COMMONWEALTH vs. Amaury REYES.

[swatgig]

Conviction on carrying charge reversed, and conviction on improper storage remanded for new trial

"A contextual reading of these statutory provisions, focused particularly on firearms in motor vehicles, leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not consider a locked motor vehicle itself to be a secure container for the storage of firearms. "

COMMONWEALTH vs. Amaury REYES.

SJC-11270.

Essex. Oct. 1, 2012. - Jan. 29, 2013.

Firearms. Constitutional Law, Vagueness of statute, Right to bear arms. Due Process of Law, Vagueness of statute. Practice, Criminal, Directed verdict, Instructions to jury. Words, "Secured," "Locked container."

COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the Salem Division of the District Court Department on April 26, 2010.

The case was tried before Matthew J. Nestor, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Michael A. Laurano for the defendant.

Marcia H. Slingerland, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Keith G. Langer, for Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

CORDY, J.

The defendant, Amaury Reyes, was convicted of improperly carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131C (a ) (carrying statute), and unlawfully storing a firearm (after leaving it in his motor vehicle) in violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ) and (b ) (storage statute). On appeal, the defendant argues that the storage statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of his right to due process of law. He also contends that if the storage statute requires that a firearm stored in a locked motor vehicle be rendered further inoperable by locking it in an additional container or through the use of a tamper-resistant trigger lock, it unlawfully hinders his right to use the firearm in self-defense. Additionally, the defendant posits that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions under both the storage and carrying statutes. Finally, he asserts that the judge's jury instruction on the elements of the storage statute was deficient in that it failed to provide guidance on what qualifies as a "locked container." Based on these errors, the defendant asserts that he is entitled to either directed verdicts in his favor or a new trial.

We conclude that the defendant's arguments with respect to the constitutionality of the storage statute are without merit: the statute is neither impermissibly vague nor violative of his right to self-defense under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We also conclude, however, that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction under the carrying statute and he is entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty on that charge. Further, because the judge did not adequately instruct the jury regarding what qualifies as a "locked container," we reverse his conviction under the storage statute and remand the case to the District Court for a new trial with directions to the trial judge to instruct the jury in a manner consistent with this opinion.

 

[CrackPot]

"Once the defendant left his motor vehicle and the firearm in it, he became subject to the storage statue because he was storing or keeping his firearm..."

This is the best line in the entire opinion so far. It clearly states that parked car is storage, not transport.

 

[Emoto]

"Once the defendant left his motor vehicle and the firearm in it, he became subject to the storage statue because he was storing or keeping his firearm..."

This is the best line in the entire opinion so far. It clearly states that parked car is storage, not transport.

Hmm. But there is "storage", "proper storage", and "improper storage", no?

 

[terraformer]

"Once the defendant left his motor vehicle and the firearm in it, he became subject to the storage statue because he was storing or keeping his firearm..."

This is the best line in the entire opinion so far. It clearly states that parked car is storage, not transport.

And yet they applied the transportation statute to claim that the gun must be in a locked box within the locked box of the car. I am ****ing livid at these zealots. They can't even be consistent in their zealotry.

 

[swatgig]

I haven't finished reading it, but they did say a vehicle is not a secure container.

A contextual reading of these statutory provisions, focused particularly on firearms in motor vehicles, leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not consider a locked motor vehicle itself to be a secure container for the storage of firearms.

 

[Emoto]

And yet they applied the transportation statute to claim that the gun must be in a locked box within the locked box of the car. I am ****ing livid at these zealots. They can't even be consistent in their zealotry.

so, are they on their way to defining a car as a transportation device AND a storage device? "It's a floor was AND a dessert topping!" *shrug*

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Their asses should be a storage device for my fist. Mother****ers.


Sent from my POS iPhone

 

[Palladin]

At least he gets to present how ****ed up the storage law is at another trial

 

[CrackPot]

Hmm. But there is "storage", "proper storage", and "improper storage", no?

Yes. But first was is a parked vehicle transport or storage. You still have to satisfy the storage requirements but at least you are not subject to transport.

The next paragraph in the opinion

"With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence on the storage charge, we examine the evidence in light of our conclusion that a motor vehicle is not itself a securely locked container within the meaning of the storage statue, but that the storage of a firearm in a securely locked container within a motor vehicle would satisfy its requirements."

From this a lock box, cabled to the seat frame under your seat with a loaded firearm in it in a parked car is not a violation of either transport or storage statues.

This is the most I was hoping to get from this decision and it is there in relative black and white.

 

[terraformer]

so, are they on their way to defining a car as a transportation device AND a storage device? "It's a floor was AND a dessert topping!" *shrug*

Yes. The decision itself is inconsistent. Disgusting.

 

[CrackPot]

Yes. The decision itself is inconsistent. Disgusting.

I guess I don't see the inconsistency. They clearly declared storage was in play and a locked container inside the car was sufficient to satisfy storage. I did not see anywhere they tried to apply transport to a parked car, to the contrary I clearly quoted above where they declared a parked car under the storage statue and NOT the transport statue.

I am curious how you are reading this to not see this as a win.

