Boston Globe: SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms

[zerodown]

SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms
March 10, 2010 10:48 AM

By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

In a victory for law enforcement and gun control advocates, the state's high court today said state law requiring gun owners to use trigger locks on their weapons inside their homes passes constitutional muster.

In a case that had drawn attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court said that the Second Amendment does not override the state's interest in mandating safe storage of firearms.

"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in (state law) 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,'' Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.

The SJC, in a companion case involving the prosecution of a New Bedford man on illegal gun possession charges, also said the Second Amendment does not apply to Massachusetts when the issue is illegal gun possession.

Both cases involved the SJC's view of a landmark 2008 ruling by the US Supreme Court, known as Heller. The US Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia law that barred residents from keeping a firearm in their homes unless it was disassembled or with a trigger lock.

The nation's highest court said that the District's law violated the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment because it prevented homeowners from using the firearms in self-defense.

Gants wrote today in the case of Richard Runyan – a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock – that a licensed gun owner can keep locks off their firearm when they are at home. (...interesting)

Gants wrote that Massachusetts law requires trigger locks when the gun owner is not at home, and therefore avoids the self-defense concern raised by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller case.

In the second case, involving Nathaniel Depina, the SJC rejected his request that his illegal gun possession conviction should be overturned because it is part of a regulatory scheme that violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gants wrote that under current law, the Second Amendment does not apply in cases like Runyan's or DePina's.

"The defendant's (DePina) argument rests on the assumption 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,'' Gants wrote in the DePina case. "We conclude that, based on current Federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise.''

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Gants wrote today in the case of Richard Runyan – a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock – that a licensed gun owner can keep locks off their firearm when they are at home.

It looks like the Globe does not realize that the decision actually overturns a key aspect of the current law.

 

[Serapis]

I just saw this.

So according to the SJC we can have unlocked firearms as long as we are home, not in possession? Did I read that right?

It's like a half-assed victory.

 

[dwarven1]

Gants wrote today in the case of Richard Runyan – a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock – that a licensed gun owner can keep locks off their firearm when they are at home. (...interesting)

My immediate reaction was

.

However, once I got to the above line I thought that it would certainly seem that the above statement allows us to keep guns on, say, the nightstand without having to have a lock on it. Or is there some obscure meaning, known only to the idiots on the SJC, that doesn't allow for that (like them thinking that "well, if you're asleep, you're not really home")?

 

[Madball13]

So we can have unlocked guns in the house as long as were home? Do we need reform or what?

 

[JackDaniels]

It looks like the Globe does not realize that the decision actually overturns a key aspect of the current law.

Absolutely. Huge victory for gun owners in MA. This author is a flaming moron who is ignorant of the laws that were in place.

 

[AppleSeeds]

Leave it to the Globe...

 

[Serapis]

Boston Globe Democrat as my man Michael Graham says.

 

[Admin]

Gants wrote that Massachusetts law requires trigger locks when the gun owner is not at home, and therefore avoids the self-defense concern raised by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller case.

Does the law specify the owner being home ?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does the law specify the owner being home ?

No, but it would appear the SJC has just ruled that having the guns unlocked while at home is not an offense.

 

[vlad]

"We conclude that, based on current Federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise.''

Um this ruling is very much a win for the gun control lobby. They just showed that individual states can do what ever they want. Keeping trigger locks on our guns won't mean anything if they can ban them out right.

 

[AppleSeeds]

/\/\ That seems foolish given the ruling in Heller. Hence the need for McDonald vs. Chicago.

 

[Titan]

It all sounds bogus to me.

It sounds like the judge misunderstands the wording of the statute. The statute doesn't mention home or not at home, so this sounds like an intepretation that won't hold up to further analysis.

Of course the thrust of the whole ruling will change soon since incorporation is just around the corner.

 

[jasons]

Um this ruling is very much a win for the gun control lobby. They just showed that individual states can do what ever they want. Keeping trigger locks on our guns won't mean anything if they can ban them out right.

Yeah, well let's see what SCOTUS has to say about that....

 

[Pete85]

Gants wrote today in the case of Richard Runyan – a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock – that a licensed gun owner can keep locks off their firearm when they are at home.

Interesting. So appearently leaving my pistol outside the Gunvault while I sleep is ok? I would like some clarification on this ruling because it looks like a huge victory for MA gun owners. The law states that if the gun was under the control of the owner or other authorized person, it doesn't need to be locked. Coakley had said something to the effect that the safe storage rules meant as long as the gun was within reasonible reach of the authorized person. Now the SJC says as long as the owner is home it's ok.

Who's going to be the test case?

 

[Pete85]

Um this ruling is very much a win for the gun control lobby. They just showed that individual states can do what ever they want. Keeping trigger locks on our guns won't mean anything if they can ban them out right.

