“It Has to Be a Rifle”: Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Gun Conviction for Lack of Proof on Firearm Definition
In Commonwealth v. Julio C. Ferreira Artur, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed two of the defendant’s firearm-related convictions and vacated a third, in a decision that reinforces a core constitutional principle: the Commonwealth must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt—including the technical elements of a firearm definition under state law.
This case offers an important lesson for criminal defense attorneys: even in cases where the weapon is recovered, a trained ballistician testifies, and the defendant makes damaging admissions, every element still matters. A conviction cannot stand on assumptions or loose testimony when the statute requires precise proof.
Here’s a breakdown of the case, what went wrong at trial, and why the court’s ruling could have broader implications for defense practice in firearms prosecutions across Massachusetts.
Background: Arrest in Boston’s North End and Charges Filed
In the early morning hours of November 28, 2021, Boston police officers responded to a call in the North End. They found the defendant, Julio Ferreira Artur, sitting on a sidewalk with a blanket around his shoulders, visibly intoxicated. Next to him were a blue bicycle and two trash bags. Inside one of the bags, officers discovered what appeared to be a rifle.
Artur was arrested, and a pat frisk revealed two magazines with thirteen rounds of ammunition in his jacket pocket. Because Artur only spoke Portuguese, a Portuguese-speaking State Trooper was brought in to assist. After being Mirandized, Artur allegedly admitted to finding the gun in the trunk of an unlocked car and acknowledged he did not have a license to carry.
He was charged with the following:
Possession of a rifle without a license (G.L. c. 269, § 10[a])
Possession of an unloaded rifle on a public way that was not enclosed in a case (G.L. c. 269, § 12D[b])
Possession of ammunition without a Firearm Identification Card (FID card) (G.L. c. 269, § 10[h][1])
He was acquitted of breaking and entering into a vehicle, and the judge allowed a motion for a required finding of not guilty on a larceny of a firearm charge. The three remaining charges went to the jury.
The jury convicted him on all three counts—but two of those convictions would not hold up on appeal.
The Core Legal Issue: What Counts as a “Rifle” Under Massachusetts Law?
The case turned on a technical, but essential, question: Did the Commonwealth prove that the recovered weapon met the statutory definition of a “rifle”?
Under G.L. c. 140, § 121, a rifle is defined as:
“a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.”
The detective from the Boston Police Department’s firearms analysis unit testified that:
He measured the barrel to be over 22 inches.
He successfully test-fired the weapon.
In his view, the weapon met the legal definition of a rifle.
However, he did not testify that the bore of the weapon was rifled—one of the three essential statutory elements. Nor did he describe what a rifled bore even is. The term was used vaguely and interchangeably with “rifle bore,” without technical explanation.
On cross-examination, defense counsel probed this missing link. The detective acknowledged that shotguns “normally” have smooth bores and rifles have “rifled” bores—but never confirmed whether this specific weapon had a rifled bore, or whether he had examined the bore at all.
The judge noted concern about the lack of a proper definition, calling the Commonwealth’s expert’s explanation “faulty.” Yet the court allowed the case to go to the jury anyway.
Why the Appeals Court Reversed: Insufficient Proof of a Rifled Bore
On appeal, Artur argued that his two convictions for unlawful possession of a rifle had to be reversed because the Commonwealth failed to prove the weapon met the legal definition of a rifle—specifically, that it had a rifled bore.
The Appeals Court agreed.
Here’s the heart of the Court’s reasoning:
The Commonwealth has the burden to prove each statutory element of a firearm, including the rifled bore.
The Commonwealth’s expert never testified that he inspected the bore or found rifling.
The jury was not instructed on what a rifled bore is, nor were they provided with guidance to recognize it.
Even if the jury looked at the weapon during deliberations, they lacked the knowledge to identify rifling.
The Court contrasted this case with Commonwealth v. Harrison, where a similar challenge failed because the expert had explained his general methodology, which included test-firing and evaluating all firearm criteria. In Artur, the expert gave no such testimony about the bore.
