Definition of "Direct Control"

MXD

Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
684
Likes
115
Location
Boston Area
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
For example:
"Section 131C. (a) No person carrying a loaded firearm under a Class A license issued under section 131 or 131F shall carry the same in a vehicle unless such firearm while carried therein is under the direct control of such person. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500."

Suppose I wanted to unholster my weapon while driving and place it on the floor (I know all the reasons this is a bad idea, I'm only using this as an example). Is that still under my direct control? Is there a definition of direct control?
 
Suppose I wanted to unholster my weapon while driving and place it on the floor (I know all the reasons this is a bad idea, I'm only using this as an example). Is that still under my direct control? Is there a definition of direct control?
Not in the statute. Perhaps in case law.
 
Suppose I wanted to unholster my weapon while driving and place it on the floor (I know all the reasons this is a bad idea, I'm only using this as an example). Is that still under my direct control? Is there a definition of direct control?

How do you control a gun sliding around on the floor with your feet?
 
The answer is at the mercy of the police involved, the DA, the AG, the judge and finally perhaps the jury.

There is tremendous risk here and thus no clear-cut answer.
 
Scriviner, don't get hung up on my example. Maybe it was a bad one but my question remains the same. Maybe a better example: are the vehicle holsters that attach to the front of your drivers seat legal? That amount of ambiguity is very dangerous.
 
I have always wanted to hear a good definition of "under direct control."
Is in your purse or briefcase considered direct control? Or does the firearm
have to be physically strapped to your person?

MD
 
Or another example is when I am going to the range with multiple handguns but only one is in my holster and 2 others are in my range bag on the seat next to me within arms reach.
 
Or another example is when I am going to the range with multiple handguns but only one is in my holster and 2 others are in my range bag on the seat next to me within arms reach.

Is the range bag locked?

Are the handguns in pistol cases that are locked?

If the answers are "NO" and "NO" you are transporting unlawfully.

As has been detailed here, in numerous threads, many times before.
 
Is the range bag locked?

Are the handguns in pistol cases that are locked?

If the answers are "NO" and "NO" you are transporting unlawfully.

As has been detailed here, in numerous threads, many times before.

In another thread you mentioned transport in a glove box being unlawful. If the requirement is that it be locked, why would it be unlawful to transport in a glove box?
 
For some reason the law does not allow you to secure a pistol in your glove compartment, even if it is a locking glove compartment. Ridiculous, yes. I have a vehicle that has a pretty robust locking glove compartment, and I'd be much more at ease if I could lock an unloaded pistol up in there than leaving a "pistol case" locked sitting on the floor of my car.

ETA: by the way, I've been told by several different LEOs that "under direct control" means within arm's reach of a properly licensed individual. What I wonder is: does it matter if there is someone else in the car who is unlicensed?
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, The Glove box issue was legislated from the bench. A judge didn't like the idea of the glove box or the center console.
 
If I recall correctly, The Glove box issue was legislated from the bench. A judge didn't like the idea of the glove box or the center console.

Okay, that clears it up a bit. I've heard people just say it's illegal, but I can't recall reading it anywhere in the MGLs. Thanks Mike.
 
I for one never understood why I could not have a couple of pistols unloaded in a range bag sitting on the seat next to me. They are well within my direct control (as I would define it which is arms length). Too bad there is not a clear answer. If you partially disassemble them does that make it legal? I could easily take off the slide and barrel and store them in a separate pocket.
 
I for one never understood why I could not have a couple of pistols unloaded in a range bag sitting on the seat next to me. They are well within my direct control (as I would define it which is arms length). Too bad there is not a clear answer. If you partially disassemble them does that make it legal? I could easily take off the slide and barrel and store them in a separate pocket.

I know the military defines direct control as one arms distance when it comes to small arms. Not that their definition matters at all in MA, but I just wanted to mention that to point out that you're not completely off base for defining it as such.
 
In another thread you mentioned transport in a glove box being unlawful. If the requirement is that it be locked, why would it be unlawful to transport in a glove box?

1. Not all glove boxes lock;

2. The transport statute requires a locked container OR locked trunk.

3. While a glove box is considered within the "wingspan" of a driver for search and seizure, it is NOT for "direct control," which is on the body or immediately adjacent to it. A shelf in front of the PASSENGER seat does not suffice.

It's also a damn stupid place to put a gun for a number of other reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is lawful in some other states.
 
1. Not all glove boxes lock;

2. The transport statute requires a locked container OR locked trunk.

3. While a glove box is considered within the "wingspan" of a driver for search and seizure, it is NOT for "direct control," which is on the body or immediately adjacent to it. A shelf in front of the PASSENGER seat does not suffice.

It's also a damn stupid place to put a gun for a number of other reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is lawful in some other states.

So transport in a locked glove box would be stupid, but legal, correct? Or does a glove box not fall within the definition of "container"? I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.
 
There is no "sanitary" answer on this. My impression of "under your direct control" has always been that the gun should be located in such a place that you could prevent someone else from touching it.

That having been said, most MA gun lawyers are going to tell you to exceed that standard because of the ambiguities in
the law. For example, one could argue that a center console might be under your direct control because it's usually
right underneath your arm while driving. I can tell you right now though, that a lawyer is going to groan at having to
deal with that. Further, playing "gun juggler" in an MV is a good way of getting spotted by a moonbat, among other
things.

IMHO in MA the best option is always going to be to carry on your person, or to unload the gun and lock it in a secure
container... pick one. If you cannot carry on your person you need to get a different gun or holster to facilitate doing
so... it's literally that simple. The options "in between" those two extremes can expose you to additional legal risk/peril.

There are some situations where I would go with off body carry in an MV, but while in MA I generally stay far far away from
it because of ambiguities in the law here. MA is a whole different ballgame than NH/VT/ME where standards for this
mode of transport are either nonexistent or extremely relaxed to the point of not having to worry about it.

-Mike
 
So the final answer is: One could argue that in a range bag on the seat next to you is under direct control and perfectly legal but one could also argue that it's not. So in order to be 100% sure you are legally correct, keep backing up until you find the answer that everyone agrees on which is locked or in a holster. Anything riskier than that you do at you own risk. Got it.
Thanks
 
Putting suitability aside for a second because I am merely making a point. I would never do this, but, does anyone else find it strange that I could legally drive around with my unloaded Tacticool evil black 870 laying across my dash but an unloaded pistol in a range bag is legally ambiguous?
 
Putting suitability aside for a second because I am merely making a point. I would never do this, but, does anyone else find it strange that I could legally drive around with my unloaded Tacticool evil black 870 laying across my dash but an unloaded pistol in a range bag is legally ambiguous?

Yes, it is dumb, but so are most of the gun laws in MA. The reason for the difference there is because low capacity long guns are considered less evil by MA for some reason. My guess would be this was done so all the typical fudds would not complain when a myriad of other laws got passed restricting rights. The legiscritters figured they could dodge criticism by "exempting" the widest political base of gun owners. They know that joe fudd might actually get upset if uncle bob got put in jail for bringing his O/U with the ducks engraved on it to shoot some trap on a sunday... but the same fudds have no qualms about throwing someone who owns an "eeeeeevil handgun" under the bus. [rolleyes]

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure you see the mindset I'm talking about here....

-Mike
 
I would never do this, but, does anyone else find it strange that I could legally drive around with my unloaded Tacticool evil black 870 laying across my dash but an unloaded pistol in a range bag is legally ambiguous?
You are still trying to find logic in MA gun laws. There isn't any. Let go. Use the force, Luke.

This particular conundrum may simply have been an oversight by the drafters of MGL Chapter 140 Section 131c:

Chapter 140: Section 131C. Carrying of firearms in a vehicle

Section 131C. (a) No person carrying a loaded firearm under a Class A license issued under section 131 or 131F shall carry the same in a vehicle unless such firearm while carried therein is under the direct control of such person. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.
Note that the word "firearm" essentially means a handgun in this part of the law (see MGL Chapter 140 S121). So this paragraph doesn't cover your 870.

(b) No person carrying a firearm under a Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.
Like paragraph a, paragraph b concerns handguns, so this doesn't cover your 870 either.

(c) No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
This paragraph covers large capacity long guns. Your 870 is not a large capacity long gun, per MGL Chapter 140 S121, so this paragraph doesn't cover it either.

Full texts of the laws in question:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131c.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-121.htm
 
Last edited:
If you have a loaded gun and a bag of weed locked in your glovebox, you will convicted of 2 crimes.

1) because your loaded gun was not under your direct control.

2) because the bag of weed was under your direct control.

