MA Approved Gun Locks

[4g63t]

Does one need to use an approved lock to secure a firearm under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131K or does the firearm only need to be sold with an approved lock?

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/firearm-safety-locking-devices.html

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sold with an approved lock.

Owner can use anything for a lock which requires a "tool" to remove.

 

[4g63t]

Great, thanks.

 

[jarhead66]

Does one need to use an approved lock to secure a firearm under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131K or does the firearm only need to be sold with an approved lock?

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/firearm-safety-locking-devices.html

Some police stations have a box in their front lobby full of them for the taking free. I know my town does.

 

[davemata]

Sold with an approved lock.

Owner can use anything for a lock which requires a "tool" to remove.

Really? Like a zip tie?

 

[jasons]

Owner can use anything for a lock which requires a "tool" to remove.

That may be someone's interpretation (I can guess who,) but the actual law says nothing about a tool.

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

 

[4g63t]

"by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user"

This would make me believe a key is required.

 

[jasons]

"by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user"

This would make me believe a key is required.

I would tend to agree.

 

[JGreen]

"Approved locking devices" are what MA dealers must sell and or include when transfering a handgun or large capacity long gun to a duly licensed resident.

 

[M1911]

"by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user"

This would make me believe a key is required.

Why do you think a device with a combination lock would not satisfy the law?

 

[eyebrowski]

delete

 

[4g63t]

Why do you think a device with a combination lock would not satisfy the law?

I think a combination would be fine, you have to enter a "key".

 

[Garys]

For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

Read the entire sentence. This means that if you or another lawfully authorized user have the gun on your person or within your immediate control (say at the range), then it does not have to be locked or secured.

 

[M1911]

I think a combination would be fine, you have to enter a "key".

There is nothing in the law that requires a key.

unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device

A combination lock is a lock. So a container with a combination lock that is engaged is a "locked container". A trigger lock that has a combination dial is a "tamper-resistant mechanical lock."

 

[soam]

There is nothing in the law that requires a key.


A combination lock is a lock. So a container with a combination lock that is engaged is a "locked container". A trigger lock that has a combination dial is a "tamper-resistant mechanical lock."

I think he's using "key" in the more general sense of the term: "something that is required to open the lock", whether that something is a physical object or a numerical combination. On a biometric safe, the "key" is your fingerprint.

 

[jasons]

There is nothing in the law that requires a key.


A combination lock is a lock. So a container with a combination lock that is engaged is a "locked container". A trigger lock that has a combination dial is a "tamper-resistant mechanical lock."

Yes, of course. Key, combo lock, keypad, fingerprint reader, voice recognition, whatever. Not a zip tie.

 

[drgrant]

Of course part of what everyone is missing is the original "spirit and intent" of the law, at least as far as storage was concerned.

The whole safe storage BS was supposedly to prevent some kid from accidentally blowing his brains out- so most interpretations end up stemming off of that premise.

It definitely has nothing to do with theft- as a trigger lock or other device that satisfies the law provides basically zero insurance against theft.

I wouldn't want to go to court on a zip-tie "defense" though- but you have to bear in mind there are other "acceptable" secured containers that would only take marginally more effort to defeat than a zip tie. For example, if I put a handgun in one of those cheap plano/doskocil boxes and put a couple padlocks on it, that's considered safe storage.... yet with a pair of pliers I can rip the hinge rod out of that case and have the gun out of the box in probably less than 5 minutes.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yes, of course. Key, combo lock, keypad, fingerprint reader, voice recognition, whatever. Not a zip tie.

Devil's advocate here . . .

Why NOT a zip tie? If properly applied it needs a knife/wire cutters (tool) to remove it.

What about using a zip tie to "elongate" the zipper tab, so a lock can reach both that and a D-ring on the case?

Using your logic, would you OK a small lock thru two zipper tabs? They can easily be broken off or cut off?

The way I understand the purpose of this law, a zip tie would probably be defensible? Anything you use/do is going to be an "uphill battle" in MA. They do either charge improper storage or revoke LTC as "unsuitable" if a gun is stolen from a car/house/etc. (e.g. trigger lock on gun in sock drawer) . . . using the excuse that it wasn't really "secured" (not required by MGL, but what the hell).

 

[jasons]

Why NOT a zip tie?

I don't know for sure, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a typical jury that a zip tie was a "a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device."

 

[Moderator]

I don't know for sure, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a typical jury that a zip tie was a "a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device."

Every year thousands of dealers at gunshows use this very same device.

 

[Dirtypacman]

I don't know for sure, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a typical jury that a zip tie was a "a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device."

How about you use the example the cops have been known to use a type of zip-tie to handcuff and subdue people. If that is considered a safety device/tamper-resistant lock in the loose terms you could certainly suggest good enough for the PD good enough for the general public.

BTW I would not want to be the guy trying this argument in court but it at least is something to work with.

 

[jasons]

Every year thousands of dealers at gunshows use this very same device.

Sure but they use them specifically because they're NOT tamper resistant. As soon as I walk out of a gun show I can cut the zip tie off with whatever sharp object I happen to have handy.

 

[Moderator]

Sure but they use them specifically because they're NOT tamper resistant. As soon as I walk out of a gun show I can cut the zip tie off with whatever sharp object I happen to have handy.

You can do it inside of a gunshow as well.

 

[josh2600]

Of course part of what everyone is missing is the original "spirit and intent" of the law, at least as far as storage was concerned.

The whole safe storage BS was supposedly to prevent some kid from accidentally blowing his brains out- so most interpretations end up stemming off of that premise.

It definitely has nothing to do with theft- as a trigger lock or other device that satisfies the law provides basically zero insurance against theft.

I wouldn't want to go to court on a zip-tie "defense" though- but you have to bear in mind there are other "acceptable" secured containers that would only take marginally more effort to defeat than a zip tie. For example, if I put a handgun in one of those cheap plano/doskocil boxes and put a couple padlocks on it, that's considered safe storage.... yet with a pair of pliers I can rip the hinge rod out of that case and have the gun out of the box in probably less than 5 minutes.

-Mike

Give me a hammer and I can beat ya by about 4 minutes, 30 seconds. lol.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sure but they use them specifically because they're NOT tamper resistant. As soon as I walk out of a gun show I can cut the zip tie off with whatever sharp object I happen to have handy.

You are using a TOOL.

A key to open a lock or a knife to cut a case apart (soft case) or a zip tie . . . one can make the correlation.

Also there are zip ties and then there are zip ties. The ones I used when working in the military/industrial complex are a LOT HARDER to pull apart (gun show ties are no challenge) or cut (yes, a knife will do it, but it better be very sharp or it will take you a while).

A MA-hole judge ruled that a wooden cabinet with a padlock wasn't secure ENOUGH since a perp unscrewed the hinge and opened the cabinet to steal a gun. So no matter what "it'll cost you" a pound of flesh and a small fortune to prove your innocence no matter what you do/use.

 

[jasons]

You are using a TOOL.

So what? It's still not tamper resistant. Hell, a screw-driver used to remove hinges on a door is also a tool and as you said yourself that wan't enough to pass the "tamper resistant" threshold. That's a lot more involved than snipping a zip-tie, wouldn't you agree?

 

[milktree]

This is a stupid question, one I probably should know the answer to, but.... Does "large capacity weapons" include full-cap magazines? i.e. are pre-ban 17 rd. Glock mags subject to lockup, while post ban 10 round ones aren't?

 

[soam]

This is a stupid question, one I probably should know the answer to, but.... Does "large capacity weapons" include full-cap magazines? i.e. are pre-ban 17 rd. Glock mags subject to lockup, while post ban 10 round ones aren't?

AFAIK mags don't need to be locked up, just the gun.

 

[Bob-Sig226]

AFAIK mags don't need to be locked up, just the gun.

AFLAC.... boi... awwwwwwwwk!

 

[jasons]

This is a stupid question, one I probably should know the answer to, but.... Does "large capacity weapons" include full-cap magazines? i.e. are pre-ban 17 rd. Glock mags subject to lockup, while post ban 10 round ones aren't?

Not a dumb question at all in this state.

I've not seen anything in the MGLs that would make me think that storage applies to magazines, but as we know the cops and DAs in this state don't necessarily base their concept of reality on what's actually in the MGLs.....