SJC TO REVIEW GUN LOCK RULE

Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
315
Likes
13
Location
Southeastern Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
The state’s highest court plans to review the constitutionality of a recently challenged state law that requires gun owners to lock their weapons, making it the first test in Massachusetts of a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the constitutional right to own guns and stow them as they see fit.

Discuss
COMMENTS (0)
The SJC decided to review the law less than a year after a Lowell District Court judge dismissed firearms charges against a Billerica man whose handicapped son was accused of shooting a BB gun at a neighbor and who then showed police officers where his father kept other unlocked weapons.

The Lowell judge cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in dismissing the case against Richard Runyan of Billerica, who in April 2008 was charged with improperly storing a semiautomatic hunting rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a drawer full of ammunition.

Last June, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that Washington, D.C., which had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws, could not require gun owners to keep their weapons disassembled and that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to keep and bear arms for their personal use.

But the court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment supersedes state and local laws, and as a result, it has sparked lawsuits and rulings throughout the country similar to the decision in Lowell District Court.

In a brief to the Supreme Judicial Court filed this month, prosecutors in the Middlesex district attorney’s office argue that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and the federal government. They argue that the Constitution allows states to make their own laws regulating gun ownership and that the Massachusetts Constitution has greater authority in this case.

The SJC has previously affirmed the state’s gun laws, which require gun owners to be licensed and to keep weapons in a locked container or equipped with safety devices, when not under their control.

“At issue here are the important goals of maintaining a citizen’s ability to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense, while also properly securing those guns to prevent tragedies,’’ Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. said in a statement yesterday. “We know that current Massachusetts gun statutes have helped save lives, as the Commonwealth has one of the lowest firearm death rates in the nation. The Massachusetts statute strikes a reasonable balance by maintaining a citizen’s ability to defend him or herself in the home, while also protecting against the significant dangers to children.’’

Massachusetts has the nation’s second-lowest firearms death rate, at 3.28 per 100,000 people, according to 2006 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii has the lowest rate, at 2.58 deaths per 100,000
But Brenden J. McMahon, the Lowell lawyer representing Runyan, and other civil libertarians argue that the Second Amendment should apply to Massachusetts as much as the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution.

Discuss
COMMENTS (1)
“This is a question left open by the Supreme Court,’’ said McMahon. “When the highest court of the land rules that the Constitution stands for the proposition that an individual has a right to own a gun, have it in their home, and have it readily available for self-defense, that seems to me persuasive that that should apply everywhere. . . . The prosecutors are arguing that Massachusetts should provide less protection than the US Constitution.’’

Constitutional lawyers familiar with state law and the Heller decision said they expect the Supreme Court to revisit the questions raised by the Runyan case.

“There are good arguments both ways,’’ said Lawrence Friedman, a professor of constitutional law at New England School of Law. “If the SJC concludes that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, then the Massachusetts Constitution controls the issue, and the SJC has held that reasonable regulations of firearms are constitutional. I think if the SJC goes that way, there’s an excellent chance the Supreme Court will be interested in this case.’’

Others predicted that the Supreme Court would eventually narrow its ruling. “When you’re talking about rights, you don’t pick and choose,’’ said Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Boston, who argues that the Second Amendment should apply to the states. “You either protect them all, or none of them are going to be safe.’’

The Lowell case began when police accused Runyan’s 18-year-old son, Alexander, who has Down syndrome, of firing eight shots from a BB gun at their neighbor’s kitchen window, while the neighbor was washing dishes. Asked why he fired at the neighbor, Runyan allegedly told officers, “I hate him.’’

When officers asked him if he had any other weapons, Runyan showed them his father’s guns, which were unlocked and beneath his father’s bed. They confiscated the weapons and later charged his father with failing to secure the guns and with having an expired license.

If the SJC or Supreme Court ultimately rule the trigger-lock law is unconstitutional, gun control advocates said, the consequences would be harsh. Seventeen states have rules requiring safe storage of unused weapons.

“The consequences will be that more people will die,’’ said John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence in Boston. “Trigger locks are the most effective at protecting children under 10 years old from accessing firearms. They could save a teenager’s life or a toddler’s, and I think they’re completely consistent with the D.C. case.’’

Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, added: “What it comes down to is that trigger locks are a matter of child safety.’’

 
I wouldn't get your hopes up. MA law is quite different from DC law and the SJC is very anti-gun. I predict they will uphold the MA storage law.
 

“The consequences will be that more people will die,’’ said John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence in Boston. “Trigger locks are the most effective at protecting children under 10 years old from accessing firearms.


I hate this douche bag. He's wrong, too. The correct answer is: EDUCATION.
 
. . . and to keep weapons in a locked container or equipped with safety devices, when not under their control.

