I have been following the thread regarding soft cases, but was getting more to the lock. At what point is a lock a lock? A twist tie, a zip tie, that little luggage lock i was referring to is like 1".
Since the law doesn't define what the word "lock" means, the best we can go by is the usual definition of the word. A little luggage lock is, indeed, a lock (even if it is a crappy one). A zip tie isn't. A lock has a key or combination. A zip tie doesn't.
Good chance you can pull the zipper out with it, or twist hard and break it. I am not criticizing or debating the law, just trying to figure out what is the legal way to transport my rifle. I would think my weapon is more secure with a cable lock or trigger lock than with a simple luggage lock thru the zippers...but it is only my job to obey not comment on what is right.
So? The law doesn't specify that your transportation method has to be more secure than X. It just says that it has to be:
contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container.
The fact that you think a cable lock is more secure than a soft case doesn't make transporting in one to be in accordance with the law above. Furthermore, since the transport statute does not allow transport with a cable lock or trigger lock, but the storage statue specifically does allow the use of a cable lock or trigger lock, it would appear that the MA legislature specifically didn't want to allow the use of a cable lock or trigger lock for transport. You can argue that they should not have written the statute that way, but that, and $3.50, will get you a latte.
As for the security of a cable lock -- cable cutters will go through those like butter. Keyed trigger locks can be removed by a screwdriver. Combination trigger locks can be removed within about 15 minutes simply by trying each combination systematically (with only three tumblers, there are only 1000 possible combinations). None of these methods are secure, but that isn't what this law is about.
The law isn't about right or wrong, or justice, or practicality, or logic.
Funny, in MGL storage 131L "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 " this is written so loosely that I can't see how this could be enforced.
If I put my cable lock thru the action, but don't lock it, then i am rendering the weapon inoperable. Heck, I can stick a pencil in the action and accomplish inoperability.
I disagree. If you put your cable lock through the action but dont lock it, then your "tamper-resistant mechanical lock" is not "properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by
any person other than the owner". If you don't lock it, anyone could remove that cable lock without having to defeat the lock or break the cable. If you do lock it, only you could open the lock (provided only you have the key). Someone else would have to defeat the lock or break the cable (neither of which is particularly hard, but that's another matter).
As for the enforceability of the storage statute, I do know that people
have gone to jail for violating the storage statute so it has been enforced.
Please note that I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.