MA AG backs DA on gun law challenge new info in OP.

[RKG]

Am I interpreting this case correctly in that the issue was that the room was not a "secure container" because the "lock" was easily defeated, and if it had a lock that utilized a key, then it would likely meet the criteria of a "secure container"?

Half right:

A) In that case, the claim of a locked room sufficing as a secure container was defeated because the lock was flimsy.

B) As a result, the Court did not have to address, and therefore did not address, whether a locked room with a good lock would be a secure container.

 

[n1oty]

Interesting. Is that a misquote on the part of the prosecutor? I thought the firearm had to be under your direct control or properly stored.



Am I interpreting this case correctly in that the issue was that the room was not a "secure container" because the "lock" was easily defeated, and if it had a lock that utilized a key, then it would likely meet the criteria of a "secure container"?

I picked up on that quote from an unnamed prosecutor also. I'm not sure what to make of it. Another point I picked up on is that it appears Half-Cocked's timeline regarding the Bolduc and Runyan cases may be wrong. He attributed the lack of an appeal in the Bolduc case to a pending appeal in the Runyan case. However, it appears that the Bolduc case was dismissed a month before the Runyan case was dismissed. The decision not to appeal the dismissal could not therefore have been driven by a pending appeal that was really not "pending" at that time.

Actually, in all fairness, Half-Cocked's timeline may be correct, as I am finding conflicting information as to the actual date of dismissal in the Runyan case.

 

[TomH]

Has anyone ever set up the scenario in court with an airsoft gun or something. have it in a safe, have a guy bust thru a mock door and see how long the AG lasts trying to get that gun out of the safe. it'd be a great proof of concept for showing how functional that weapon would be.

First you have to let the person trying to retrieve the weapon fall asleep, in a dark room. It would be a great experiment with nightvision. You also can't tell the subject what day the invasion will be happening. Even this won't duplicate a normal person not expecting something to happen. I bet it would be really revealing though.

 

[Kevlar]

Am I interpreting this case correctly in that the issue was that the room was not a "secure container" because the "lock" was easily defeated, and if it had a lock that utilized a key, then it [STRIKE]would likely[/STRIKE] may meet the criteria of a "secure container"?

Half right:

A) In that case, the claim of a locked room sufficing as a secure container was defeated because the lock was flimsy.

B) As a result, the Court did not have to address, and therefore did not address, whether a locked room with a good lock would be a secure container.

I saw that the Court did not address that issue (per FN4.), and I should have said "may" instead of "would likely", but I found it interesting that they did touch upon the issue:

[5] We likewise conclude that > G.L. c. 140, § 131L, requires guns to be maintained in locked containers in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access. Even a door locked with a key is not secure if the key is hanging next to the lock. Assuming the defendant's bedroom to be a container, and further that it was locked at the time of the theft, > (FN4) the defendant was in violation of > G.L. c. 140, § 131L, because the lock was easily defeated by anyone with access to a bobby pin and did not prevent ready access by anyone other than the lawful owner.

 

[jds1971]

No kidding...

Hey you dirty (murder, rapist, burglar) you better get the *#&% out of here! I've got a gun!!!! In my safe, disassembled, with a trigger lock.

you can throw the safe at him.

 

[terraformer]

I picked up on that quote from an unnamed prosecutor also. I'm not sure what to make of it. Another point I picked up on is that it appears Half-Cocked's timeline regarding the Bolduc and Runyan cases may be wrong. He attributed the lack of an appeal in the Bolduc case to a pending appeal in the Runyan case. However, it appears that the Bolduc case was dismissed a month before the Runyan case was dismissed. The decision not to appeal the dismissal could not therefore have been driven by a pending appeal that was really not "pending" at that time.

Actually, in all fairness, Half-Cocked's timeline may be correct, as I am finding conflicting information as to the actual date of dismissal in the Runyan case.

No, you are right. The cops cased was dismissed prior to the dismissal of the other one. The events preceding prosecution were in a different order, but the adjudication dates are what is important here.

 

[Half Cocked]

No, you are right. The cops cased was dismissed prior to the dismissal of the other one. The events preceding prosecution were in a different order, but the adjudication dates are what is important here.

The motion to supress on Runyan was allowed in October 2008. The motion to supress on Bolduc was allowed in Feb 2009.

 

[pdm]

But one state prosecutor familiar with Heller says the D.C. statute and 131L are distinguishable.

The prosecutor, who asks not to be identified, says that, unlike the provision analyzed in Heller, the Massachusetts law does not place any storage requirements on the owners of licensed firearms when they are home.

"But when the owner of the firearm or an authorized user of the firearm is not present in the house, then our statute says you have to lock it up and pocket the key," the prosecutor says. "That complies precisely with Heller's interpretation of the Second Amendment that the firearm be available for the purpose of immediate self-defense. If you're not home, and the gun is in your house, guess what it's not available for? Immediate self-defense."

Does that mean you can just leave your pistol in the nightstand while sleeping? That's what I see this prosecutor saying, but I don't really believe it.

 

[M1911]

But one state prosecutor familiar with Heller says the D.C. statute and 131L are distinguishable.

The prosecutor, who asks not to be identified, says that, unlike the provision analyzed in Heller, the Massachusetts law does not place any storage requirements on the owners of licensed firearms when they are home.

"But when the owner of the firearm or an authorized user of the firearm is not present in the house, then our statute says you have to lock it up and pocket the key," the prosecutor says. "That complies precisely with Heller's interpretation of the Second Amendment that the firearm be available for the purpose of immediate self-defense. If you're not home, and the gun is in your house, guess what it's not available for? Immediate self-defense."

That prosecutor is mistaken, IMNSHO. MA law and DC law are significantly different. As RKG points out:

The essence of what DC denied Dick Heller was the ability to sit in front of his TV with a revolver on his belt. For all of its other shortcomings, the PRM does not deny us that right.

 

[Half Cocked]

That prosecutor is mistaken, IMNSHO. MA law and DC law are significantly different. As RKG points out:

I believe that the prosecutor recognizes the differences but did a poor job either explaining and/or fully understanding the differences.

Good intent... poor execution.

 

[M1911]

I believe that the prosecutor recognizes the differences but did a poor job either explaining and/or fully understanding the differences.

Good intent... poor execution.

I also forgot to allow for the possibility that he was horribly misquoted by the reporter.

 

[FireMedic102]

I can see where this is going to go. If the guy was home at the time, and the kid took the gun out from under his sleeping father's bed, he might have a shot. But it is hard to claim your keeping the gun ready for home defense when your not even home. Also, if the son was autistic they are also going probably use that as well. Do I agree with these laws? No, but we all know how the PRM is.

 

[theGringo]

I might be out there on the edge, but allow me to posit the following:

Only a maroon would lock his gun up at night.

If a naughty person breaks into my house while I'm sleeping, then one of two scenarios will likely play out shortly thereafter. Either:

1) Police respond to find a murder victim who was once asleep with his gun locked up, or:

2) Police respond to find a dead bad guy and me, wide awake, never having been asleep, with a gun at hand.

Am I missing something?

 

[n1oty]

After giving some thought to that "unknown" prosecutors statement, I'm not inclined to believe it was a misquote, but rather a feeble attempt to wiggle out of ANY Heller applicability. That quote was squarely aimed at giving the Commonwealth wiggle room.

 

[Mark from MA]

I might be out there on the edge, but allow me to posit the following:

Only a maroon would lock his gun up at night.

If a naughty person breaks into my house while I'm sleeping, then one of two scenarios will likely play out shortly thereafter. Either:

1) Police respond to find a murder victim who was once asleep with his gun locked up, or:

2) Police respond to find a dead bad guy and me, wide awake, never having been asleep, with a gun at hand.

Am I missing something?

Nope night or day in my opinion......how are they gonna prove it wasn't locked up? Most people that get tripped up with unlocked weapons are because the cops were called to the house for something else usually, like a domestic. They can't go into your house without a warrant.......

 

[M1911]

Nope night or day in my opinion......how are they gonna prove it wasn't locked up? Most people that get tripped up with unlocked weapons are because the cops were called to the house for something else usually, like a domestic. They can't go into your house without a warrant.......

That's not the only police can get into your house.

A few years ago, as I was leaving the house, a woman driving by said she saw flames coming out of our chimney. I didn't see anything, checked the house and didn't smell anything. But I wasn't going to go off to work with a possible chimney fire smoldering.

So I called the fire department non-emergency number and asked them if they could have someone stop by. Of course, the fire department has only two speeds -- all or nothing. So the whole nine yards came code 1 - ladder truck, command truck, police car, etc.

The firemen and I checked the whole house and the police officer came in as well. If there had been a gun out in the open at the time, the officer would have found out about it.

 

[dixidawg]

Same with an emergency medical call....

 

[pdm]

The well-being check.

 

[Mark from MA]

That's not the only police can get into your house.

A few years ago, as I was leaving the house, a woman driving by said she saw flames coming out of our chimney. I didn't see anything, checked the house and didn't smell anything. But I wasn't going to go off to work with a possible chimney fire smoldering.

So I called the fire department non-emergency number and asked them if they could have someone stop by. Of course, the fire department has only two speeds -- all or nothing. So the whole nine yards came code 1 - ladder truck, command truck, police car, etc.

The firemen and I checked the whole house and the police officer came in as well. If there had been a gun out in the open at the time, the officer would have found out about it.

That's a situation where you called someone to come to your house....in that situation I wouldn't leave a gun out or I'd be carrying it.

Obviously, other emergency situations/domestics, I can see problems happening.....

Well being check? Yeah...OK....sorry officer, i was cleaning my gun while you rang the doorbell on your "well being check", let me just put it in the safe first......

 

[M1911]

That's a situation where you called someone to come to your house....in that situation I wouldn't leave a gun out or I'd be carrying it.

You get woken up at night when your spouse has a health crisis. You grab the phone, dial 911, and comfort your spouse while awaiting the ambulance. You have more urgent things on your mind than stashing the gun you normally keep on the bedside table at night.

Ambulances don't come by themselves. In most towns in MA, a fire truck and police car respond as well. The EMT, or fireman, or police officer see your gun on the bedside table and it is off to the races...

 

[Mike S]

You get woken up at night when your spouse has a health crisis. You grab the phone, dial 911, and comfort your spouse while awaiting the ambulance. You have more urgent things on your mind than stashing the gun you normally keep on the bedside table at night.

Ambulances don't come by themselves. In most towns in MA, a fire truck and police car respond as well. The EMT, or fireman, or police officer see your gun on the bedside table and it is off to the races...

This is exactly the type of situation that makes criminals out of gun owners and needs to be fixed. Hopefully it will be soon.

 

[M1911]

This is exactly the type of situation that makes criminals out of gun owners and needs to be fixed. Hopefully it will be soon.

I agree that it needs to be fixed. But I doubt that it will be.

 

[Mike S]

bump, for new link on OP

 

[Mike S]

Bump. Court date set! See OP

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The AG's Amicus brief has been posted:

http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/Comm v Runyan AG Amicus brief.pdf

 

[ochmude]

The AG's Amicus brief has been posted:

http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/Comm v Runyan AG Amicus brief.pdf

Well, I'm only a few pages into it, but I now have hard copy proof that the AG doesn't fully grasp the differences between a LTC and a FID, and the different requirements for each.

EDIT:

Anyone seeking to purchase a firearm, rifle, or
shotgun in Massachusetts, whether from a private party
or a licensed dealer, must possess the appropriate LTC
or FID. G.L. c. 140, § 131A. In addition, the buyer
must obtain a permit to purchase from their local
licensing authority.

HUH???

 

[Mike S]

and as predicted by Jim, she has U.S. V. Cruikshank (1876) listed. Wow.

see this thread in case you missed that one.

 

[Mike S]

her first paragraph finishes with a complete lie.

"The Commonwealth
has one of the most effective regulatory frameworks
for firearm safety in the United States."

 

[ochmude]

Another common method of securing a firearm and
preventing accidental discharge involves the use of
“smart gun” technology. This technology is “widely
available” and “affordable.” Mark D. Polston &
Douglas S. Weil, Unsafe by Design: Using Tort Actions
to Reduce Firearm-Related Injuries, 8 Stan. L. & Pol’y
Rev. 13, 20 (1997). It renders a firearm inoperable
until the lock is released by a signal from a special
ring or bracelet worn by the owner, or by matching the
owner’s fingerprint to the firearm.

No $#it? "Widely available" must have a different meaning inside 495. Do they sell those at Four Seasons? Seriously, this brief is comedy...and tragedy.

 

[Baystatesuks]

I find it interesting that she is likely compromising the DA's downstream litigation position by narrowing what is considered under "control." In effect, if you can reach the firearm in the nightstand from your bed, then it is under your control and you would not need a trigger lock. See pp. 30-32ish.

This tactic is common though where the law is questionable if read broadly and so the AG is proferring a narrow read.

I also think the law student wrote the brief, because I found it difficult to read and not all that great (the word "moreover" was used many times and in the wrong context). I am sure I have written one's just as crappy though .