 

[terraformer]

I guess I don't see the inconsistency. They clearly declared storage was in play and a locked container inside the car was sufficient to satisfy storage. I did not see anywhere they tried to apply transport to a parked car, to the contrary I clearly quoted above where they declared a parked car under the storage statue and NOT the transport statue.

I am curious how you are reading this to not see this as a win.

Because they are claiming that the locked car is not a locked box, despite a trunk release cable in the cabin to release the trunk lid. Read our Amicus and you will see where the problem there is. The theory on where the ADA got this connection is based on the transportation statute. Only in §131C is the passenger compartment not sufficient for purposes of the statute. In §131L there is no such guidance.


In other words, in order to gain access to the gun in the passenger compartment, one has to break a window. In order to gain access to the trunk, one has to break a window and pull the trunk release. Yet the latter is legal and the former is not. It's ****ing absurd frankly.

 

[CrackPot]

Because they are claiming that the locked car is not a locked box, despite a trunk release cable in the cabin to release the trunk lid. Read our Amicus and you will see where the problem there is. The theory on where the ADA got this connection is based on the transportation statute. Only in §131C is the passenger compartment not sufficient for purposes of the statute. In §131L there is no such guidance.


In other words, in order to gain access to the gun in the passenger compartment, one has to break a window. In order to gain access to the trunk, one has to break a window and pull the trunk release. Yet the latter is legal and the former is not. It's ****ing absurd frankly.

I understand the point you are making. In an ideal ruling the car being locked would constitute a locked container. BUT, a locked house is not a locked container but you are required to have a locked container inside your house regardless of the locked state of the house. So there is logic to their position that a car is not itself a locked container. Now a locked car inside a garage would make an interesting case as you now have the House construct around a locked container.

In any case, I see a big victory/clarification here in that a locked gun case inside a parked car with a loaded gun in it is explicitly stated as satisfying storage and ALSO they explicitly state that a parked car is subject to storage and not transport. So the every day case for me of dropping my carry into my secured lock box, without unloading, when exiting the car to enter a place where I do not want for whatever reason to carry, is ok. For example, I go to worcester district court and park in a lot nearby, I can drop my gun in the car safe and go into the court house. When I return to my car, I fetch the gun and go on my way. No need to go through the awkward unload in my car to store scenario.

Besides a locked car in a garage, I would also be curious to see if a parked car with a cable or trigger lock would survive. Under their opinion this would be OK, yet their example they state locked container and not the otherwise secured language that comes from storage.

 

[CrackPot]

Or to put it another way, my glass is half full. I see the incremental good this ruling did where we had the grey fog of MA uncertainty. I can see why my glass is also half empty in that they still have their heads up their a** with regards to a car, trunk, locked, etc. The good in this is good. The bad is nothing new that we did not have to previously deal with.

 

[terraformer]

I understand the point you are making. In an ideal ruling the car being locked would constitute a locked container. BUT, a locked house is not a locked container but you are required to have a locked container inside your house regardless of the locked state of the house. So there is logic to their position that a car is not itself a locked container. Now a locked car inside a garage would make an interesting case as you now have the House construct around a locked container.

In any case, I see a big victory/clarification here in that a locked gun case inside a parked car with a loaded gun in it is explicitly stated as satisfying storage and ALSO they explicitly state that a parked car is subject to storage and not transport. So the every day case for me of dropping my carry into my secured lock box, without unloading, when exiting the car to enter a place where I do not want for whatever reason to carry, is ok. For example, I go to worcester district court and park in a lot nearby, I can drop my gun in the car safe and go into the court house. When I return to my car, I fetch the gun and go on my way. No need to go through the awkward unload in my car to store scenario.

Besides a locked car in a garage, I would also be curious to see if a parked car with a cable or trigger lock would survive. Under their opinion this would be OK, yet their example they state locked container and not the otherwise secured language that comes from storage.

OK, here is a question. Based on this ruling is any gun locker large enough for a human to fit inside considered a locked container? So how do the folks with gun "rooms" in their basements feel right about now? Why should a couple without kids need to keep a gun locked up if they are not right there next to it?

 

[CrackPot]

OK, here is a question. Based on this ruling is any gun locker large enough for a human to fit inside considered a locked container? So how do the folks with gun "rooms" in their basements feel right about now? Why should a couple without kids need to keep a gun locked up if they are not right there next to it?

I think we have a complete lack of clarity to your first two questions. Could someone try and stretch their comment about agreeing that a locked car is not a locked container into FUD? I am sure some DA will try. They also reference federal law on containers in FN8 as possibly being relevant for definition. This WOULD protect your gun room scenario I suspect.

Now as to the whole need for locking guns at all or in the specific case of no kids in the house, we are in violent agreement.

Not disagreeing that this is not a total victory, but I dont think any of us expected it would be. That we got anything positive I find heartening.

 

[edhead35]

OK, here is a question. Based on this ruling is any gun locker large enough for a human to fit inside considered a locked container? So how do the folks with gun "rooms" in their basements feel right about now? Why should a couple without kids need to keep a gun locked up if they are not right there next to it?