. . . John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence in Boston. “Trigger locks are the most effective at protecting children under 10 years old from accessing firearms. They could save a teenager’s life or a toddler’s, and I think they’re completely consistent with the D.C. case.’’ . . .

Great idea, just should not be codified in law.

Johnny's statement there called to mind this amusing thread from last year. (Sorry, Scouter-Rick!)

So I wonder how many children could have been saved by THAT trigger lock?! [laugh]

I hate this douche bag. He's wrong, too. The correct answer is: EDUCATION.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you on that statement. If I could pos-rep you twice in a row, I would.
 
Last edited:
I assume they will uphold the MA storage law......nothing ever changes for the good here.

Although I do agree with Martlet, education is the key...you cannot fully trust someone else's child to be educated, or if the child is very young like under 5....no way am I trusting that kid not to mess around. Others on this site may have a different view, but it's piece of mind for me.....

I think when you have kids that young, you automatically have to be extra careful, and your best option is a quick access safe with a handgun.....shotguns just have to get put in the safe at that point. Having a trigger lock on a shotgun for home defense is worthless.....
 
Top Mass. court to review gun lock law

Just got this off of whdh.com this morning.....

Top Mass. court to review gun lock law
BOSTON -- Massachusetts' highest court plans to review the constitutionality of state law that requires gun owners to lock their weapons.

The Supreme Judicial Court decided to look at the law after a District Court judge cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in dismissing firearms charges against a Billerica man who had been accused of keeping unlocked weapons.

That decision said the District of Columbia could not require gun owners to keep their weapons disassembled and the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

The Middlesex district attorney's office argues the Constitution allows states to make their own gun laws. The Boston Globe reports that the Billerica man's lawyer says the Second Amendment applies to Massachusetts as much as the rest of the Constitution.

(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO116760/

I don't know if the link will work
 
It seems that every case that goes up against the MGLs is so poorly stated.

This guy shouldn't be using the 2nd as a reason in an of itself,he should be using the SCOTUS Heller vs DC decision to abolish the trigger lock laws in Mass, as seeing that the SCOTUS basically ruled that by making a weapon inoperable that it prevents the person from using it for self defense in their home, that would be the provision I would use in this matter.

Having a trigger lock makes it unreasonably difficult for a person to make their fire arm operable in the case of self defense in the home.

We seriously need better lawyers defending our rights.
 
I wouldn't get your hopes up. MA law is quite different from DC law and the SJC is very anti-gun. I predict they will uphold the MA storage law.

Regrettably, I fully agree! [thinking]

I assume they will uphold the MA storage law......nothing ever changes for the good here.

Although I do agree with Martlet, education is the key...you cannot fully trust someone else's child to be educated, or if the child is very young like under 5....no way am I trusting that kid not to mess around. Others on this site may have a different view, but it's piece of mind for me.....

I think when you have kids that young, you automatically have to be extra careful, and your best option is a quick access safe with a handgun.....shotguns just have to get put in the safe at that point. Having a trigger lock on a shotgun for home defense is worthless.....

Also agree.

I'd like to see the "one size fits all" law challenged where the ONLY occupants of said home are adults, duly licensed to possess firearms.

I think that being a responsible adult means you take EXTRA steps with children around, but I don't see the need for such laws when only licensed adults have access to the premises.
 
...District Court judge cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in dismissing firearms charges against a Billerica man who had been accused of keeping unlocked weapons.

That decision said the District of Columbia could not require gun owners to keep their weapons disassembled and the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms.

It sounds to me like the Heller decision is the SCOTUS decision that was applied.
 
“The consequences will be that more people will die,’’ said John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence in Boston. “Trigger locks are the most effective at protecting children under 10 years old from accessing firearms. They could save a teenager’s life or a toddler’s, and I think they’re completely consistent with the D.C. case.’’

SCOTUS says locks are illegal. Yet forcing people in Ma to use locks is completely consistent with the D.C. case.

How can anyone look someone in the eye and say stuff like that?
 
SCOTUS says locks are illegal. Yet forcing people in Ma to use locks is completely consistent with the D.C. case.

How can anyone look someone in the eye and say stuff like that?
Sorry, but the MA law is significantly different from the DC law. DC law required that guns be locked up at ALL times, therefore making it impossible for them to be used for self defense. MA law only requires guns be locked up when they are not under your direct control. You can carry a handgun in a holster around your house in MA. You couldn't do that under the DC law.
 
It's a shame that GOAL never received a call from the reporter on this matter. We would have been able to provide him with the evidence of the failure of the MA storage laws. But then, after finding the author's bio I understand why we didn't.

