The Heller decision and gun locks

[appraiser]

I know Heller has to be incorporated (is that the legal term?) in MA to become useful, but am I reading the Heller decision correctly about trigger locks being required on guns used for self defense in the home being unconstitutional?

"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 Syllabus 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. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. "

 

[Prepper]

I don't know (IANAL), but in MA you don't have to use trigger locks. It can also be in a locked case or safe. I'm not sure the Heller decision would affect that, since it is easy enough to have a quick-access safe. They may think that is reasonable enough for self defense.

(I'd still rather be able to have a completely unsecured gun sitting on a table though. There's no one here that is going to wander on in and pick it up while I'm here.)

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

If the decision is incorporated, I dont see how mass storage requirements would survive it. The suitability clause for LTC's will also be tough to defend. License restrictions would be hard to change though.

 

[jcr]

The DC "lock up your guns" law did not specify that the be lock when "stored".

The DC law said they had to be always locked -- even if you had one in a holster on your hip, while awake.

The MA situation that could be affected regards an unlocked gun at your side while sleeping. [about which there are assumptions now, but no case law.]

 

[Rob]

The DC law said they had to be always locked -- even if you had one in a holster on your hip, while awake.

Is that specifically stated in the law or an interpretation?

Serious question - how do you lock a gun while wearing it? Short of a biometric trigger release system, I don't see how that can work practically. You would have to have it in a pocket with a cable or trigger lock and not in a holster.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Is that specifically stated in the law or an interpretation?

Serious question - how do you lock a gun while wearing it? Short of a biometric trigger release system, I don't see how that can work practically. You would have to have it in a pocket with a cable or trigger lock and not in a holster.

iirc all guns had to be always locked or disassembled

 

[FlexibleDogma]

iirc all guns had to be always locked or disassembled

Is 140, 131L what you are thinking of?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131l.htm

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.

IANAL, but I have been told that under MA law you are allowed to have a loaded gun in your property for self protection as long as the following apply:

1. You are home. (Leaving a loaded gun in the house when you are not home means that it isn't under your control).
2. It isn't left in a location where others going to find it (so: on top of your coffee table or fridge, in a nightstand, etc. would all be bad.) or you are carrying it around on your person.

The combination of those two things places the gun "under your control", which means you aren't keeping it around in an unlawful state. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much to back this up in some quick Internet searches, so I would recommend doing some research!

 

[Rob]

1. You are home. (Leaving a loaded gun in the house when you are not home means that it isn't under your control).
2. It isn't left in a location where others going to find it (so: on top of your coffee table or fridge, in a nightstand, etc. would all be bad.) or you are carrying it around on your person.

Following that train of thought... If that were the case, and I don't think it is, you would have to live alone or have all members of the household be LTC holders.

Everything I've read and heard holds the exact opposite of your statement to be true. You must have it locked at all times unless under your direct control.

 

[jcr]

Few, it seems, read posts before adding their two cents.

I typed clarifying differences between MA law and DC law because the OP wondered about the effect of Heller on MA.

I pointed out that in DC guns had to always be locked up (while in MA they need be locked only when "stored").

Perhaps I "showed" the "always locked up" awkwardly by saying it'd have to be locked even in a holster on your hip.

Rob then asked if that was "specifically stated". Of course, it was not, what is stated is that guns in DC had to be "locked or disassembled".

BA2 chimed in with some help for me, as I had not checked back for the question. He properly mentioned the always concept that I had implied.

FD then reads back only one post and wonders if the DC is codified in the MGL. WTF?

And then builds a whole scenario demonstrating tha MA doesn't say that.

Clever that. No one ever said it did.

 

[aklover]

If I wanted the gun near me, I'd just keep it loaded and unlocked...with the lock nearby...with the key still in it. Same for having it nearby at night. MA is different from DC in regards to having it on you because you CAN carry in MA, where as there is ZERO chance an every day "Joe the Plumber" type could ever do it legally in DC.

Besides, even in DC, how can they prove you didn't have time to unlock your firearm before you used it for protection should you have needed it? See that lock with the key still in it and that (strategically placed) opened box of rifle rounds or shotgun shells that I had to retrieve from a separate location, Mr. Officer Friendly?

