Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Mass. court upholds state gun-lock requirement

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kenai Pensula, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    BOSTON – The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes, a case closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.

    Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Gun Owners' Action League and the Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, pointed to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

    The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

    "We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.

    The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.

    A Lowell District Court judge later dismissed the charges, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that threw out a District of Columbia requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in their homes.

    Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the state law requiring guns to be secured when not under an owner's control is less restrictive than the D.C. law. The Massachusetts court agreed, finding that the state law allows gun owners to keep their guns unlocked when they are at home and the guns are under their control, but must keep them locked when they are not home.

    Gun proponents said the law makes it virtually impossible for homeowners to quickly access a gun for self-defense.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100310/...etts_gun_locks

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    I hope I put this in the right section. If not, please move. Thankie.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    You left out some of the most interesting text of the article... apparently when the SCOTUS rules on McDonald here in a couple months, it won't apply to Massachusetts!? :shock: This is clearly an activist court, to issue this ruling with the full knowledge that the SCOTUS ruling is just weeks away.

    I'd like to read the full opinion in this case.

    TFred

    From OP's link:

    George had asked the SJC to delay its ruling in the Runyan case until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a Chicago case in which it is expected to decide if the Second Amendment will be applied to state gun laws. Arguments were heard last week in that case.

    The SJC, however, cited an 1875 Supreme Court ruling that gives Massachusetts the right to set its own firearms regulations.

    Under that ruling, the SJC said, "the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition."
    I hope the SCOTUS reads about this, and addresses it in their McDonald opinion!

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    This one's easy to get around. The article stipulates a locked container or trigger lock is requied when a gun is "not under the owner's control". Simple to ignore within the law. Just take your gun with you as you go through the house. Who cares if it is in a container or not then. it is under the owner's control and therefore, is not in violation of this absurd law.

    Of course, the best approach is to get that damned law off of the books as it is a violation of not only the Bill of Rights but of common sense.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kenai Pensula, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    This one's easy to get around. The article stipulates a locked container or trigger lock is requied when a gun is "not under the owner's control". Simple to ignore within the law. Just take your gun with you as you go through the house. Who cares if it is in a container or not then. it is under the owner's control and therefore, is not in violation of this absurd law.

    Of course, the best approach is to get that damned law off of the books as it is a violation of not only the Bill of Rights but of common sense.
    Exactly. Just carry it all the time. Simple.

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    I disagree with the law but I practiceit's 'dictates'as a home safety measure. I carry my PDD (personal defense device)when awake. All other firearms in the home for self defense are in quick open safes or those not loaded for SD are in deeper safe storage. This prevents misuse by youngins or easy theft by burglars.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    I disagree with the law but I practiceit's 'dictates'as a home safety measure. I carry my PDD (personal defense device)when awake. All other firearms in the home for self defense are in quick open safes or those not loaded for SD are in deeper safe storage. This prevents misuse by youngins or easy theft by burglars.
    Almost always, the only gun out and at hand in my home is my SD firearm. On the rare occasions when more than one is out, only my SD weapon is loaded.. any others do not remain out for long or when not under my immediate control. They remain locked in my safe where they belong.

    We certainly don't need some idiotic government dictate requiring us to do what WE know is best for US. Hell, before you know it, they'll have seat belt and child safety seat laws in place. Wait..... do these already exist? Well there you have it. More stupid intrusion upon our private lives and our rights. Idiots, just plain idiots.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    How I store my weapons in my homeis none of the goverments business.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    How I store my weapons in my homeis none of the goverments business.


    Amen to that.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Archsgurl wrote:
    Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the state law requiring guns to be secured when not under an owner's control is less restrictive than the D.C. law. The Massachusetts court agreed, finding that the state law allows gun owners to keep their guns unlocked when they are at home and the guns are under their control, but must keep them locked when they are not home.

    Gun proponents said the law makes it virtually impossible for homeowners to quickly access a gun for self-defense.
    Once again, I need to read the actual opinion (anybody find a link yet?) But this part really scares me. Who decides what "under control" means?

