Commonwealth vs. Lojko: New MA "Safe Storage" Case

[Half Cocked]

So, we have one case (Bolduc) where the DA in that County says Heller applies and he won't appeal the dismissal and then we have the same DA (through his ADA) arguing on two grounds, one of which is against the applicability of Heller.

You don't see the glaring differences between the two cases as it may pertain to Heller?

 

[n1oty]

It was the Appeals Court that heard oral arguments and then stayed the appeal until after Runyan. Not the DA.

I already stated as much. The ADA's arguments AGAINST Heller applicability in this case CAUSED the Appeals Court to stay this appeal pending the SJC decision in Runyan. What is noteworthy in this and the Bolduc cases is the fact that this prosecution team so thoroughly embraced the applicability of Heller wholesale in one case regarding storage and utterly rejected it in another case.

 

[n1oty]

You don't see the glaring differences between the two cases as it may pertain to Heller?

Oh, I see glaring differences in these cases. Personally, I don't like any part of the storage laws here in the Commonwealth. It is disconcerting though when the DA gives a pass to someone who is clearly violating the statute as written, based on a SCOTUS decision, but then goes after another individual who has apparently complied with the statute and the prosecutor's arguments re Heller applicability are 180 degrees different. Mind you, these arguments were made at trial and on appeal, prior to the SJC handing down the Runyan decision.

 

[TheRoland]

SCOTUS Watch: The court has dropped 5 opinions already, and is still going. They're on track to finish up Monday, and still could drop McDonald today (although that's unlikely).

EDIT: No Blinski or McDonald today.

 

[jar]

Confirmed that all the remaining opinions for the term will be issued on Monday.

 

[Half Cocked]

It is disconcerting though when the DA gives a pass to someone who is clearly violating the statute as written, based on a SCOTUS decision, but then goes after another individual who has apparently complied with the statute and the prosecutor's arguments re Heller applicability are 180 degrees different.

Apparently you have missed the glaring difference between the two cases as it pertains to Heller. The Bolduc case was more in line with the Heller argument/ruling than this case.

 

[GSG]

To the OP, +1 for staying on top of this stuff and posting it here.

Has the wording: "... all but the most persistant [will be deterred] from gaining access..." ever been detailed by examples or better explained in any legal sense???

No. But for what it's worth, I have yet to read of a case where someone with a hardsided key/combo locking container was convicted for violating this law. In this case, the old-style, flimsy Glock tupperware case is what it sounds like was used.

Even with a cable lock through the middle a two year old could pry open the sides of that case. None of the plastic cases I've seen guns shipped in look even remotely secure to me (as in capable of deterring a thief), but one of the new style hard sided Glock boxes with a lock is much more secure than the old ones. I owned a few with Mass. compliant Glocks, they're literally black tupperware.

There is no consistency of law in this state - it's a crap shoot based on the whims of the judge legislating from the bench most of the time...

+1. This is the natural result of the legislature wording things in such a vague manner.

I may have to go make a SCOTUS Thread....

Do it!

It seems this Lojko ruling only addresses firearms locked in container. Does it in any way impact storage with just a trigger lock and no container?

It doesn't specifically, but it seems like the same logic would apply to a cable lock through the gun; the gun is equally portable and just as "difficult" to operate.

You don't see the glaring differences between the two cases as it may pertain to Heller?

I think that some of the hardcore tinfoilers could easily argue that a gun in the backyard cooler is for home defense purposes. There's already some who stash knives, bats and other stuff in every piece of furniture to fend off a home invasion.

Confirmed that all the remaining opinions for the term will be issued on Monday.

I'll wait with bated breath.

 

[GSG]

Here's another pic of one of those boxes.

 

[n1oty]

Apparently you have missed the glaring difference between the two cases as it pertains to Heller. The Bolduc case was more in line with the Heller argument/ruling than this case.

