Gun case heading to Mass. Supreme Court

I'm watching the video and clearly neither the judges nor the DA read the Heller case. Also, what is this secure container that I can open in 3 seconds? I can think of two that come close but 3 seconds takes practice.

I got that feeling also. It's as if the big picture escapes them.
 
High court weighs if weapons need be locked

Friday, November 6, 2009

High court weighs if weapons need be locked

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Add a comment

BOSTON — Gun control proponents argued before the state’s highest court Thursday that a Massachusetts law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes saves lives while gun advocates pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

The case involves a Billerica man whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other unlocked guns.

Under the Massachusetts safe gun-storage law, the youth’s father, Richard Runyan, was charged with improperly storing a 12-gauge shotgun, a semiautomatic hunting rifle and ammunition.

But a Lowell District Court judge dismissed the charges, citing a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in their homes. Middlesex County prosecutors argued Thursday that the Massachusetts law requiring guns to be secured in a locked container or equipped with safety devices when not under an owner’s control is less restrictive than the D.C. law.

But groups representing gun owners argued that the state’s requirement that guns be locked up defeats the purpose of self-defense in the home.

Edward George Jr., a lawyer for the Gun Owners’ Action League, said that under the Massachusetts gun storage law, it is virtually impossible for homeowners to quickly access a gun for self-defense.

Add a comment


There is also a poll on the front page of the Telegram. (pass it on)
 
Having listened to both sides arguments, I learned three things:

- Ed George claimed that the guns in question were IN GUN CASES. No claim was made as to whether said cases were hard/soft or locked/unlocked however. The ADA (and news stories) made it sound like they were just thrown under the bed.

- Ed George pointed out that an "adult" was present, that being the 18 yo Son. He was smart NOT to point out the mental capacity of said "adult"!

- Ed did a much better job of presenting his case here than what I saw in person when facing off the Selectmen when a gun club was shut down for an incident that happened at another gun club, many years ago.

I seriously doubt that the SJC will throw out the MA storage laws however. I expect them to remand for a conviction.
 
For a conviction of the Billerica man? Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

That's what this case is all about.

If this was double jeopardy, the case would never have reached the SJC.

I'll let one of our esteemed lawyers address why it isn't . . . I'm not qualified to address that issue.
 
That's what this case is all about.

If this was double jeopardy, the case would never have reached the SJC.

I'll let one of our esteemed lawyers address why it isn't . . . I'm not qualified to address that issue.

Thinking about it, I guess double jeopardy means you go to trial a second time. This would just be reconsidering the decision of the first trial. As you say though, maybe a lawyer could confirm that.

The real issue is those judges have totally incorrect, preconceived notions going into the hearing, not that it surprises me.
 
amici Curiae
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; International Brotherhood of Police; Legal Community Against Violence; Massachusetts Million Mom March; Stop Handgun Violence; Gun Owners Action League; Attorney General; Berkshire County District Attorney; Bristol County District Attorney; Cape and Islands District Attorney; Eastern District Attorney; Hampden County District Attorney; District Attorney for the Middle District; District Attorney for Norfolk County; District Attorney for the Northwestern District; District Attorney for Plymouth County; Executive Office of Health and Human Services (Massachusetts); Department of Public Health; Suffolk County District Attorney

We are WAY outnumbered here. Where's the NRA?
 
My understanding is that we're talking about 2 cases. There's the case where Runyan was being charged with improper storage. But then Runyan filed a motion against the Commonwealth saying that the storage laws are invalid because of Heller (this motion is the second case). So a district court agreed with Runyan that the storage laws are invalid, but the Commonwealth (who was essentially being found guilty) appealed that decision (which is their right as the defendant). So the case before the SJC was this motion of whether or not storage laws are invalid due to Heller. So if (when) the SJC finds that the storage laws are still valid, they will basically say to Runyan "your motion to dismiss the charges has been denied" and then his initial trial for improper storage can actually happen.
 
That's what this case is all about.

If this was double jeopardy, the case would never have reached the SJC.

I'll let one of our esteemed lawyers address why it isn't . . . I'm not qualified to address that issue.

Double jeopardy states you can't be tried for the same crime twice (see 5th amendment to US Constitution). This defense is predicated on actually going through a full trial and arriving at a final judgment, e.g, not-guilty (acquitted) or guilty (convicted) verdict.

Note that double jeopardy is a defense. So, technically a district attorney can bring the exact, same charges again and you would have to raise double jeopardy as the defense. Case should then be dismissed procedurally.

In addition, it protects defendants if new evidence is discovered after they have been acquitted. Even if the new evidence clearly points to the defendant being guilty, a new trial cannot be sustained for the same charges. When this happens, DA's try and get creative and file different charges, e.g, conspiracy to commit..., to avoid the double jeopardy defense.
 
Last edited:
I'm watching this video from SJC.

I was not aware that a firearm could be secured and loaded under the current law. I thought, had been taught in my safety class, that it needed to be stored unloaded.

I don't want to piss people off by discussing the current law at all in this thread. I'm just say'n... that is interesting.
 
Last edited:
I'm watching this video from SJC.

I was not aware that a firearm could be secured and loaded under the current law. I thought, had been taught in my safety class, that it needed to be stored unloaded.

I don't want to piss people off by discussing the current law at all in this thread. I'm just say'n... that is interesting.

No. Tell your instructor that he's a pinhead.
 
I'm watching this video from SJC.

I was not aware that a firearm could be secured and loaded under the current law. I thought, had been taught in my safety class, that it needed to be stored unloaded.

I don't want to piss people off by discussing the current law at all in this thread. I'm just say'n... that is interesting.

This seems an appropriate enough place to discuss it briefly. They are correct that your firearm does not need to be unloaded. If the gun is in your car and not in your direct control, then it does need to be unloaded. But not in your house.

It would be unwise (IMHO) but still legal to store a firearm with a trigger lock with a round in the chamber though.
 
This seems an appropriate enough place to discuss it briefly. They are correct that your firearm does not need to be unloaded. If the gun is in your car and not in your direct control, then it does need to be unloaded. But not in your house.

It would be unwise (IMHO) but still legal to store a firearm with a trigger lock with a round in the chamber though.

whie you are correct in that it would be unwise to store a loaded firearm with a trigger lock, locking it in a safe while loaded is totally ok imho.
 
whie you are correct in that it would be unwise to store a loaded firearm with a trigger lock, locking it in a safe while loaded is totally ok imho.

The issue is one of safety. Obviously, you do not want to store 50 guns, all loaded, in a safe. The odds of blowing your own head off are too high!

On the other hand, you do not necessarily want to keep them all unloaded, just in case some bad case is breaking down your bedroom door!

My compromise, I keep ONE gun loaded, but without a round chambered, and 4 high cap mags fully loaded next to it. I know which one is loaded, and handle it extra carefully every time I am in the safe.

The other semiauto handguns are just sitting there unloaded with full mags next to them. revolvers I keep unloaded. Just my preference.

And, of course, treat them all like they are loaded.
 
Last edited:
This seems an appropriate enough place to discuss it briefly. They are correct that your firearm does not need to be unloaded. If the gun is in your car and not in your direct control, then it does need to be unloaded. But not in your house.

It would be unwise (IMHO) but still legal to store a firearm with a trigger lock with a round in the chamber though.

It would be more than unwise to store a loaded firearm with a trigger lock on...it would be down right idiotic.

IMHO trigger locks are dumb because you are breaking the age old rule of "treating every gun as if it was loaded" by messing with the trigger and putting a lock on it. You shouldn't be messing with the trigger unless you are going to fire it....

You can keep loaded guns in a locked storage container in your home......of course that's what this whole case is about, even if it's loaded, if it's gotta be locked away it's pretty tough to have enough access to it to stop a quick violent attack.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was interesting that one of the justices mentioned how there were many storage cases going to trial; that this was not an isolated incident. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe, in light of Heller, the state may rethink the storage law.
 
The issue is one of safety. Obviously, you do not want to store 50 guns, all loaded, in a safe. The odds of blowing your own head off are too high!

On the other hand, you do not necessarily want to keep them all unloaded, just in case some bad case is breaking down your bedroom door!

My compromise, I keep ONE gun loaded, but without a round chambered, and 4 high cap mags fully loaded next to it. I know which one is loaded, and handle it extra carefully every time I am in the safe.

The other semiauto handguns are just sitting there unloaded with full mags next to them. revolvers I keep unloaded. Just my preference.

And, of course, treat them all like they are loaded.

A logic bomb just blew up between my ears on that one. You treat them all as if they were loaded, but you treat the loaded ones more carefully? Interesting. [hmmm]
 
I thought it was interesting that one of the justices mentioned how there were many storage cases going to trial; that this was not an isolated incident. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe, in light of Heller, the state may rethink the storage law.

I may have to agree with the above.


A logic bomb just blew up between my ears on that one. You treat them all as if they were loaded, but you treat the loaded ones more carefully? Interesting. [hmmm]

I also agree with that, but your wording made me chuckle this late at night.
 
I think that if it was presented in terms of economics, the state might reconsider.

For instance, the state decided that it took more money than it was worth to prosecute small-time pot offenders. It was CHEAPER to decriminalize anything under an ounce with a small fine and no criminal charges, than it was it tie up the courts.

"A much-cited 2003 study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron concluded that legalizing pot would save Massachusetts $120.6 million a year, the cost of arresting and prosecuting people on marijuana charges."
(http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10688)
(http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html)

Now, consider what it takes to hire a DA (or two), the judge, all the court employees, the cops, forensics and ballistics, juror pay, and the appeals.
That's a lot of cash for something thought of as a "crime" that doesn't really affect anyone.

Perhaps GOAL et. al might have some luck if we appealed to the wallets of the commonwealth?
 
I think that if it was presented in terms of economics, the state might reconsider.

For instance, the state decided that it took more money than it was worth to prosecute small-time pot offenders. It was CHEAPER to decriminalize anything under an ounce with a small fine and no criminal charges, than it was it tie up the courts.

You could make the same argument about any law... the legalization of OUI would save the state millions in prosecution as well.... does it make it right?

This case is before the SJC which rules on basis of law...economics has no bearing on their decision.... that would be an issue for the legislators.
 
Back
Top Bottom