The Court summed it up bluntly: “Because there was no competent evidence that the weapon had a rifled bore, the defendant’s convictions for unlawful possession of a rifle must be reversed.”
Key defense takeaway: The Commonwealth can’t shortcut technical elements. The absence of rifling testimony—whether by oversight or assumption—is a fatal omission when the statute requires it.
The Ammunition Conviction: Instructional Error and Bruen's Legacy
The Appeals Court also vacated the ammunition conviction due to a jury instruction error—this time stemming from Bruen and its Massachusetts progeny.
At the time of trial, the judge did not instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had to prove that the defendant lacked a valid FID card. That’s no longer permissible. In Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that the absence of an FID card is an essential element of G.L. c. 269, § 10(h)(1), and must be proven by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Appeals Court found that the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because:
The only evidence that Artur lacked a license was his statement that he “didn’t have one.”
That admission only addressed a license to carry, not an FID card.
Under Massachusetts law, a license to carry is different from an FID card.
Thus, the jury was not instructed correctly, and the evidence did not definitively prove the absence of an FID card. The Court vacated the conviction and left open the possibility of a retrial.
Key defense takeaway: After Bruen, the Commonwealth must prove the absence of licensure for all ammunition and firearm possession charges. Defendants do not carry the burden to prove they were licensed.
What This Case Means for Defense Attorneys
1. Don’t Assume the Gun Is a “Rifle” or “Firearm” Just Because It Looks Like One
This case underscores that the statutory definition of a “rifle” is not shorthand for “long gun” or “military-style weapon.” The bore must be rifled. That’s not optional—it’s statutory.
A defense attorney should:
Demand clarity and specificity from ballistics experts.
Object if a witness gives a vague definition.
Move for a required finding if the Commonwealth skips over the rifled bore element.
This also opens space for expert defense testimony to rebut unclear or conclusory firearms classifications.
2. Press for Jury Instructions That Match Modern Doctrine on Licensing
Post-Bruen, courts must instruct that the Commonwealth has the burden to prove a lack of licensure—including the lack of an FID card. It’s not enough for prosecutors to show a defendant doesn’t have a license to carry.
Defense counsel should:
Object to incomplete jury instructions on licensure.
Push for suppression of license statements obtained without clear Miranda waivers or language support.
Consider raising Bruen-based facial challenges to statutes where the licensing process may be discretionary or burdensome.
3. Use Translations and Miranda Issues as a Check on Police Statements
Artur’s only statement about licensing came through a Portuguese-speaking trooper. Defense counsel might have had fruitful avenues for challenging whether Miranda was fully understood or whether the defendant’s responses addressed FID status versus license to carry. This case hints at—but doesn’t resolve—those issues.
Attorneys should:
Scrutinize how non-English-speaking defendants are advised of rights.
Confirm whether the specific type of license was clearly discussed.
Consider motions to suppress statements that don’t meet the threshold for reliability or voluntariness.
Broader Implications: Technical Proof Still Matters in Gun Cases
As Massachusetts grapples with the fallout of Bruen, this case shows that ordinary statutory construction and trial safeguards still play a vital role in firearms prosecutions. Courts won’t let the Commonwealth skirt around statutory definitions, even in the emotionally charged context of gun arrests.
For defense lawyers, Artur is a reminder to demand precision. Ask the basic questions:
Did they prove it was a “firearm” under the law?
Did they show the bore was rifled?
Did they prove absence of licensure beyond a reasonable doubt?
Did the jury get the right instructions?
Artur shows that these questions are not academic. They can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Conclusion
Commonwealth v. Artur is a strong affirmation of due process in firearms cases. The Appeals Court held the Commonwealth to its burden—requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every element, including the technical ones.
Defense attorneys across Massachusetts should be prepared to:
Challenge conclusory firearms testimony.
Demand jury instructions that reflect Bruen and Guardado.
Preserve appellate issues on definitional and procedural grounds.
In criminal law, assumptions can be costly. As Artur proves, when the government skips a step, the defense must be ready to step in.