a big legal difference between mere possession on a school property and using it to actually threaten or commit a battery with it. BCPD was prosecuting possession.

I'd also like the case reference if it didn't involve an assault. I'll send my Email address by PM.

Email sent.
 
I'm curious too. Commonwealth v. Wynton W., 459 Mass. 745, 947 N.E.2d 561 (2011) says 10(j) includes weapons defined by the common law as dangerous weapons, capable of inflicting death or great bodily injury, or are designed for bodily assault or defense. The Lord decision suggests that mace or oc sprays are dangerous weapons by that definition.
 
The case does involve an assault. However, the court holds that OC is a dangerous weapon per se, so I think that effectively covers possession.

I'm curious too. Commonwealth v. Wynton W., 459 Mass. 745, 947 N.E.2d 561 (2011) says 10(j) includes weapons defined by the common law as dangerous weapons, capable of inflicting death or great bodily injury, or are designed for bodily assault or defense. The Lord decision suggests that mace or oc sprays are dangerous weapons by that definition.
Sadly those cases set the groundwork to convict on mere possession. Very bad but not surprising for Mass Marsupial Courts. Thanks for the cites, they correlate with what I've been telling students and NES'rs for years. I would have preferred to have been wrong and over cautious.
 
Hell, 10(j) criminalizes spitballs... Read the definition of firearm. It covers Nerf, Airsoft, BB and frankly spit balls. You can bet your ass anything remotely dangerous is covered.
 
Hell, 10(j) criminalizes spitballs... Read the definition of firearm. It covers Nerf, Airsoft, BB and frankly spit balls. You can bet your ass anything remotely dangerous is covered.
Yup, in today's world all of us that took high school chemistry would be felons. Glass bending and subsequent spitballing was commonplace. Nobody made a big deal about it . . . back then.
 
Folks: I urgently need help on this. It is my understanding that the phrase "other dangerous weapon" in MGL Chapter 269 Section 10j has been ruled by MA courts to include OC spray. I urgently need a legal reference on this.
(None of the following may add anything to the replies in this thread, but...)
if you had a nagging feeling you'd read about this previously on NES;
that's because you did read about it previously on NES:


Scroll back and forth for the full thread, of course.
(Against all odds) hope this helps.
 
Back
Top Bottom