 

[FlexibleDogma]

FD then reads back only one post and wonders if the DC is codified in the MGL. WTF?

And then builds a whole scenario demonstrating tha MA doesn't say that.

Clever that. No one ever said it did.

I apologize that I lost the thread, I scanned it once or twice, but when I posted I must have gone from Glockaholic's "... am I reading the Heller decision correctly about trigger locks being required on guns used for self defense in the home being unconstitutional?" and went down to BA2's post without following the thread back.

I should have just commented that the Glockaholic's original premise that trigger locks are required on guns for home defense doesn't actually appear to true in MA. Or just not posted anywhere about anything today, it's been that kind of day.

 

[appraiser]

I was under the (mistaken) impression that it was a no no to sleep with a loaded unlocked weapon at your side in MA

 

[Scrivener]

I should have just commented that the Glockaholic's original premise that trigger locks are required on guns for home defense doesn't actually appear to true in MA.

Utter nonsense.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with MA gun laws is well aware.

Read more; post less. Start with c. 140, s. 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.

 

[FlexibleDogma]

Utter nonsense.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with MA gun laws is well aware.

Read more; post less. Start with c. 140, s. 131L (a):

I will talk to the person who stated otherwise for greater clarification and to see if he can point me to any relevant case law.

This was my instructor at S&W for the safety course. Either he felt like leading the whole class astray for giggles, he was honestly mistaken, or you are actually allowed to have a gun at home, loaded, as long as you are home and the only one who is reasonably able to access it.

 

[Scrivener]

I will talk to the person who stated otherwise for greater clarification and to see if he can point me to any relevant case law.

This was my instructor at S&W for the safety course. Either he felt like leading the whole class astray for giggles, he was honestly mistaken, or you are actually allowed to have a gun at home, loaded, as long as you are home and the only one who is reasonably able to access it.

Just which part of "shall be unlawful" is beyond your ability to comprehend?

 

[KMaurer]

I should have just commented that the Glockaholic's original premise that trigger locks are required on guns for home defense doesn't actually appear to true in MA.

Utter nonsense.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with MA gun laws is well aware.

Read more; post less. Start with c. 140, s. 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.

IOW, FD's statement was technically correct. Mass law requires that a weapon be secured when stored, but does not specifically require trigger locks. Gun safes, lock boxes, cable locks and numerous other approaches would meet the requirement as well as an actual trigger lock.

Ken

 

[aklover]

Glad I don't live in MA...

 

[Scrivener]

IOW, FD's statement was technically correct. Mass law requires that a weapon be secured when stored, but does not specifically require trigger locks. Gun safes, lock boxes, cable locks and numerous other approaches would meet the requirement as well as an actual trigger lock.

Context, Ken, context. He made it sound as if an HD gun did not need to be locked at all and preceded the comment in question with this:

I scanned it once or twice, but when I posted I must have gone from Glockaholic's "... am I reading the Heller decision correctly about trigger locks being required on guns used for self defense in the home being unconstitutional?" and went down to BA2's post without following the thread back.

Rather than compound the confusion - and there is already much on that subject - the prudent course of action was to provide the actual language of the controlling law. I did.

 

[szaino]

Now that we have that out of our system can we get back to the original question, because I am curious to know the answer.

Heller decision made it unconstitutional to require a gun to be "disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". The reason being because it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".

So the question still exists as to whether the Mass law cited above:

"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."

now violates your constitional rights and is not enforeable.

 

[Scrivener]

So the question still exists as to whether the Mass law cited above: ...now violates your constitional [sic] rights and is not enforeable [sic].

Asked and answered.

Several times.

Use the SEARCH function and run "incorporation."

 

[appraiser]

Until a case comes up in MA where the Heller decision can be used as a defense, or used in a motion before a Judge to dismiss the case, it is not valid in MA. That would be how the SC decision would make its way into MA law.

Either that or the socialists up on Beacon Hill decide to amend chapter 140 to reflect the decision. Has hell frozen over yet?

I have no idea how it could be enacted by way of suing the Commonwealth civilly IANAL.