rely on a license for a defense. See Model Penal Code § 3.01(1) (“[JJustification is an affirmative defense.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 977 (10th ed.2014) (defining “justification” as “[a] showing, in court, of a sufficient reason why a defendant acted in a way that, in the absence of the reason, would constitute the offense with which the defendant is charged”). To say that a defendant must prove licensure in those instances when he relies on a license for his defense implies that there may be other instances in which licensure is not viewed as a defense, and in those instances the defendant may not need to prove it. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the legislature to include the limiting language. See Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalberb, 454 Mass. 407, 910 N.E.2d 330, 336 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the text of section 7, standing alone,
recognizing that under massachusetts law statutes are construed to avoid surplusage recognizing that statutes should be construed to avoid conflict and to form a harmonious whole holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed holding that wire and mail fraud statutes are construed identically holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused