Safe storage laws unconstitutional?

[ThePreBanMan]

Why are the storage laws even still on the books. Didn't the Supreme Court rule in D.C vs. Heller that requiring someone to keep their gun locked, disassembled, or otherwise not accessible during a self defensive situation is unconstitutional? Wasn't that further incorporated and made the law of the land in McDonald vs Chicago?

verbatim from the decision as written by the court:

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. "

I'm curious why these storage laws haven't been challenged and stricken down yet.... I wrote a letter to goal asking why they haven't challenged the law but received no response... One of several reasons I dropped my membership. Even if I'm wrong they could have written me back... But as a 5 year member maybe I wasn't worth the time.

I personally think the court's intent is very clear... and that would make the Massachusetts storage requirement unconstitutional - and thus unenforceable.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Why are the storage laws even still on the books. Didn't the Supreme Court rule in D.C vs. Heller that requiring someone to keep their gun locked, disassembled, or otherwise not accessible during a self defensive situation is unconstitutional? Wasn't that further incorporated and made the law of the land in McDonald vs Chicago?

verbatim from the decision as written by the court:

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. "

I'm curious why these storage laws haven't been challenged and stricken down yet.... I wrote a letter to goal asking why they haven't challenged the law but received no response... One of several reasons I dropped my membership. Even if I'm wrong they could have written me back... But as a 5 year member maybe I wasn't worth the time.

I personally think the court's intent is very clear... and that would make the Massachusetts storage requirement unconstitutional - and thus unenforceable.

The constitutionality of 131L will largely be a function of how it's enforced. The obstacle to challenging the constitutionality of any law is finding someone who is 'harmed'. In this case harmed means charged with a serious crime. Care to go first?

The AG's reading of 131L (see Runyan amicus) might very pass constitutional muster. The problem is that some DAs and PDs have a very expansive reading of 131L when it suits their purpose is jamming someone up. Usually this ends up in a plea or some other dropped charges providing the charged person gives the police or prosecutors what they want. Very few people are willing to take this one to the mat and risk a long jail term. There's a guy named Cantelli who will probably die in prison because he didn't roll over on this.

Even some in state officials are worried that some DA's overly creative use of 131L will result in it being overturned. We can only hope, but I wouldn't want to be that guy that gets to test it.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I see. So first someone needs to be "harmed" before the law can be challenged. If I won the MegaMillions I would probably be stupid enough to unlock all my firearms and call the cops on myself - since money can buy your freedom anyway. But since I'm not rich..

However there was someone who was "harmed" by this. I believe there was a state police officer who was charged with a storage violation because his kid brought his gun to school (my memory may be a bit gray here). I'm surprised no GOAL/NRA didn't take up the case at that point.

 

[Jamie]

I see. So first someone needs to be "harmed" before the law can be challenged. If I won the MegaMillions I would probably be stupid enough to unlock all my firearms and call the cops on myself - since money can buy your freedom anyway. But since I'm not rich..

However there was someone who was "harmed" by this. I believe there was a state police officer who was charged with a storage violation because his kid brought his gun to school (my memory may be a bit gray here). I'm surprised no GOAL/NRA didn't take up the case at that point.

There's a lot more involved than just someone being "harmed" before the case will be taken on. It has to have certain elements that make it a "winner". There's really no point in pursuing a case that has a higher potential to lose and set irreversible case law.

 

[appraiser]

All gun laws are unconstitutional IMHO

 

[KMaurer]

All gun laws are unconstitutional IMHO

Agreed. However, with respect to the specific ruling in DC v Heller, I'd doubt that any court would hold the Massachusetts storage laws unconstitutional. The problem with the DC laws that Heller addressed was that there was no provision allowing one to remove a gun from storage for any reason. If you had your gun in a safe and removed it to inspect and clean it, you would have broken the law. If an armed home invader entered your home intending to kill everyone there, and you removed the gun to defend yourself, you would have broken the law. The Court never gave any indication that safe storage laws per se were unconstitutional, only that DC's absurd gun ban masquerading as a safe storage law was. IMO, no federal court is ever going to hold safe storage laws as such to be unconstitutional; they'll be treated as reasonable restrictions in the same was as laws and regulations prohibiting bull-horns and other amplified sound systems at certain hours (e.g., 2am) or places are considered to be reasonable restrictions on free speech.


Ken

 

[terraformer]

Agreed. However, with respect to the specific ruling in DC v Heller, I'd doubt that any court would hold the Massachusetts storage laws unconstitutional.

I disagree. Heller made it clear that laws governing safe storage to "prevent accidents" were presumptively constitutional. However, as applied challenges to how broadly the MA scheme is applied to most people who are charged/convicted of it are likely to be successful if the judge is honest. The vast majority of those people charged/convicted of §131L were home with no children at the home when they were screwed over. Runyan and Boldoc were the exception, not the rule.

 

[RKG]

Regardless of how the broader issue is ultimately resolved, it will not be decided on the basis of the quoted language in Heller for one simple reason:

The challenged DC statute did not permit the homeowner to sit in front of his television with a defensive sidearm in a holster on his belt. Massachusetts laws do permit this.

 

[rogzballz]

People think that it'll protect children from blowing their own heads off, parents just need to learn how to do their job.

 

[drgrant]

Yeah but what if you fall asleep in your chair in front of the TV?

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

Yeah but what if you fall asleep in your chair in front of the TV?

-Mike

You will need an as applied challenge to deal with that. i.e.; Someone will need to be arrested and convicted.

 

[drgrant]

You will need an as applied challenge to deal with that. i.e.; Someone will need to be arrested and convicted.

They'd actually have to get convicted? That sucks. So basically that "Potential corner problem" will never be resolved.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

They'd actually have to get convicted? That sucks. So basically that "Potential corner problem" will never be resolved.

-Mike

Actually, not always in theory, but the problem is if they are found not guilty, it makes it difficult to both negotiate standing and challenge the statute as applied civilly after the fact because apparently a jury said you didn't do what the state said you did (remember, shhh... jury nullification doesn't exist...). You could use an interlocutory appeal but most defense lawyers would likely say no to that because it requires you to admit to the facts of the case and basically ensures your conviction if the SJC decides to not find in your favor. The answer is overbreadth doctrine piggybacking on another situation to clear out the bulk of as applied scenarios but that has it's own issues and it has not been applied to the 2A, yet.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Agreed. However, with respect to the specific ruling in DC v Heller, I'd doubt that any court would hold the Massachusetts storage laws unconstitutional. The problem with the DC laws that Heller addressed was that there was no provision allowing one to remove a gun from storage for any reason. If you had your gun in a safe and removed it to inspect and clean it, you would have broken the law. If an armed home invader entered your home intending to kill everyone there, and you removed the gun to defend yourself, you would have broken the law. The Court never gave any indication that safe storage laws per se were unconstitutional, only that DC's absurd gun ban masquerading as a safe storage law was. IMO, no federal court is ever going to hold safe storage laws as such to be unconstitutional; they'll be treated as reasonable restrictions in the same was as laws and regulations prohibiting bull-horns and other amplified sound systems at certain hours (e.g., 2am) or places are considered to be reasonable restrictions on free speech.


Ken

I don;t know if i agree with that...
"Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. "

Seems pretty clear to me what the court established as law with that opinion...

 

[KMaurer]

There's a crucial distinction between the DC former storage law and Massachusetts' version that some people seem to be missing. Massachusetts requires that a firearm either be under the direct control of a licensed individual or secured in some manner. The DC law required that the firearm be disassembled and/or secured even when under the direct control of the licensed owner. There was no exception that would have allowed for the owner to keep the gun ready to use when he or she was in the home, or even to remove its lock or case when confronted by a home invader.