    The article seems to stress the not being home part of this case, but if "under control" means on your person at all times, this sets a very dangerous precedent. One could very easily make the case for a gun being "not under control" while you are sleeping. What would that do for the burglary and home invasion industry?

    TFred

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Archsgurl wrote:
    Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the state law requiring guns to be secured when not under an owner's control is less restrictive than the D.C. law. The Massachusetts court agreed, finding that the state law allows gun owners to keep their guns unlocked when they are at home and the guns are under their control, but must keep them locked when they are not home.

    Gun proponents said the law makes it virtually impossible for homeowners to quickly access a gun for self-defense.
    Once again, I need to read the actual opinion (anybody find a link yet?) But this part really scares me. Who decides what "under control" means?

    The article seems to stress the not being home part of this case, but if "under control" means on your person at all times, this sets a very dangerous precedent. One could very easily make the case for a gun being "not under control" while you are sleeping. What would that do for the burglary and home invasion industry?

    TFred
    +1 TFred
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    "must be kept in a locked container" ?

    My home IS a "locked container".

    Next.

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
    "must be kept in a locked container" ?

    My home IS a "locked container".

    Next.
    LMAO...good one!

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Good grief, they can't do anything right in Massachusetts. Their web site for distributing their top court's opinion... sucks. I think I did find another site that is hosting a copy.

    If you want to see the official copy, start here and click on the "1." You'll need to disable pop-up blockers first. The look and feel of this page seems to indicate that the document won't be there for an extended time. They're violating just about all the rules of good website design.

    TFred

    COMMONWEALTH vs. Richard RUNYAN.
    SJC-10480
    November 5, 2009. - March 10, 2010.

    Firearms. Constitutional Law, Right to bear arms. Due Process of Law, Substantive rights. Statute, Validity.

    COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the Lowell Division of the District Court Department on April 4, 2008.

    A motion to dismiss was heard by Geoffrey C. Packard, J.

    The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.

    Loretta M. Lillios, Assistant District Attorney (KerryAnne Kilcoyne, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.

    Brenden J. McMahon & Edward F. George, Jr., for the defendant.

    The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

    Jonathan E. Lowy & Daniel R. Vice, of the District of Columbia, & Scott Harshbarger, Bernard D. Gold, Gil N. Peles, Clifford Davidson, & Jennifer L. Roche for Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence & others.

    Daniel F. Conley, District Attorney, & David A. Deakin & Joseph M. Ditkoff, Assistant District Attorneys, for District Attorney for the Suffolk District.

    Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & James J. Arguin & Pamela L. Hunt, Assistant Attorneys General, for Attorney General & others.

    Edward F. George, Jr., for Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., & another.

    Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.

    GANTS, J.

    The defendant was charged in the Lowell Division of the District Court Department with storing or keeping a firearm that was not "secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner of other lawfully authorized user," in violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ). On October 15, 2008, a judge dismissed the count against the defendant, explaining that he was "unable to distinguish the provisions of G.L. c. 140, § 131L, from those struck down" by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) (Heller ), as unconstitutionally infringing the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of interlocutory appeal. We granted the Commonwealth's application for direct appellate review. We now reverse the judge's decision and vacate the dismissal of the count. [FN1]

    Background. According to the police report that accompanied the application for criminal complaint, police officers were dispatched to 7 Fernwood Road in Billerica following a report that "BB" pellets were being shot into the window of the house from a neighbor's house at 9 Fernwood Road. When the officers arrived, they observed the side window of 9 Fernwood Road, which faced the house at 7 Fernwood Road, being closed by a young male.

