The DOJ is already helping to challenge Massachusetts' bizarre requirements on firearms that can be sold in the state, but there is much more to be done to protect the Second Amendment rights of residents and visitors. I've previously detailed some of the horrific abuses that are taking place in what was once the cradle of liberty, and now we've got another case where prosecutors are patently infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.
This case involves a woman who was simply traveling through Massachusetts on her way to New Hampshire for work. Danisha Harris was pulled over for a traffic stop, but because there were issues with the car's registration police ended up towing it. They had to inventory everything in the vehicle, and that's when police discovered two firearms, including one in a bag that the arrest report stated was under her direct control.
The car was towed away, and Harris was taken to the local House of Corrections, where prosecutors charged her with several felonies.
The problem, as her attorney Dan Hagan has pointed out, is that Massachusetts law explicitly allows for gun owners to travel through the state with their firearms.
Chapter 140, Section 129C : (k) A nonresident may carry a firearm on their person while in a vehicle lawfully traveling through the commonwealth; provided, however, that the firearm shall remain in the vehicle and if the firearm is outside its owner's direct control it shall be stored in the vehicle in accordance with section 131C.
Hagan pointed out this provision to prosecutors, which should have resulted in them dropping the charges, profusely apologizing to Harris, and pointing out the law in question to their staff as well as local police in their jurisdiction so that this boneheaded mistake wouldn't happen again in the future.
This is Massachusetts, though, and that is not what happened next.
Their response was not apologetic, but rather proposed that if she plead guilty to a misdemeanor, the felony would be dropped.
“It is unconscionable that a Massachusetts prosecutor would admit error and innocence, but still insist on a plea deal,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “This notion that an innocent person should plea to a lesser charge to avoid trial is Orwellian at best. But, as we have discovered this was the intention of Chapter 135 all along. The process itself has become the punishment.”
Harris did not commit a crime, so why on earth would she agree to plead guilty to a misdemeanor?
Because it would save her time and attorneys fees, as well as negate the risk that a judge or jury would be just as hostile to the Second Amendment as the local prosecutor.
Thankfully, Danila Harris isn't a pushover, and she refuses to take the fall for a crime she didn't commit. Instead, Hagan is filing a motion to dismiss, and hopefully Harris will soon be absolved of all charges.