Bio: Abel is a general assignment reporter for the Boston Globe City & Region section. He covers local news and social issues. Abel has written about global warming, immigration, homelessness, marriage, labor negotiations, sexual abuse and gun control. In addition, he has written extensively about higher education issues and covers the local colleges in the greater Boston area, including Harvard, Smith College, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2005, Abel became a member of the Globe's City Weekly section. Before moving to New England in 1999, Abel spent a year in Washington, D.C., writing for several publications including the Globe. Born and raised in New York, Able studied political science and philosophy at the University of Michigan and has a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University. He has been a full-time member of the Boston Globe staff since 1999.
 
SCOTUS says locks are illegal. Yet forcing people in Ma to use locks is completely consistent with the D.C. case.

How can anyone look someone in the eye and say stuff like that?

Not quite. Heller said that requiring a firearm to be locked at all times, so as to preclude, for instance, holstered carry within the home, contravened the Second Amendment. The Massachusetts statutes do not preclude holstered carry within the home.
 
There are two distinct issues raised by this appeal:

1) Does the Second Amendment apply to curtail the power of the Massachusetts legislature (i.e., the "incorporation" issue)?

2) Does the Second Amendment preclude imposition of a statutory requirement that firearms by locked (i.e., inoperable) when stored other than under the owner's direct control?

On Issue 1, there are three possible outcomes:

A) Only the Supreme Court can grant "incorporation," therefore, unless and until it does, we are bound by Presser to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to Massachusetts state statutes.

B) We are free to decide the "incorporation" issue for ourselves, and we hold that the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore does not apply to Massachusetts statutes.

C) We are free to decide the "incorporation" issue for ourselves, and we hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore does apply to Massachusetts statutes.

On Issue 2, there are four possible outcomes:

A) Under Heller, the Massachusetts "storage" requirement is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment, because it permits being a licensed person to be armed (and ready for immediate defense) within his home.

B) Under Heller, the Massachusetts "storage" requirement is inconsistent with the Second Amendment, because it precludes defensive readiness of useful levels that fall between "immediate control" and dead away-from-home storage.

C) On the record in this case, there is insufficient basis to decide this issue, and therefore the matter is remanded for development of a factual record on the extent to which the Massachusetts statutes impede exercise of the Second Amendment rights.

D) Since the Second Amendment is not incorporated (or not incorporated yet), we need not reach the question of whether the Massachusetts statutes are consistent with it.

I believe that a 1A-2A or 1A-2D outcome is the most likely, and the 1C-2B outcome is the least likely.

If I were a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (which is unlikely between now and when this matter is decided), I'd vote for 1A-2D, which I believe to be the legally correct result on the present status of this case, the decisional law, principles of federalism, and the record.
 
I find it incomprehensible that people in this supposedly free country have to justify their desire to posess tools for their defense, and that anyone would tolerate restrictions on that.

take a good, hard look at yourself mass residents. if you aren't fuming mad at every single one of your laws regarding firearms, then you don't deserve to have them.

Guns are tools. tools for many different things... but many of the specific guns we own are tools to facilitate our survival in whatever miriad of situations we wish to protect ourselves against. the fact that anyone would let anyone tell them...

A.) what types of tools are reasonable for one to posess. (someone else is telling you that they will determine how valuable your life is).

B.) how you must utilize those tools.

C.) IF YOU CAN EVEN OWN THOSE TOOLS AT ALL.

Most people around here are cool with felons not being allowed to own guns. well, that's cool and all, but who decides what makes someone a felon? the state. someone who decides enough is enough and stops feeding the beast with their tax dollars suddenly is not worthy of owning the tools to defend themselfs?

hell, if rob a bank, get caught and go to jail, do my time and get out, doesn't that mean I have paid my debt to society and I am a free man? what kind of free man do you know that isn't allowed to protect his own life? is there some type of cosmic law that prohibits felons from having lives worth living or loved ones worth protecting? if not, is there some sort of cosmic law that prevents felons from being victims of violence and crime themself?

what about the mentally insane? well, like children, they should be under the supervision of guardians. if the guardians do their jobs, the insane or mentally defunct will not get ahold of guns. but, like children, sometimes it happens despite our best efforts... wo we need laws telling us to do that which we all know is the right thing to do?

the 2nd was all about protecting the people from the state. how the f*** does that work when you let the state define the terms for the people's protection?

sorry for the rant. it's late, and I'm angry at this all.
 
take a good, hard look at yourself mass residents. if you aren't fuming mad at every single one of your laws regarding firearms, then you don't deserve to have them.
If you think we like MA laws, you haven't been around here for very long. We hate them.

But whether we like the laws doesn't necessarily change how we predict the SJC will rule on the current case before them. The fact that I predict the SJC will not rule in our favor does not mean that is the outcome that I want to happen.
 
If you think we like MA laws, you haven't been around here for very long. We hate them.