Ken

 

[terraformer]

There's a crucial distinction between the DC former storage law and Massachusetts' version that some people seem to be missing. Massachusetts requires that a firearm either be under the direct control of a licensed individual or secured in some manner. The DC law required that the firearm be disassembled and/or secured even when under the direct control of the licensed owner. There was no exception that would have allowed for the owner to keep the gun ready to use when he or she was in the home, or even to remove its lock or case when confronted by a home invader.

Ken

This does not mean that the law as enforced is constitutional.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

There's a crucial distinction between the DC former storage law and Massachusetts' version that some people seem to be missing. Massachusetts requires that a firearm either be under the direct control of a licensed individual or secured in some manner. The DC law required that the firearm be disassembled and/or secured even when under the direct control of the licensed owner. There was no exception that would have allowed for the owner to keep the gun ready to use when he or she was in the home, or even to remove its lock or case when confronted by a home invader.

Ken

So if I'm asleep and have to keep my firearms locked to be compliant with the law - and a home invasion occurs - how is that different?

 

[drgrant]

Actually, not always in theory, but the problem is if they are found not guilty, it makes it difficult to both negotiate standing and challenge the statute as applied civilly after the fact because apparently a jury said you didn't do what the state said you did (remember, shhh... jury nullification doesn't exist...). You could use an interlocutory appeal but most defense lawyers would likely say no to that because it requires you to admit to the facts of the case and basically ensures your conviction if the SJC decides to not find in your favor. The answer is overbreadth doctrine piggybacking on another situation to clear out the bulk of as applied scenarios but that has it's own issues and it has not been applied to the 2A, yet.

Makes sense... course if we have to wait for a prosecution there might never be one, and we know how much the moonbat bureaucrats in this state like operating in the gray to their benefit. (Yes, we're talking about you, Martha...) unless there is some old case law I'm missing. I just know that Scrivy and Darius used to state that the "carrying while sleeping is not under control" thing. Maybe this is because they had DAs tell them that prosecution for that isn't off the table?

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Makes sense... course if we have to wait for a prosecution there might never be one, and we know how much the moonbat bureaucrats in this state like operating in the gray to their benefit. (Yes, we're talking about you, Martha...) unless there is some old case law I'm missing. I just know that Scrivy and Darius used to state that the "carrying while sleeping is not under control" thing. Maybe this is because they had DAs tell them that prosecution for that isn't off the table?

-Mike

. . . and many officers I used to work with on the graveyard shift would have been in serious jeopardy!!

 

[Brian E. Simoneau]

I agree with KMaurer. What differentiates G.L. c. 140 § 131L from the statute from the problematic DC “secure storage” law is that “[a] gun owner may therefore carry or keep a loaded firearm under his or her control in his or her home without securing it with a trigger lock or comparable safety device. The gun owner's obligation to secure the firearm in accordance with the statute arises only when the firearm is stored or otherwise outside the owner's immediate contro.l” Com. v. Runyan, 456 Mass. 230 (2010).

 

[terraformer]

I agree with KMaurer. What differentiates G.L. c. 140 § 131L from the statute from the problematic DC “secure storage” law is that “[a] gun owner may therefore carry or keep a loaded firearm under his or her control in his or her home without securing it with a trigger lock or comparable safety device. The gun owner's obligation to secure the firearm in accordance with the statute arises only when the firearm is stored or otherwise outside the owner's immediate contro.l” Com. v. Runyan, 456 Mass. 230 (2010).

From Runyan:

FN7. We note that the Court in Heller, supra at 2820, declared that its analysis should not be taken to "suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents." We do not, however, decide whether the defendant's alleged violation of G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), could survive a motion to dismiss if the Second Amendment were made applicable to the States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

And so I will come back to my now familiar refrain; just because §131L is not explicitly the same as the statute in DC circa 2008, does not mean it is constitutional in the least.

ETA: I am not saying that some form of §131L will be considered constitutional, just that what will be considered constitutional will be a far cry from how it is abused today.