    When the police officers went to 9 Fernwood Road, the only person at home was the defendant's eighteen year old son, who appeared to have developmental disabilities. The son admitted to the police officers that he had fired shots at his neighbor's house with a BB rifle that was in his bedroom closet. When the officers asked why he had been shooting at his neighbor's house, the son stated, "I hate him." When the officers asked the son if there were more guns in the house, the son took them to the defendant's bedroom and pointed to two soft carrying cases located under the bed. One case contained a shotgun secured with a trigger lock. The other contained a semiautomatic hunting rifle that had no gun locking device. When the officers asked if there was any ammunition for these firearms, the son opened a dresser drawer that contained rifle rounds and shotgun shells.

    The defendant was charged with violating G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), for failing to secure the rifle in a locked container or by means of a trigger lock or comparable safety device. [FN2] He moved to dismiss the count, arguing that the requirements of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), mandating the safe storage of firearms, impermissibly infringed his right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as articulated in Heller, supra. The judge allowed the motion to dismiss.

    Discussion. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia's "ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." Id. at 2821- 2822. In doing so, the Court announced for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a limited, individual right to keep and bear firearms for the purpose of self-defense, not simply a collective right to possess and carry arms for the purpose of maintaining a State militia. See id. at 2799, 2803.
    [FN3]

    The judge's conclusion that the Supreme Court's decision in Heller required a dismissal of the count charging a violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), rests on two premises, both of which are in error. First, the decision assumes that the protection of the Second Amendment applies to the States as a matter of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To reach such a conclusion would require a determination that the right protected under the Second Amendment is among those fundamental rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27-28 (1949), quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-326 (1937) (Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches incorporated under Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause). See, e.g., Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1947) (humane tradition of Anglo-American law requires incorporation of Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press among fundamental personal rights protected by Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause). Based on current Federal law, however, we cannot say that the Second Amendment applies to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise.

    In Heller, the Supreme Court acknowledged that in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (Cruikshank ), it held that "the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government." Heller, supra at 2812. In Cruikshank, supra at 553, the Supreme Court explained that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...." In Heller, when considering whether any of its precedents challenged the conclusion it had reached about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court stated that its decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), had "reaffirmed" after Cruikshank "that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." Heller, supra at 2813 n. 23. Heller did not overrule these decisions. [FN4]

    We recognize that each of the cited cases limiting the application of the Second Amendment to the Federal government preceded the Supreme Court's selective incorporation of some provisions of the Bill of Rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that each was decided without reference to or consideration of the requirements of substantive due process. See National Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 48 (2009). Nonetheless, these cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (Supreme Court alone has prerogative to overrule its own precedents); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) ("If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, [lower courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions").

    The vast majority of courts considering this question since Heller was decided have adopted this principle of deference. See National Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Chicago, supra at 857 (lawsuits dismissed against municipalities that banned possession of most handguns because Second Amendment not applicable to States); Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 58 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (settled law that Second Amendment only applies to limitations Federal government seeks to impose on individual right to keep and bear arms); State v. Turnbull, 766 N.W.2d 78, 80 (Minn.Ct.App.2009) (Second Amendment not incorporated in due process clause and therefore not enforceable against States); Crespo v. Crespo, 408 N.J.Super. 25, 41 (App.Div.2009) (in announcing individual right under Second Amendment, Heller Court did not alter view that Second Amendment poses no limits on States). But see Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 457 (9th Cir.), reh'g granted, 575 F.3d 890 (9th Cir.2009) ("Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments").

    If the Second Amendment is not incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process and therefore does not apply to the States, the defendant's claim that the obligation safely to secure his firearm under G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), unconstitutionally infringes on his right to keep and bear arms in his home for self-defense must fail. Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition. [FN5]

    The judge's second erroneous premise was that the provisions of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), are indistinguishable from those held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Heller. General Laws, c. 140, § 131L (a ), provides:

    "It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun ... unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user."