Since the SJC essentially side-stepped Heller via their Runyan decision, any applicability to either of these cases is peripheral at best. Nor am I advocating for or against the applicability of Heller, or any other decision, in regards to these cases. I am pointing out the pertinent fact that this particular DA's office chose two diametrical positions regarding whether Heller had any applicability in Massachusetts. In the Bolduc case, The DA opted not to appeal and he specifically stated that Heller was good jurisprudence that is applicable in Massachusetts, while in this other case travelling through the system at the same time, the DA argues for absolutely no applicability WHATSOEVER in Massachusetts. The DA's office did NOT argue in the Lojko case that Heller did not apply in THIS case. They argued that it did not apply in Massachusetts, period. There is no way to reconcile those two positions.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Since the SJC essentially side-stepped Heller via their Runyan decision, any applicability to either of these cases is peripheral at best. Nor am I advocating for or against the applicability of Heller, or any other decision, in regards to these cases. I am pointing out the pertinent fact that this particular DA's office chose two diametrical positions regarding whether Heller had any applicability in Massachusetts. In the Bolduc case, The DA opted not to appeal and he specifically stated that Heller was good jurisprudence that is applicable in Massachusetts, while in this other case travelling through the system at the same time, the DA argues for absolutely no applicability WHATSOEVER in Massachusetts. The DA's office did NOT argue in the Lojko case that Heller did not apply in THIS case. They argued that it did not apply in Massachusetts, period. There is no way to reconcile those two positions.

Wasn't this the same DA in both cases?

If so, reconciling this is simple . . . one was a cop and one wasn't!! It doesn't get any simpler than that. Nobody said that life was fair.

As for the Tupperware boxes from Glock. The trigger HAS to be disengaged in order for you to place the gun into the box. The gun "just fits" with no slack for pulling the slide back, etc. while in the case. Thus, short of cutting away the plastic (tool required) or cutting the cable lock thru the box (tool required), the gun is secured per MGLs. Nothing in MGLs requires "anti-theft" measures (in spite of the earlier case) . . . or we'd be discussing how heavy a safe is the minimum requirement or how large the lag bolts must be!!

When I worked for the PD (PT) and knew when I got off duty that I'd have to work again the next morning I used to merely trigger lock the gun and leave it (unloaded) on my bureau overnight (no children and Wife has LTC). Although this was before the 1998 law required "locked and secured", it complies with the law even today. Ambitious DAs wanting to extend the law to meet their "wishes" be damned.

 

[cekim]

Apparently you have missed the glaring difference between the two cases as it pertains to Heller. The Bolduc case was more in line with the Heller argument/ruling than this case.

So, what's your "glaring difference?"

IIRC, the Bolduc case was actually worse IMO, because it came about because a child actually took the gun vs Runyan where you had an illegal search that revealed a gun that was happily resting under the bed like a good HD gun .

In both cases Heller does not apply in this state as a result of the ludicrous "militia rights" ruling of the 70's. Until that is over-turned, in MA, Heller does not apply. MacDonald will do that... One could argue that the reading of Heller shows the language of the 70's ruling makes no sense, but that case has not been filed/heard in this state (and the SJC made it clear with their Runyan jab, that they would jam their fingers in their ears and say "nah, nah, nah" if you tried pre-MacDonald).

In both cases, if Heller were to apply, the application is the same as, again IIRC, Heller discussed (at least in the hearings) the idea of having the gun ready in your house when you were gone so that if a threat appeared as you were re-entering the house, it would be available.

IMO, Bolduc is the example where the parenting failure is prosecutable (gross negligence).

In Runyan, the only such charge I see there was with the air-rifle fired out the window (also the parent's responsibility), not the gun under bed.

 

[Half Cocked]

I think that some of the hardcore tinfoilers could easily argue that a gun in the backyard cooler is for home defense purposes.

I am glad someone gets the difference. Reps to you for being on your game.

I am pointing out the pertinent fact that this particular DA's office chose two diametrical positions regarding whether Heller had any applicability in Massachusetts. In the Bolduc case, The DA opted not to appeal and he specifically stated that Heller was good jurisprudence that is applicable in Massachusetts, while in this other case travelling through the system at the same time, the DA argues for absolutely no applicability WHATSOEVER in Massachusetts.

Because you are missing the difference. They accepted the applicability of Heller (they did not argue it) by the judge in the Bolduc case because the gun was in the house which was the basis of the Heller ruling (self defense and storage of a firearm in your home). This particular case was dealing with a cooler in the backyard. Not in the house. A subtle legal difference which takes this case in a complete different direction than Heller.

