An Andover man was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon after allegedly confronting a constable while carrying a rifle.
According to court documents, the man was a litigant in divorce proceedings.
The constable went to his house to serve legal documents related to the divorce.
The man allegedly refused to accept the paperwork, went back into his house, and returned to the doorway holding a rifle with the barrel pointed upwards.
The constable, claiming to fear for his safety, got into his car and called the police.
Ultimately the man was arrested, charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, and found guilty after a trial by jury.
He appealed the verdict arguing, in part, that his actions were protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Appeals Court rejected the argument and affirmed the conviction.
According to the Appeals Court,
Here the use the defendant put to his rifle gains no Second Amendment protection. First, the defendant does not argue that he fetched the gun because he felt threatened by the victim; there is no argument before us that he retrieved the gun for self-defense. And second, we think it relevant that the evidence indicates that the victim was lawfully on the premises. The victim parked in the driveway and walked to the front door. There is no evidence that any notice had been given, either directly to the victim or by posting, that unauthorized persons could not enter the property. The victim was in law an implied licensee; there is thus no suggestion that the victim was trespassing Whether or not the Second Amendment encompasses some limited right to use a firearm that one possesses (which we do not today decide), the Second Amendment does not provide a right to intentionally threaten a person who is lawfully on one’s premises, where there is no basis to conclude that the act of threatening is for reasonable self-defense. (Citations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.