    Under this provision, an individual with a valid firearms identification card issued under G.L. c. 140, § 129C, is not obliged to secure or render inoperable a firearm while the individual carries it or while it remains otherwise under the individual's control. A gun owner may therefore carry or keep a loaded firearm under his or her control in his or her home without securing it with a trigger lock or comparable safety device. The gun owner's obligation to secure the firearm in accordance with the statute arises only when the firearm is stored or otherwise outside the owner's immediate control. [FN6]

    In contrast, the comparable provision of the District of Columbia Code challenged in Heller required:

    "Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."

    D.C.Code § 7-2507.02 (2008). Under this provision, a person registered to keep a firearm (apart from law enforcement personnel) was prohibited in any circumstance from carrying or keeping a loaded firearm in his or her home. The ordinance prohibited a registered gun owner from keeping even an unloaded firearm in his or her home unless it was disassembled or rendered inoperable by a trigger lock or similar device. The Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's requirement "that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times" made it "impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Heller, supra at 2818. General Law c. 140, § 131L (a ), does not require that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times and does not prohibit a licensed gun owner from carrying a loaded firearm in the home; the statute therefore does not make it impossible for those persons licensed to possess firearms to rely on them for lawful self-defense. [FN7], [FN8]

    We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), is not unconstitutional, that the motion to dismiss the count charging its violation was allowed in error, and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count. [FN9]

    Conclusion. For the reasons stated above, the order allowing the motion to dismiss is reversed, the dismissal is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    So ordered.


    FN1. We acknowledge receipt of three amicus briefs submitted in support of the Commonwealth by: (1) the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Legal Community Against Violence, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, the Massachusetts Million Mom March Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Stop Handgun Violence; (2) the Attorney General and the district attorneys for the Berkshire, Bristol, Cape and Islands, Eastern, Hampden, Middle, Norfolk, Northwestern, Plymouth, and Suffolk districts, the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, the Executive Office of Health and Human Services and the Department of Public Health; and (3) the district attorney for the Suffolk district. We also acknowledge receipt of the amicus brief submitted in support of the defendant by the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and the Gun Owners Action League.


    FN2. Because the defendant's firearms identification card had expired, the defendant was also charged with the unlawful possession of the firearms and ammunition, in violation of G.L. c. 269, § 10 (h ) (1).


    FN3. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


    FN4. The Heller Court stated that the question whether United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (Cruikshank ), remains a continuing bar against application of the Second Amendment to the States was "not presented" to the Court. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2813 n. 23 (2008) (Heller ). Therefore, Cruikshank 's holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States has not been affected by the Court's decision in Heller.


    FN5. The defendant concedes that G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), is not unconstitutional under art. 17 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provides: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and
    the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." We have held that art. 17 was intended to provide for the common defense and does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 888 (1976). See Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 543, 547 (1983) ( "There is no right under art. 17 ... for a private citizen to keep and bear arms ...").


    FN6. This statutory obligation owed by one who keeps firearms in the home to secure those firearms safely is separate and distinct from the common-law duty of a home owner to ensure that the firearms stored on the property are properly secured when the home owner "allows unsupervised access to that property by a person known by her to have a history of violence and mental instability." Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 143 (2006).


    FN7. We note that the Court in Heller, supra at 2820, declared that its analysis should not be taken to "suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents." We do not, however, decide whether the defendant's alleged violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), could survive a motion to dismiss if the Second Amendment were made applicable to the States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.


    FN8. We also note that, even if a firearm were secured in the manner required by G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), a gun owner threatened in his or her home today would be able to fire the weapon in self-defense at least as quickly as would a gun owner in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. At that time, laws were in effect requiring that gunpowder be stored separately from firearms, which meant that a law-abiding homeowner acting in self-defense would need time to load and fire a musket or flintlock pistol. See Heller, supra at 2849-2850 (Breyer, J., dissenting). A skilled soldier of that time using specially prepared cartridges required a minimum of fifteen to twenty seconds to load and fire a musket; a less skilled soldier could fire no more quickly than once per minute. Hicks, United States Military Shoulder Arms, 1795-1935, 1 Am. Military Hist. Found. 23, 30-31 (1937). A gun owner today could remove a firearm from a locked container or release a trigger lock more quickly than that.


