There were two gun cases argued this morning and I attended both. The videos will be released at some point and we'll update the thread when that happens. If nothing else they're interesting and it's even better being there.
First up was
Comm v. McGowan. This wasn't actually an appeal. The defendant moved for dismissal on 2A grounds and the trial court is deferring to the SJC.
Short story: 69 year old guy stores gun in night stand. Gets in fight with girlfriend/roommate who grabs gun runs outside and throws it in the bushes. This guy retrieves the gun, puts it away and calls the police on girlfriend/roommate. She's arrested, but charges are dropped. He's charged and goes to trial.
The defense mounted a short re-cap of their pleadings. The ADA was very good and articulate and didn't push the limits of 131L as far as many do. There was a lot of hypotheticals and neither the court nor the ADA seemed comfortable with the idea that a gun had to be on you or locked up. They seemed to be looking for some middle ground. Is the gun in the night stand under your control: when home upstairs? - probably, when you're asleep? - probably, downstairs? - maybe not. This is when of those things where you're probably good until you let someone stupid do something stupid with your gun and the cops get involved.
Next up was
Reyes: I was disappointed that the court didn't specifically reference the fine amicus work done by Comm2A. JK
The defense attorney presented his case without incident. The ADA did not fair so well. The state's case is that Reyes improperly stored (131L) and transported (131C) because he left a loaded gun locked in his car. Although 131L says nothing about a loaded gun, the state contends that 131L must be read in conjunction with 131C so that by leaving his gun in the car unintended, he was transporting it out of his direct control. The justices were having none of it. The state's case goes into legilstavie history of the two section - Gants: "So, a gun owner needs to know the law and the legislative history?" They kept trying to get the ADA to address 131L where the word "loaded" never occurs. Even Botsford - who is no 2A fan wasn't buy it.
On the whole I think the justices were very serious with both these cases and asked good questions. With the exception of the Reyes ADA what I didn't see from the court or state was an attempt to push 131L to be read as broadly as possible. I think they want to put some kind of bounds around this. But we'll see.
Ironically enough, I ended up sitting next to
Runyan's attorney who was there on a completely different and unrelated matter.
And then.... I run a quick errand whilst downtown and when I jump onto the MBTA I run smack into Scrivener(!) who almost didn't recognize me at first. My dapper suit and tie probably threw him off.