Keep in mind that this is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that said this and not the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[vellnueve]

Pretty much as expected - didn't expect to see that law overturned in any way. The side ruling about being at home with unlocked guns seems to be a small victory, though.

 

[JackDaniels]

Um this ruling is very much a win for the gun control lobby. They just showed that individual states can do what ever they want. Keeping trigger locks on our guns won't mean anything if they can ban them out right.

They didn't show what other states can do. Only the SCOTUS decides that. This is MA SJC interpreting something to their own liking, that is currently being looked at but not decided on yet, by SCOTUS. so, this has nothing to do with showing what any state can or can't do, besides MA. Wait until we hear from SCOTUS to decide. What it sounds like it does do, is provide for a person to have a gun in their home that is not necessarily on their person or under their direct control as the current law states. That would be a victory for gunowners who do not want to keep a gun locked when not directly on their person or in their control, for example, in the nightstand while they sleep.

 

[cb1]

I think the reporter is misrepresenting the Court's opinion. After all, would you expect any reporter to actually get the facts right? It doesn't look like this changes anything:

"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."

Edit: For those interested you can find the opinion here

If that link doesn't work go to www.massreports.com/slipops/ to find it

 

[AppleSeeds]

/\/\ Interesting, looks like the globe blew the whole article then

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

Looks like Richard Runyan, the defendant from Billerica, is screwed. He was not home when the unlocked rifle was discovered by police. I believe the Lowell District Court judge tossed out the other charge (possession of a firearm with an expired FID).

 

[Baystatesuks]

Well, well, well, the SJC actually deferred interpreting something. That's a first. What was actually said was the 2nd amendment has not been applied yet to the states, and as such, the law is constitutional.

In the slip opinion what my buddy Gants said about no trigger lock was "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."

Note that this says nothing about being home or not being home - only outside the owner's immediate control.

This statement also refers to Footnote 6, which states "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)."

In view of the above, I am unsure how much was actually won. Never believe the Globe's intepretation of a ruling - they can barely interpret their own stories.

 

[Mike S]

here's the decision from the SJC website.

 

[LoginName]

Keep in mind that this is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that said this and not the Supreme Court of the United States.

Exactly, which is why that in the strictest legal sense, this part of the ruling is technically correct...

"The defendant's (DePina) argument rests on the assumption 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,'' Gants wrote in the DePina case. "We conclude that, based on current Federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise.''

However... come the end of June, I fully expect a whole new playing field to emerge.

 

[Titan]

...In the slip opinion what my buddy Gants said about no trigger lock was "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."

Note that this says nothing about being home or not being home - only outside the owner's immediate control.

...

In view of the above, I am unsure how much was actually won. Never believe the Globe's intepretation of a ruling - they can barely interpret their own stories.

This clarification makes a lot more sense. They're apparently applying the same 'under direct control' criteria in the home as they do in a vehicle. If not in your direct control, the guns must still be locked up. As has been dicussed in other threads, consensus seems to be that 'direct control' means within arms reach.

 

[Scrivener]

There is nothing new, novel or unexpected in this decision, except, perhaps, that it was rendered without waiting for the McDonald decision. However, that is not really relevant, as incorporation still would not preclude restrictions and keeping guns not under control secured would certainly pass muster.

A statement of the obvious.

NOW - what about the Super Trooper whose homicidal kid took daddy's service pistol and tried to kill a little girl with it? Why did HE walk?

 

[45collector]

Well until until its set in stone, we should all still be locking up all firearms before drifting off to slumberland correct? Mmmhhmmm.

 

[Blitz1]

Gants wrote that Massachusetts law requires trigger locks when the gun owner is not at home, and therefore avoids the self-defense concern raised by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller case.

I say B.S. Those are the words of the author of the article.

This is a clip of the actual opinion.

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.

http://www.massreports.com/slipops/

I don't see anything here about being unlocked when the owner is home. Am I missing something?

 

[terraformer]

There is nothing new, novel or unexpected in this decision, except, perhaps, that it was rendered without waiting for the McDonald decision. However, that is not really relevant, as incorporation still would not preclude restrictions and keeping guns not under control secured would certainly pass muster.

A statement of the obvious.

NOW - what about the Super Trooper who's homicidal kid took daddy's service pistol and tried to kill a little girl with it? Why did HE walk?

Obvious, until you account for this "@ home" loophole, if it exists, some people are interpreting the decision as. The cop was at home at the time of the kid getting his hands on it. I just read parts of it and I am not seeing the introduced loophole. Though this may make it easier for the sleeping individual, I don't see how in a drawer three rooms away is under one's control.

 

[jasons]

I don't see anything here about being unlocked when the owner is home. Am I missing something?

It seems that there are some very different interpretations of what "immediate control" means. Sure would be nice to see a ruling there, but I guess it's more fun to keep us guessing.