    FN9. On appeal, the defendant for the first time argues that the count charging a violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), should be dismissed because his son was a "lawfully authorized user" under G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ). The defendant has waived this argument by not presenting it to the motion judge. See Mass. R.Crim. P. 13 (a ) (2), as appearing in 442 Mass. 1516 (2004);
    G.L. c. 277, § 47A. The argument is also without merit, because the defendant does not argue that his son has a valid firearms identification card that would entitle him to possess a firearm in Massachusetts.
    END OF DOCUMENT



  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Thanks for posting the case, just got done reading it. I don't think its that big a deal that they issued an opinion. So did the Washington Supreme Court. What I did find fun was this:

    If the Second Amendment is not incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process and therefore does not apply to the States, the defendant's claim that the obligation safely to secure his firearm under G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), unconstitutionally infringes on his right to keep and bear arms in his home for self-defense must fail.

    Why didn't they attempt to analyze the incorporation of the 2nd and say either yes or no?

    We recognize that each of the cited cases limiting the application of the Second Amendment to the Federal government preceded the Supreme Court's selective incorporation of some provisions of the Bill of Rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that each was decided without reference to or consideration of the requirements of substantive due process.

    Yet, they still citedCruikshank...they wanted this ruling.



  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Well after a quick read, I'll reaffirm that Massachusetts is on the list of foreign states that I never plan to live in. Wow.

    The SJC overturned the lower ruling based on two points:

    1: The Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states, so in Massachusetts, for right now at least, there is no individual RKBA!

    2: The law in question is "different enough" from the Heller-overturned DC total ban on handguns to be allowed to stand.

    What a bunch of jerks. They clear well know that the McDonald ruling is only weeks away, and in spite of a footnote* that admits they are not deciding whether this case would survive a post-McDonald motion for dismissal, they arrogantly proceeded to issue this ruling anyway.

    They even cite the Nordyke case, and recognize that the Ninth Circuit basically stopped in its tracks to wait for the McDonald ruling.

    Unbelievable. They saw they had a chance to squeak in one last pre-McDonald ruling, and they did just that.

    * Here's the Footnote in question:

    FN7. We note that the Court in Heller, supra at 2820, declared that its analysis should not be taken to "suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents." We do not, however, decide whether the defendant's alleged violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), could survive a motion to dismiss if the Second Amendment were made applicable to the States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
    TFred

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    This one's easy to get around. The article stipulates a locked container or trigger lock is requied when a gun is "not under the owner's control". Simple to ignore within the law. Just take your gun with you as you go through the house. Who cares if it is in a container or not then. it is under the owner's control and therefore, is not in violation of this absurd law.

    Of course, the best approach is to get that damned law off of the books as it is a violation of not only the Bill of Rights but of common sense.
    If I'm the only one in the house and I control access to my house by means of thoroughly locked doors and windows, then the gun is under my control at all times when I'm in the house!

    Probably wouldn't fly with that nonsensical court, though.

    I do have a gun safe I use when my son is visiting, and can access my unholdered firearm in less than two seconds, only about a second slower than it takes me to withdraw my holstered firearm from under my pillow, so I'm fairly ambivalent about that law. I do know some people who like to keep loaded firearms in their gun racks, and I figure if they can take the appropriate precautions around children or visitors, that should be sufficient.

    And since when did our governments start legislating what we do in the privacy of our own homes, anyway? So long as it's not immoral or unethical, why make it illegal?

    We need LESS government, not more.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
    "must be kept in a locked container" ?

    My home IS a "locked container".

    Next.


    Excellent!!

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Orphan wrote:
    How I store my weapons in my homeis none of the goverments business.

    Amen to that.
    This. There are no minor children in my home, simply a couple that are of age of majority.


    RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
    "must be kept in a locked container" ?

    My home IS a "locked container".

    Next.

    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Bump to watch for McDonald updates...

    TFred

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •