- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,256
For Immediate Release: 9/26/2012
NATICK, MA – Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (Comm2A) has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts SJC in a criminal case where the defendant was convicted of both a safe storage violation (§131L) and a violation of the transportation statute (§131C(a)) for a gun found in the glove box of his locked car. This case is of great importance to law abiding gun owners in this state because the Commonwealth seeks to justify these convictions based on not only an erroneous reading of MA law as written, but an unconstitutional reading as well. If this conviction is allowed to stand, not only will gun owners be facing even more onerous deprivation of their liberty, they will have no idea what requirements prosecutors will make up next in order to gain a conviction.
The Commonwealth argues on appeal that since the gun was found in the glove box, it must have been there when the defendant was traveling to work in violation of the transportation statute because the gun was outside his direct control. Besides not offering any evidence that the gun was there when the defendant traveled to work despite the defendant testifying that it was on his waist when he travelled to work, the Commonwealths interpretation of under direct control means that woman who carry in purses are violating the transportation statute even if they have no one else in their car. With regards to storage, the law clearly states that the purpose is to prevent accidents (no mention of deterring the criminal actions of adults) but yet a locked automobile is not sufficient to prevent a child from stumbling upon a firearm. In order to get access to the gun, a subject would have to break the glass of the automobile. Better yet, the Commonwealth argues that the trunk is sufficient. But the problem is, the trunk is accessible to anyone who breaks the glass because of the very common trunk release mechanism found on most cars.
Although the US Supreme Court noted in Heller that safe storage laws meant to prevent tragic accidents are not unconstitutional, the Commonwealth argues that even when safety is not in question, they can hold firearms owners to requirements not expressly in the law and the requirements they offer up are not only arbitrary, but which are unconstitutional in their breadth and scope. For these reasons Comm2A felt it was imperative to file an amicus in the case.
The brief can be found here and the SJC docket can be found here.
NATICK, MA – Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (Comm2A) has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts SJC in a criminal case where the defendant was convicted of both a safe storage violation (§131L) and a violation of the transportation statute (§131C(a)) for a gun found in the glove box of his locked car. This case is of great importance to law abiding gun owners in this state because the Commonwealth seeks to justify these convictions based on not only an erroneous reading of MA law as written, but an unconstitutional reading as well. If this conviction is allowed to stand, not only will gun owners be facing even more onerous deprivation of their liberty, they will have no idea what requirements prosecutors will make up next in order to gain a conviction.
The Commonwealth argues on appeal that since the gun was found in the glove box, it must have been there when the defendant was traveling to work in violation of the transportation statute because the gun was outside his direct control. Besides not offering any evidence that the gun was there when the defendant traveled to work despite the defendant testifying that it was on his waist when he travelled to work, the Commonwealths interpretation of under direct control means that woman who carry in purses are violating the transportation statute even if they have no one else in their car. With regards to storage, the law clearly states that the purpose is to prevent accidents (no mention of deterring the criminal actions of adults) but yet a locked automobile is not sufficient to prevent a child from stumbling upon a firearm. In order to get access to the gun, a subject would have to break the glass of the automobile. Better yet, the Commonwealth argues that the trunk is sufficient. But the problem is, the trunk is accessible to anyone who breaks the glass because of the very common trunk release mechanism found on most cars.
Although the US Supreme Court noted in Heller that safe storage laws meant to prevent tragic accidents are not unconstitutional, the Commonwealth argues that even when safety is not in question, they can hold firearms owners to requirements not expressly in the law and the requirements they offer up are not only arbitrary, but which are unconstitutional in their breadth and scope. For these reasons Comm2A felt it was imperative to file an amicus in the case.
The brief can be found here and the SJC docket can be found here.