As GSG intelligently picked up on. Put on your legal hat and take off your tin foil hat.

IIRC, the Bolduc case was actually worse IMO, because it came about because a child actually took the gun vs Runyan where you had an illegal search that revealed a gun that was happily resting under the bed like a good HD gun .

We were talking the differences between Bolduc and the current case. Not comparing Bolduc to Runyan.

 

[cekim]

We were talking the differences between Bolduc and the current case. Not comparing Bolduc to Runyan.

Ahh, and yes, he did lock it up where the other two didn't even try.

 

[Half Cocked]

Ahh, and yes, he did lock it up where the other two didn't even try.

Yes.. yes he did which is a huge difference...............just not in the sense of Heller. Which is all I was debating with N1oty. He was questioning why the DA made different arguments between Bolduc and Lojko. I was also pointing out that the DA did not argue Heller in Bolduc. They merely accepted the judges applicability of Heller. That's all....


Have I said lately that storage laws suck!

 

[cekim]

Have I said lately that storage laws suck!

Yes, but it never hurts to repeat it frequently....

 

[n1oty]

I am glad someone gets the difference. Reps to you for being on your game.

Yes.. yes he did which is a huge difference...............just not in the sense of Heller. Which is all I was debating with N1oty. He was questioning why the DA made different arguments between Bolduc and Lojko. I was also pointing out that the DA did not argue Heller in Bolduc. They merely accepted the judges applicability of Heller. That's all....


Have I said lately that storage laws suck!

At least we can agree that the storage laws in the Commonwealth are terrible. As regards the Barnstable County DA, he and his subordinates are apparently willing to play footloose with the current state of the storage laws.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS/3110313

In this article, the Barnstable County DA essentially is saying that he will not follow the SJC decision because he expects SCOTUS to force a change and he does not want another case to end in frustration, yet in this case he is charging when no crime has occurred. Why is he charging ANY storage cases, if he is expecting SCOTUS to change things?? Since when has firearm storage only been allowed in ones own home??? There have always been other legal places to store a firearm, including in ones own vehicle. It is pathetic that Bolduc gets a pass and this guy gets dragged through the wringer, even though the firearm was locked up!! I wouldn't choose to store that way, but there is quite a difference between personal choice and legality.

 

[GSG]

If so, reconciling this is simple . . . one was a cop and one wasn't!! It doesn't get any simpler than that. Nobody said that life was fair.

This may not be a popular opinion on here, but I honestly don't think that Bolduc got off just because he was a cop. Runyan and Bolduc's cases are similar in online reading, but in the real world two identical cases often produce drastically different results because of the nuances of the different jurisdictions they're heard in. As you know there's a lot of players in the game who can throw their hat into the ring...a judge itching to eat his lunch before noon can make or break a case.

As for the Tupperware boxes from Glock. The trigger HAS to be disengaged in order for you to place the gun into the box. The gun "just fits" with no slack for pulling the slide back, etc. while in the case.

An instructor I took some training from down here talked about this, and how many people in free states will pay $50 for the original factor Tupperware box alone. But he said "The catch is finding one without a hole blown out the side of it from where it went off when the owner put a loaded gun in it."

As GSG intelligently picked up on. Put on your legal hat and take off your tin foil hat.

Just to be clear, I don't think n1oty sports a tinfoil cap, I was referring to other posts I've read on here. I do think that he brings up a good point about the DA's office flim-flamming on the storage subject. Whatever the reason it appears random to me, even if that's only because the newbie ADA's who run such low level cases aren't supervised too closely.

 

[Len-2A Training]

GSG,

I think my quote and subsequent posts confused the interpretation of what I was trying to say. I was not addressing Runyan in any way.

Aren't Bolduc and Lojko both in the same County? If so, the same DA was responsible for not prosecuting Bolduc and prosecuting Lojko. If this is the case, the only justification I could see for the disparate actions would be that he's covering up for a Trooper and hanging a mere citizen. [NOTE: I'm not cop-bashing, but not all people get treated equally "in the system" at all times.]

 

[GSG]

I was the confused one, I was mistaking Runyan with Lojko.