Gun rights journalist Cam Edwards says the headline is simple but maddening: Air Force veteran Kyle Culotta is finally out of jail after four months behind bars in Massachusetts.
Not because the charges were dropped. Not because someone admitted a mistake.
He’s out because Massachusetts’ dangerousness law times out at 120 days, Edwards explains.
After that clock runs, even people the state deems “dangerous” become eligible for bail.
Jim Wallace of Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) calls the whole thing upside down.
“Mere possession without a license” is enough to trigger the dangerousness label in Massachusetts, he says, even when there’s no criminal history, no threats, no violence.
That’s what happened to Culotta.
He legally bought and owned his firearms in Arizona. He told the officer they were in the car. He had no Massachusetts permit. That was enough.
How a Paperwork Charge Became “Dangerousness”
Edwards walks through the timeline. A traffic stop last summer over an expired tag led to a planned impound.
Culotta, traveling with his girlfriend and living out of their car while DoorDashing, volunteered that he had legally owned firearms.
He was promptly arrested for not having a Massachusetts license.
Wallace says the veteran was then declared dangerous – twice – by a district court and a superior court. No violence. No threats. No past record.
He sat in jail for four months until the statute’s 120-day limit unlocked bail eligibility.
And when bail finally came, Wallace notes, there were no conditions – no ankle monitor, no home confinement. So “dangerous” that he needed to be caged for four months… but safe enough to walk out without strings attached.
Comparing Cases: The Absurdity Glares
Edwards points to other Massachusetts cases that make this one look surreal.
He highlights a road-rage shooting where a man reportedly fired at another driver on I-93 and walked out on $3,000 bail.
Wallace adds another head-scratcher: a defendant with a prior home invasion who was caught carrying a gun while out on bail – and was granted bail again.
Yet Culotta, a clean-record veteran, was so “dangerous” that the courts refused bail for months.
It’s not just perplexing. It suggests that, in Massachusetts, the gun itself – absent any harm – is what the system punishes hardest.
How GOAL Stepped In
Edwards credits GOAL for changing the trajectory. Culotta originally had a public defender, but GOAL connected him with attorney Dan Hagen to take the case.
Once GOAL got involved, Wallace says some charges were pared back. It didn’t matter to the judges assessing dangerousness; Culotta was still kept in.
Then the gun-rights community rallied. Culotta’s fiancée set up a bail fundraiser, and the $10,000 target was hit in hours, Wallace says.
GOAL couldn’t use members’ funds for bail, but it is supporting legal defense, and Wallace urges supporters to note Culotta’s case when donating so funds can be directed appropriately.
Wallace shares a tough lesson. Some gun owners initially shrugged: “He didn’t have a Massachusetts license, so he broke the law.”
GOAL pushed back. Have people lived under these rules so long that they accept imprisonment over paperwork? Wallace says many paused and realized how far the Overton window had shifted.
That’s the deeper harm here. When procedural violations get treated like violent conduct, everyone’s expectations about liberty and due process bend toward submission.
December: The Fight Continues
Edwards emphasizes that Culotta’s freedom is temporary. His next hearing is in December, and prosecutors are still “zealously” pursuing the case.
Wallace won’t speculate on defense strategy, but he’s blunt about the stakes.
If Massachusetts can secure a conviction on nothing but unlicensed possession – despite the guns being lawful property in the veteran’s home state – then crossing a state line becomes a legal tripwire for ordinary Americans.
My view: that’s the chilling message. Under this logic, a veteran’s lifetime of clean living matters less than a form he didn’t file in a state he was passing through.
The Bigger Massachusetts Backdrop
Edwards also digs into the wider 2A battlefield.
GOAL, the NRA, and individual plaintiffs have sued Massachusetts over its new ban on “assault-style firearms.”
Wallace says the state’s legal posture borders on defiant.
Among other arguments, the Attorney General’s office claims 11th Amendment immunity – as if the state can’t be sued for constitutional violations by its own residents. Edwards can barely hide his skepticism.
Then there’s the uncertainty bomb. Wallace notes the law empowers the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to tinker with a “banned roster” on the fly. Dealers don’t know what’s legal to stock. Buyers don’t know what’s legal to buy. Businesses are flying blind.
Worse, he says, the state’s online portal will allow you to register a gun you can’t legally own – a trap for the unwary.
And a state advisory board discussion even floated “starting” the banned list and adding more later. Wallace objected: with a banned roster, any omission reads like permission.
To me, this is regulatory fog by design. You can’t comply with rules that won’t stand still. And when confusion becomes the rule, prosecutors can make examples of anyone.
Why Culotta’s Case Resonates
Edwards keeps coming back to the human cost. Four months of a man’s life disappeared because a court elevated paperwork over conduct.
Culotta did what responsible gun owners are told to do – he volunteered information about the firearms in his car. Transparency was punished, not rewarded.
Wallace underscores the point. The “dangerousness” label here wasn’t about a threat. It was about possession – in a state where the default assumption is that an unlicensed gun equals imminent danger.
If that’s the standard, any traveler can be turned into a criminal by the wrong zip code.
That’s a due-process problem, a federalism problem, and a fairness problem – no matter where you stand on gun policy.
Community Matters – And It Worked
Edwards praises the community response that helped post bail and fund a real defense.
Wallace agrees: people across the country saw the injustice and moved quickly.
That doesn’t fix December. But it keeps a veteran working with his lawyer instead of waiting in a cell as leverage mounts against him.
My take: support like this is the difference between a case that gets steamrolled and a case that gets fought.
It also signals to officials that procedural prosecutions won’t slide by in silence.
Cam Edwards frames it cleanly: Kyle Culotta is free, but only because a clock ran out.
The case grinds on, and the rules that put him there still loom over every traveler who crosses Massachusetts lines.
Jim Wallace sees a pattern – criminalizing possession, normalizing dangerousness for paperwork, and making the rules so murky that compliance is a guess. That pattern doesn’t stay inside one case. It spreads.
If there’s a bright spot, it’s the crowd that showed up when it counted. Culotta’s bail got paid. His defense is funded. His story is being told – by Edwards on the mic and by Wallace in the trenches.
December will tell us more. For now, a veteran breathes free air – for now – and a state’s gun laws face the scrutiny they’ve earned.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