But whether we like the laws doesn't necessarily change how we predict the SJC will rule on the current case before them. The fact that I predict the SJC will not rule in our favor does not mean that is the outcome that I want to happen.

then you aren't really of the group of mass residents I speak of. I hear some otherwise intelligent people around here excusing MA laws occasionally as being "not too bad". or, more often, the tenor is more "eh, thats how mass is, guess we gotta deal with it" than the more appropriate "screw that. I'm going to start kicking down mofo's doors over this stupidity".

my point really is that it's incredible we're at the place where we are hung up on what a group of men called a court are going to decide your "right" to defend yourself is. when really what we should be hung up upon is the fact that said court is allowed to decide at all.
 
I find it incomprehensible that people in this supposedly free country have to justify their desire to posess tools for their defense, and that anyone would tolerate restrictions on that.

take a good, hard look at yourself mass residents. if you aren't fuming mad at every single one of your laws regarding firearms, then you don't deserve to have them.

Guns are tools. tools for many different things... but many of the specific guns we own are tools to facilitate our survival in whatever miriad of situations we wish to protect ourselves against. the fact that anyone would let anyone tell them...

A.) what types of tools are reasonable for one to posess. (someone else is telling you that they will determine how valuable your life is).

B.) how you must utilize those tools.

C.) IF YOU CAN EVEN OWN THOSE TOOLS AT ALL.

Most people around here are cool with felons not being allowed to own guns. well, that's cool and all, but who decides what makes someone a felon? the state. someone who decides enough is enough and stops feeding the beast with their tax dollars suddenly is not worthy of owning the tools to defend themselfs?

hell, if rob a bank, get caught and go to jail, do my time and get out, doesn't that mean I have paid my debt to society and I am a free man? what kind of free man do you know that isn't allowed to protect his own life? is there some type of cosmic law that prohibits felons from having lives worth living or loved ones worth protecting? if not, is there some sort of cosmic law that prevents felons from being victims of violence and crime themself?

what about the mentally insane? well, like children, they should be under the supervision of guardians. if the guardians do their jobs, the insane or mentally defunct will not get ahold of guns. but, like children, sometimes it happens despite our best efforts... wo we need laws telling us to do that which we all know is the right thing to do?

the 2nd was all about protecting the people from the state. how the f*** does that work when you let the state define the terms for the people's protection?

sorry for the rant. it's late, and I'm angry at this all.

I whole heartedly agree with your entire statement. I'm voting with me feet and my wallet as my ballot has no effect on the insane occupants of the Massachusetts government, nor the overwhelming number of well propagandized, emotional based, non thinking sheep that reside in this state.

I now and for a long time have consciously taken every opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice on my own, the participation of any activity that might enrich the coffers of this state and deny this state of every fee and tax that I possibly can.

I'll be permanently leaving the state very soon and will never set foot in it again.
 
RKG,

A very well thought out responce, and I have to agree.
I believe that a 1A-2A or 1A-2D outcome is the most likely, and the 1C-2B outcome is the least likely.

If I were a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (which is unlikely between now and when this matter is decided), I'd vote for 1A-2D, which I believe to be the legally correct result on the present status of this case, the decisional law, principles of federalism, and the record.

Based on the argument put forward by the Middlesex DA:

"In a brief to the Supreme Judicial Court filed this month, prosecutors in the Middlesex district attorney’s office argue that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and the federal government. They argue that the Constitution allows states to make their own laws regulating gun ownership and that the Massachusetts Constitution has greater authority in this case."​

I would expect this to be appealed to the SCOTUS, but whether or not they choose to hear the case is another thing entirely. Hopefully, if they do decided to hear the case it will be before the Obama administration has a chance to load the SCOTUS with gun hating liberals.
 
Although I do agree with Martlet, education is the key...you cannot fully trust someone else's child to be educated, or if the child is very young like under 5....no way am I trusting that kid not to mess around. Others on this site may have a different view, but it's piece of mind for me.....

This is why we are bombarded with laws for every little thing. Collectively as a whole, many view our society is not responsible enough to be trusted to themselves. So we must make a laws for them, even if only for the 'one' time someone shows their stupidity a law quickly follows for the masses not to make the same mistake because now it is THE LAW! I dare say, this is how taxes get out of control. We cannot be trusted to give charity to those in need, we cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and we cannot be trusted to not do something stupid. [rolleyes]
 
Its great to see a case like this getting that high up, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a favorable ruling. The state hasn't honored the Constitution or the state constitution in years, why start now? But hey you never know, I'm rooting for you MA!
 
Its great to see a case like this getting that high up, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a favorable ruling. The state hasn't honored the Constitution or the state constitution in years, why start now? But hey you never know, I'm rooting for you MA!

Well, the SJC did rule that unlicensed possession of a gun was a victimless crime. That's something.
 
Back
Top Bottom