Court says way Boston man was convicted on illegal gun and ammo charges violates the Second Amendment, but says he still deserves jail time for the large-capacity magazine he had

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a Supreme Court decision last year that lets people pack guns for protection outside the home means it has no choice but to overturn a Boston man's conviction for the gun and bullets Boston and Watertown police found in his glove box - but the court upheld his 2 1/2 to 3-year sentence for one of the magazines they also found.

The ruling does not strike down the Massachusetts gun-control law, one of the strictest in the nation, but means prosecutors will have to present evidence that somebody they are prosecuting broke the law by not getting a permit for the weapon. Before today's decision, it was up to defendants to prove they had a license - prosecutors did not have prove that they did not have one.

In Carlos Guardado's case, which stems from his 2019 arrest in the parking lot of an auto-parts store on Arsenal Street in Watertown, prosecutors did not present evidence that Guardado had a license for the silver handgun or several bullets, which police found after being tipped off by an informant who knew him, because up until last year's Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts law mostly considered guns illegal in the absence of a license, which left the proof burden up to defendants.

The state's highest court concluded that when the Supreme Court specifically stated that carrying a gun outside the home for personal protection was a Constitutional right, it shifted the courtroom evidence balance - Massachusetts defendants should not have to prove anything in court about a gun they're found with, instead, it is up to prosecutors to prove defendants did something wrong, which in Massachusetts means failing to register a gun.

The Commonwealth may impose licensing requirements upon the possession of firearms, but in enforcing those requirements, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant failed to comply with them.

The court continued, however, that the Supreme Court's decision only applied to guns that somebody could use for personal protection, and that large-capacity magazines don't fit that definition.

We previously have held that G. L. c. 140, § 131M, a statute that proscribes possession of large capacity feeding devices, "is not prohibited by the Second Amendment, because the right [to bear arms] 'does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'" Cassidy, 479 Mass. at 540.

The court rejected arguments by Guardado's attorney that all the charges should be tossed in part because even Massachusetts law allows somebody to have a gun at his place of business and because the warrantless search that led to the discovery of the gun violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The court concluded that although Guardado was arrested in the parking lot of the auto-parts store where he worked, the parking lot was shared with a neighboring company and there was nothing marking off any part of the lot as just for auto-parts customers and workers, so it wasn't technically part of his workplace.

The court also found that the police from either side of the Charles had enough reason for an emergency search of Guardado's car based on the tip from an informant who had provided correct information in the past to Boston Police and who gave specific enough information about Guardado's car and gun to look for the weapon, even if it was in the glove compartment rather than the backpack the informant said it was in.

The court added that because they were responding to a gun control, a Watertown detective had the right to pat frisk Guardado out of fear he might have a weapon on him that he could use against officers.