I couldnt agree more with this. My wife and I have no children, are both licensed, but have to follow this asinine law.

 

[glide]

Blah, blah, blah.

"We will continue to interpret the law however we deem most suitable to **** you."

Can't they just come out and say it for each firearm related ruling? It would save a lot of time and money.

 

[terraformer]

I think we have a complete lack of clarity to your first two questions. Could someone try and stretch their comment about agreeing that a locked car is not a locked container into FUD? I am sure some DA will try. They also reference federal law on containers in FN8 as possibly being relevant for definition. This WOULD protect your gun room scenario I suspect.

Now as to the whole need for locking guns at all or in the specific case of no kids in the house, we are in violent agreement.

Not disagreeing that this is not a total victory, but I dont think any of us expected it would be. That we got anything positive I find heartening.

My problem with this is the only way they could reach the conclusion that they did was to be inconsistent and results oriented. I was hoping they would be better than that. I was wrong.

 

[M1911]

My problem with this is the only way they could reach the conclusion that they did was to be inconsistent and results oriented. I was hoping they would be better than that. I was wrong.

I have become convinced that, in general, judges decide what result they want and then torture "logic" to justify that result. This is a perfect example.

 

[jasons]

So they reversed the guilty verdict on the bullshit transportation charge and ordered a retrial on the bullshit storage charge, but were nice enough to provide this:

Statutory and regulatory references to acceptable containers include safes, [FN8] weapon boxes, [FN9] locked cabinets, [FN10] gun cases, [FN11] lock boxes, and locked trunks of vehicles. [FN12] A leading secondary source, Law Enforcement Guide to Firearm Law (20th ed.2012), published by the Municipal Police Institute, Inc., [FN13] states that a securely locked container can include a soft gun case secured with a padlock, "as well as an expensive gun safe," and that even "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked." Id. at 93. [FN14]

The fact that the car itself was locked is not in dispute, and if as they state "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked" then a locked car with glass windows must be too, right?


So if install a glass front gun case on my dashboard and lock it, I'm good to go. Cool, got it.

 

[jasons]

On a side note, the fact that they're looking to Glidden's hack job book as a "leading secondary source" makes me want to puke. Maybe Comm2A should publish a competing book.

 

[Semper Fi]

[h=2]SJC: MA Gun owners must lock up weapons Jan 29 2013[/h]

SJC: MA Gun owners must lock up weapons Jan 29 2013


"A state law (MA) requiring gun owners to keep their weapons securely stored at home does not violate their constitutional right to bear arms and defend themselves from attack, the state’s highest court ruled today.Of greater importance, the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court said in their opinion, is, “The prevention of accidents by those not authorized to use firearms, as well as the prevention of crimes of violence and suicide by those not authorized to possess firearms, are among the evils that (the law) is intended to prevent.”
See link

Peace

Semper Fi​

 

[terraformer]

So they reversed the guilty verdict on the bullshit transportation charge and ordered a retrial on the bullshit storage charge, but were nice enough to provide this:



The fact that the car itself was locked is not in dispute, and if as they state "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked" then a locked car with glass windows must be too, right?


So if install a glass front gun case on my dashboard and lock it, I'm good to go. Cool, got it.

Thank you for further elucidating the tortured logic of this decision. That the glass of the car is not enough but the glass in a display case is strains any sort of credulity.

 

[jasons]

Thank you for further elucidating the tortured logic of this decision. That the glass of the car is not enough but the glass in a display case is strains any sort of credulity.

 

[jasons]

[h=2]SJC: MA Gun owners must lock up weapons Jan 29 2013[/h]

SJC: MA Gun owners must lock up weapons Jan 29 2013


"A state law (MA) requiring gun owners to keep their weapons securely stored at home does not violate their constitutional right to bear arms and defend themselves from attack, the state’s highest court ruled today.Of greater importance, the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court said in their opinion, is, “The prevention of accidents by those not authorized to use firearms, as well as the prevention of crimes of violence and suicide by those not authorized to possess firearms, are among the evils that (the law) is intended to prevent.”
See link

Peace

Semper Fi​

Yeah, that case was sodomizing waiting to happen. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

 

[M1911]

So, soft bags with locks on the zippers are legal because Ron Glidden says they are. I'm glad they cleared that up, but the fact that they bow down to Glidden makes me want to

 

[economist]

Because the locked car is not storage, then no aspect of the car can matter, correct? So, let's say I put a loaded gun into a little gunvault and leave it on the front seat with the window down. All someone has to do is reach into the car and take it. That would be legal storage, while the same gun locked in the trunk would be illegal based on this ruling, right? Or, better yet, I find a cute little glass case designed to hold a handgun with a 10-cent lock. I put my gun in that and place it on the hood of my car. Legal, right?

 

[usp45ct]

Kind of a dumb question but how about a gun locked in the glove compartment in a locked car. Go or no go

 

[terraformer]

Kind of a dumb question but how about a gun locked in the glove compartment in a locked car. Go or no go

That's covered in the decision. In other words, we aren't really sure but it appears so.