Welcome to MA.

What about an unloaded gun in a locked glove box that does not contain weed? That's what I'm still trying to get some sort of answer for. Mike-Mike posted this:
If I recall correctly, The Glove box issue was legislated from the bench. A judge didn't like the idea of the glove box or the center console.
which suggested to me that a locked glove box was not legal for transport. Then Scrivener posted this:
1. Not all glove boxes lock;

2. The transport statute requires a locked container OR locked trunk.

3. While a glove box is considered within the "wingspan" of a driver for search and seizure, it is NOT for "direct control," which is on the body or immediately adjacent to it. A shelf in front of the PASSENGER seat does not suffice.

It's also a damn stupid place to put a gun for a number of other reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is lawful in some other states.
which suggested to me that, if a glove box is locked and be considered to be a "container", it is legal for transport. I'm talking about transport, not direct control. If you take an unloaded pistol and put it in a locked pistol case on the floor in front of the passenger seat, directly under the glove box, you are within the legal requirement for transport. If you take that same unloaded pistol, remove it from the locked pistol case, place it in a lockable glove box, and lock the glove box, are you still meeting the legal requirement for transport?
 
glove box is a no no although you will not find the "glove box" listed in the law, it is considered improper storage by the LEO's, judges, AG's, DA's, you name it. It is a no no. Loaded, unloaded, it doesn't matter. If you are transporting it is not under your direct control and if you are storing it while going into a fed building it is considered improper storage. The only time you gun can go in glove box is if you go with it
 
glove box is a no no although you will not find the "glove box" listed in the law, it is considered improper storage by the LEO's, judges, AG's, DA's, you name it. It is a no no. Loaded, unloaded, it doesn't matter. If you are transporting it is not under your direct control and if you are storing it while going into a fed building it is considered improper storage. The only time you gun can go in glove box is if you go with it

Just to be clear, I don't ever use a glove box, nor would I ever. I carry or my person or lock in a case which is then locked in my truck. That being said, I'm not asking if it's a "no no". I'm asking if it's illegal. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but for some reason the uncertainty over this is really bugging me. Again, I'm not asking if it's a good idea. I'm not asking if it's a no no. I'm not asking if it will make someone a test case. I'm simply asking if it's actually illegal. It seems to me that it is not.
 
Just to be clear, I don't ever use a glove box, nor would I ever. I carry or my person or lock in a case which is then locked in my truck. That being said, I'm not asking if it's a "no no". I'm asking if it's illegal. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but for some reason the uncertainty over this is really bugging me. Again, I'm not asking if it's a good idea. I'm not asking if it's a no no. I'm not asking if it will make someone a test case. I'm simply asking if it's actually illegal. It seems to me that it is not.
As you know, there's at least two major parts to our law -- 1) statutes and 2) case law. If there is case law that says a glove box is not a "secure container" for the purposes of MGL Ch 140 S131c, then it is effectively illegal. But no, I don't know the case law on this.
 
As you know, there's at least two major parts to our law -- 1) statutes and 2) case law. If there is case law that says a glove box is not a "secure container" for the purposes of MGL Ch 140 S131c, then it is effectively illegal. But no, I don't know the case law on this.

Okay. That's a little more helpful. Thank you. I really feel I need to apologize. I don't know why this little detail about the glove box is bugging me so much. I fully realize that MA laws make zero logical sense. It's just so glaringly stupid that a soft, zippered pistol case with a tiny luggage lock on it, tossed in your back seat, is legally acceptable for transport of a pistol, and yet a locked rigid glove box is not legally acceptable for transport. What about if I unscrewed my glove box from my dash and put it in my back seat, put a pistol in it, and locked it? Or if I brought it into my apartment, stuck a "Stack On" sticker on it and used it for home storage? Not really serious questions, I'm just venting. Apparently glove boxes are the storage equivalent of bayonet lugs...vile evil things that have no business being associated with firearms.
 
Last edited:
It's just so glaringly stupid that a soft, zippered pistol case with a tiny luggage lock on it, tossed in your back seat, is legally acceptable for transport of a pistol, and yet a locked rigid glove box is not legally acceptable for transport.
I'm not entirely sure that a soft case with a lock on it is considered a "secure container." I know some folks are of the opinion that it is, but I'd sure like to see an appellate decision to confirm it.

But I do share your sense of the absurd nature of our gun laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom