• 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.

Odd rumors about safe storage

Emoto

Emoto

Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
2,148
Likes
238
Location
SE Mass
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Recently at a club board meeting, a board member brought up hearsay about a former member who was recently arrested for breaking safe storage laws, and was charged in part because even though the high cap firearms were locked in a safe, they did not have trigger locks on them. Now, we all know how reliable these sorts of things are, but this guy is not far removed from the person who was arrested and he knows some of the cops too, and is not a person who typically throws ignorant BS around.

My question is, for high cap firearms, is there a requirement that they have trigger locks, AND be locked in a secure container???? (this is not in Boston)

Thanks!
 
No such requirement.

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.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps...
 
No, there is no requirement that any guns (whether large capacity or non-large capacity) have trigger locks and be locked in a secure container. Also, be aware that in Mass General Laws, the word "firearm" usually means pistol. MGL C140 S131L:
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.
Click to expand...
Here's the full text:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131l.htm
 
We should probably start a stickied thread devoted to all the crazy rumors running around about MA gun laws. I guess the only danger in such a thread is that some folks might take it seriously just because it is published!

C-X
 
Please note, you can be arrested pretty much any time. It's in court where the charges are filed that what the law says matters.

Heck, I've had classes where I've spent several minutes reading the actual law to someone who INSISTS that you MUST use trigger locks and they still don't believe me. With all the crazy laws on the books in this state, do you really think that the average officer is going to know all the laws to the degree that some of us know gun laws? Not likely. Heck, many cops carry around a set of 'cliff notes' to motorvehicle laws and they are probably some of the most encountered violations.
 
I seriously doubt that it is a "rumor"!

Regrettably, I'm aware that sometimes LEOs will arrest for totally bogus reasons, especially with gun laws. They "think" that something is a crime, so they arrest for it and it somehow has to "get sorted out later"!

I'm aware of at least one case where an officer arrested someone for possession of a BB gun without a LTC (not required)!

Just like I'm aware of a Black man who was arrested only because he parked in front of a White person's house in Milton some 20+ years ago (not a crime)! I've documented the whole story here before and someone with Lexis-Nexis access can look the whole case up (he sued and won a fat settlement).

Just because someone is arrested for a "non crime" doesn't make it a crime.

Regrettably, that person carries an arrest record for life, as there is no "unarrest mechanism" in MA.
 
Thanks for the responses, guys! We had the CMR from 2003, and looked it up, but didn't know if it had changed or not.

Bob
 
No Offense to LEO's but just cause your a cop don't mean you know the law. Listen to the openig of "Law and Order" something to the effect police who INVESTIGATE crime and the da who PROSECUTES.
Though in MA we are in rthe Twilight Zone
 
Chris said:
Because um....

Well, its due to.....

Well, my parents moves 4 miles down the road, and they are great babysitters.

WHEW, I finally came up with one.
Click to expand...
[laugh] [laugh] yeah my sister lives a mile away. I really do love it here, the laws are for the birds, but there are some good aspects. However, chances are slim to none that I will raise children here.
 
highlander said:
No Offense to LEO's but just cause your a cop don't mean you know the law. Listen to the openig of "Law and Order" something to the effect police who INVESTIGATE crime and the da who PROSECUTES.
Though in MA we are in rthe Twilight Zone
Click to expand...

Yes, but LAW ENFORCEMENT must know at least enough about the laws
at hand to be able to enforce them properly. Otherwise they just
expose their locality/department to lawsuits and at a minmum, a bunch
of wasted time trying to grind someone who really did not commit any
crime.

A -GOOD- LEO will call someone else in the know (A supervisor, who may even hand it off to someone higher up the food chain) when they are not
100% sure of the law. I've heard of cases in other states where someone
was detained for 10-30 minutes while the HQ made some calls to a DA, etc,
and ended up letting the guy go because the "higher authority" told them they would be making an unwarranted arrest. I dunno about you, but I'd
rather the authorities err on the side of caution in such matters instead of
arresting people at the drop of the hat, especially concerning nonviolent
crime. (Most statutory gun violations, FWIW, -are- patently nonviolent,
despite what the antis want us to believe. ) Safe storage issues, IMO,
should be bottom rung issues.

There -is- a cart and horse problem with such rumors, though. In other
words.... One has to ask, why are the police poking around in their
gun safe? In the "rumor" mentioned above, it was probably on some
other overriding issue. Unless they have a warrant, or you have an RO
filed against you, they have ZERO legal authority to poke around in your
gun safe. I don't know about any of you, but if a LEO comes to my
house, asking to look in my gun safe, I'm not letting him in it, unless they
have some sort of a warrant/search order.


Theres also another general theme here- one can avoid a lot of such
issues by simply not being a moron. Abide by the law, but also
use common sense.... avoid putting yourself in positions where there
is a LEO scrutinizing such things. Some people think they're doing
a LEO a favor by telling him/her that they're packing and carrying unloaded
guns in the trunk, but frankly, thats mostly mental retardation at work
there. Such feeble disclosure (especially if a LEO doesnt ask
you, when state law does not require such) is simply asking for trouble.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Another bunch of Massachusetts rumors concerning secure storage:

"If I remove the bolt from my rifle, I don't have to worry about secure storage"

"If I remove the firing pin..."

"If I disassemble my Glock..."

"My entire house is a secure container!"

"I don't have to secure my pistol so long as I am asleep right next to it."

"Police officers don't have to comply with secure storage laws."
 
drgrant said:
There -is- a cart and horse problem with such rumors, though. In other
words.... One has to ask, why are the police poking around in their
gun safe? In the "rumor" mentioned above, it was probably on some
other overriding issue. Unless they have a warrant, or you have an RO
filed against you, they have ZERO legal authority to poke around in your
gun safe. I don't know about any of you, but if a LEO comes to my
house, asking to look in my gun safe, I'm not letting him in it, unless they
have some sort of a warrant/search order.
Click to expand...

Indeed there was. In this case there was a warrant and it is my understanding that the location was visited multiple times for domestic issues that involved alcohol.

A few lessons can be taken from this.
 
Cross-X said:
"Police officers don't have to comply with secure storage laws."
Click to expand...

Depends if you are talking about what the fancy words on paper we call statute law say, or the actual practice of justice that is collectively referred to as 'law'.

If the former, the answer is 'YES, they must comply'. If the latter, history has shown us (a-la the Hudson Police Dept) that the answer is 'NO, they are not faced with the same rules us mortals are'.

Same thing with rules of deadly force. With the sole exception of having the authority to walk into a known threatening situation, LEOs have to follow the exact same rules of self defense with deadly force that civilians do. Of course, they are never held to the same level of enforcement in the long run.
 
How about this one:

I was an armed security supervisor a few years back. We actually had a couple of guys who were so afraid of the "safe storage law" that they kept the integral lock on their S&W revolvers engaged...While on duty!
 
Big Daddy 45acp said:
How about this one:

I was an armed security supervisor a few years back. We actually had a couple of guys who were so afraid of the "safe storage law" that they kept the integral lock on their S&W revolvers engaged...While on duty!
Click to expand...

If that's their skill level, everyone was safer because of it!
 
I just got a new safe and was wondering if guns had to have locks on them when in a safe and found this thread. If it is not already this might be a good thread for a sticky or linked to one of the other stickies. You know for those who don't seem to be able to search.[wink]
 
highlander said:
No Offense to LEO's but just cause your a cop don't mean you know the law. Listen to the openig of "Law and Order" something to the effect police who INVESTIGATE crime and the da who PROSECUTES.
Though in MA we are in rthe Twilight Zone
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip! I'll have to watch more TV. I never thought of TV as a career enhancer.
 
drgrant said:
Yes, but LAW ENFORCEMENT must know at least enough about the laws
at hand to be able to enforce them properly. Otherwise they just
expose their locality/department to lawsuits and at a minmum, a bunch
of wasted time trying to grind someone who really did not commit any
crime.

-Mike
Click to expand...

The terms, Negligence in Training, Negligence in Supervision, and Negligent Retention come to mind. Then again, that's only what I was told by a lawyer and might not be 100% accurate. Maybe one of the lawyers on this forum can expound.

Gary
 
Same thing with rules of deadly force. With the sole exception of having the authority to walk into a known threatening situation, LEOs have to follow the exact same rules of self defense with deadly force that civilians do. Of course, they are never held to the same level of enforcement in the long run.
Click to expand...
Yup. If a police officer acting in legitimate self defense shoots a good guy by mistake, the police are right their explaining that the entire blame for the innocent getting shot rests with the person whose criminal action put the police officer in the position of having to fire his weapon. Care to guess what kind of explanation the same police spokesman would be offering if a civilian acting in legitimate self defense shot the wrong person?
 
Rob, that's actually part of the law that criminals are responsible for anything that happens while they are committing a felony, I believe.

You gotta remember that most states don't demonize gun owners for defending themselves.
 
Rob, that's actually part of the law that criminals are responsible for anything that happens while they are committing a felony, I believe.
Click to expand...

True, but the law does not explicitly state that such assumption of responsibility removes criminal liability on the part of a civilian who injures or kills another as a result of the criminal's actions.

Also, it's not as simple as "while committing a felony" - at least in MA. About 12 years ago a friend was seriously injured and his wife killed by a felon (car thief fleeing policy). He asked for prosecution of the thief based on the felony murder doctrine and the DA told him that it did not apply since it had to be an "inherently dangerous" felony.
 
I like to store them away BEFORE I have too much to drink, but that's just me. [wink]

I'm referring to a firearm loaded with ammunition in a locked safe.
 

Similar threads

Question about renewal in MA
Replies
0
Views
117
Porky4775
P
Question about selling to a non-res
Replies
16
Views
370
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Police be wilding out here (improper storage)
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Going to reapply for my FID/LTC back after it being revoked about 10 years ago.
Replies
17
Views
732
AMV
A
A local MA Gun Ban Group - Falmouth Gun Safety Coalition
Replies
9
Views
629
LLF
LLF
Back
Top Bottom