-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MA AG backs DA on gun law challenge new info in OP.
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Wow, the very first sentence is total bull shit. I didn't know lawyers used “” like comedians.
MaverickNH
NES Member
So hiding my key somewhere in the house isn't sufficient? Glad I live in NH. The rifle in the gun rack over the fireplace isn't a MA thing it seems.
I guess we haven't identified if funds sent anywhere would help?
Long Post - read at your own risk
A few thoughts now that I’ve actually read the brief.
Of course the AG is going to file this brief. Part of the AG’s job is to support the state’s laws, almost without exception. It would be REALLY unusually for a sitting AG to file an amicus brief that sided with a criminal defendant.
Although this is only an amicus brief, it’s reasonable to think that the prosecutor’s brief will follow the same course of logic. It will be much more interesting to see what briefs are filed by the prosecutor and defendant. I am very much looking forward to reading the brief GOAL files with the support of SAF.
The brief’s preamble isn’t all that relevant and it’s pointless to nitpick about the details that they’ve glossed over. But, as Mike S points out, what’s really amusing is that the state’s gun laws are being portrayed as a “regulatory framework”. There’s no “framework”. The legislature could have imposed the same level of regulation with far fewer words.
The SJC’s opinion will be very interesting, but I’d be kind of surprised if they found for Runyan. The incorporation issue is legitimately still up in the air. SCOTUS didn’t address it either because it wasn’t part of Heller or because they didn’t want to. This puts the SJC in an interesting position because they know that whatever they decide on this point might be upended by SCOTUS. One never knows, they were a big surprise in ALABI.
The other issue is whether or not the restrictions imposed by the Mass law have the same effect as the DC law did. I’ve never felt that the two laws were comparable. Success on this point would require the defendant to convince the SJC that complying with 131L effectively makes any firearm unusable in an emergency. Maybe that will fly, maybe it won’t.
It’s interesting that the AG is offering a pretty liberal interpretation of “direct control”. This contrasts with the overly conservative interpretation of 131L that many gun owners think about.
But it doesn’t help that Runyan and Bolduc aren’t trivial cases of people that were responsible and ‘in control’ of their firearms but still in violation of the law – a kind of regulatory, victimless transgression. Neither of these guys are Heller caliber defendants and are, in fact, poster children for safe storage laws. Generally, I think it’s better to have these matters resting on a plaintiff’s case rather than a defendant’s case.
Further to the point of poorly written legislation, the Commonwealth could have achieved the same result and sidestepped the post-Heller constitutional challenge altogether if they’d done a better job drafting 131L. Rather then prescribing specifically how guns must be stored, they could have focused on insuring that unauthorized person cannot access firearms. Since my entire household is ‘authorized’ I might not have the same concerns as someone with children or other ‘unauthorized’ individuals and could be more relaxed about where I kept my guns. Runyan and Bolduc – whose actions were irresponsible – would not potentially have this ‘out’ in their cases.
Finally, SJC oral arguments are simulcast on-line, so you can watch the proceedings as they unfold. They’re also available for replay.
A few thoughts now that I’ve actually read the brief.
Of course the AG is going to file this brief. Part of the AG’s job is to support the state’s laws, almost without exception. It would be REALLY unusually for a sitting AG to file an amicus brief that sided with a criminal defendant.
Although this is only an amicus brief, it’s reasonable to think that the prosecutor’s brief will follow the same course of logic. It will be much more interesting to see what briefs are filed by the prosecutor and defendant. I am very much looking forward to reading the brief GOAL files with the support of SAF.
The brief’s preamble isn’t all that relevant and it’s pointless to nitpick about the details that they’ve glossed over. But, as Mike S points out, what’s really amusing is that the state’s gun laws are being portrayed as a “regulatory framework”. There’s no “framework”. The legislature could have imposed the same level of regulation with far fewer words.
The SJC’s opinion will be very interesting, but I’d be kind of surprised if they found for Runyan. The incorporation issue is legitimately still up in the air. SCOTUS didn’t address it either because it wasn’t part of Heller or because they didn’t want to. This puts the SJC in an interesting position because they know that whatever they decide on this point might be upended by SCOTUS. One never knows, they were a big surprise in ALABI.
The other issue is whether or not the restrictions imposed by the Mass law have the same effect as the DC law did. I’ve never felt that the two laws were comparable. Success on this point would require the defendant to convince the SJC that complying with 131L effectively makes any firearm unusable in an emergency. Maybe that will fly, maybe it won’t.
It’s interesting that the AG is offering a pretty liberal interpretation of “direct control”. This contrasts with the overly conservative interpretation of 131L that many gun owners think about.
But it doesn’t help that Runyan and Bolduc aren’t trivial cases of people that were responsible and ‘in control’ of their firearms but still in violation of the law – a kind of regulatory, victimless transgression. Neither of these guys are Heller caliber defendants and are, in fact, poster children for safe storage laws. Generally, I think it’s better to have these matters resting on a plaintiff’s case rather than a defendant’s case.
Further to the point of poorly written legislation, the Commonwealth could have achieved the same result and sidestepped the post-Heller constitutional challenge altogether if they’d done a better job drafting 131L. Rather then prescribing specifically how guns must be stored, they could have focused on insuring that unauthorized person cannot access firearms. Since my entire household is ‘authorized’ I might not have the same concerns as someone with children or other ‘unauthorized’ individuals and could be more relaxed about where I kept my guns. Runyan and Bolduc – whose actions were irresponsible – would not potentially have this ‘out’ in their cases.
Finally, SJC oral arguments are simulcast on-line, so you can watch the proceedings as they unfold. They’re also available for replay.
Scary freakin' stuff to read how our filthy corrupt leftist politicians think. God how I wish I lived in a sane, two-party state.
![[crying]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/006.gif "Crying [crying]")
In view of all this, what is current thinking in regard to locking one's guns in a secure room and/or secure closet (i.e., not just a bedroom that happens to have a key lock on a hollow interior door)? Does one still need trigger/cable locks? Or a safe? Or both?
What a royal pain in the buttocks.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
CLMN
SAF / GOAL Amici Brief
Wow, I didn't see this coming. This is a good read and certainly exceeded my expectation
Wow, I didn't see this coming. This is a good read and certainly exceeded my expectation
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
If runyan wins, by virtue of GOAL having a plausible argument, it is BOHICA time. The legistraitors will lock down the "possession and control loophole" to the point where it will be impossible to do anything. I am not sure a win here will ultimately make MA more 2A friendly. GOALs argument is also not applicable to the cop on the cape. It would be interesting to see if the SJC splits the baby and says that runyan is clear, but then does so in a way that suggests that the cape scenario is not kosher. Will that guy get retried?
