Zip ties and storage

[je25ff]

Would a zip tie be OK for securing a firearm in it's case when transporting? Silly question, I know, but I misplaced some of my smaller locks and don't have enough to go around.

 

[pupchow]

Works for me. "... or other secure container"

 

[Scarab440]

I've wondered. But it's one of those times where it's better to be less ambiguous and just use a lock (any lock) if possible.

 

[cockpitbob]

^^this^^
It's all in the opinion of the cop that stops you. If he doesn't approve you might win in court, but think of the cost in time and $.

 

[je25ff]

Yeah, not worth it. Spent 30 bucks on ACE brand locks. Thanks, all.

 

[CaseHardened]

Dollar Tree has Locks.

Harbor Freight, too:

 

[MisterHappy]

Would a zip tie be OK for securing a firearm in it's case when transporting? Silly question, I know, but I misplaced some of my smaller locks and don't have enough to go around.

I think, and IANAL, that that's a bit too flimsy to meet the standard, in the PRM.

The free cable locks are not that great....but if the cops give them out, that, IMO, gives them the imprimatur of officialdom.

I like CaseHardened's idea.

 

[MAJoe]

Be careful of the distinction here too. Your title says storage, your post discusses transport. The requirements are not the same.

 

[je25ff]

Be careful of the distinction here too. Your title says storage, your post discusses transport. The requirements are not the same.

I'll clarify. What I meant was putting a firearm in a case, 'locking it' and driving back and forth to the range.

 

[MisterHappy]

I'll clarify. What I meant was putting a firearm in a case, 'locking it' and driving back and forth to the range.

If you mean by "firearm":

A handgun ( "firearm" per MGLs): I'd say that it's not a good idea. Get a lock, and be safe.

A long gun: If it's not large capacity, then it's not relevant or required for transport. It just needs to be unloaded.

A Large Cap long gun: These days, HELL NO. Get a lock.

 

[kalash]

I've wondered the same. Both a zip tie and a lock cannot be opened with bare hands; both require tools (a key is a tool, as are bolt cutters) to remove, so who is going to be the first to make a legal argument for the precise difficult of locking device removal that would meet MA storage requirements?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've wondered the same. Both a zip tie and a lock cannot be opened with bare hands; both require tools (a key is a tool, as are bolt cutters) to remove, so who is going to be the first to make a legal argument for the precise difficult of locking device removal that would meet MA storage requirements?

If I remember the details correctly, someone was convicted based on another person unscrewing the hinges on a gun cabinet, stealing a gun and then screwing the hinges back on. Of course the person convicted tried to claim that his bedroom was a "locked container" when he had a "push-pin" bathroom type privacy lock on the bedroom door . . . the judge didn't buy his argument. [Rob Boudrie will be along shortly to correct me if I mis-remembered any of this.]

 

[kalash]

I'd say that's absurd (I don't doubt that it's a true story in this state) because any safe can be broken into. Are we legislating the difficulty of doing so now?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'd say that's absurd (I don't doubt that it's a true story in this state) because any safe can be broken into. Are we legislating the difficulty of doing so now?

IIRC it was a wooden gun cabinet, not a safe.

 

[Goliathan]

If I remember the details correctly, someone was convicted based on another person unscrewing the hinges on a gun cabinet, stealing a gun and then screwing the hinges back on. Of course the person convicted tried to claim that his bedroom was a "locked container" when he had a "push-pin" bathroom type privacy lock on the bedroom door . . . the judge didn't buy his argument. [Rob Boudrie will be along shortly to correct me if I mis-remembered any of this.]

Wow, scary. Seems to say that the level of security which constitutes "locked" basically changes based on the whim of the cop and judge. If one could use a screwdriver to unscrew exposed screws on a cabinet, then how far a stretch is it for someone to use that same screwdriver to, say, pry open a security cabinet? Jimmy open a locked door? How much security is enough when it comes to a stolen gun? To a certain mindset, one might say that if the gun is stolen, then the security was obviously not adequate, no matter how strong it was.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Wow, scary. Seems to say that the level of security which constitutes "locked" basically changes based on the whim of the cop and judge. If one could use a screwdriver to unscrew exposed screws on a cabinet, then how far a stretch is it for someone to use that same screwdriver to, say, pry open a security cabinet? Jimmy open a locked door? How much security is enough when it comes to a stolen gun? To a certain mindset, one might say that if the gun is stolen, then the security was obviously not adequate, no matter how strong it was.

Here's the case.

Comm. v. Parzick (2005) 835 N.E.2d 1171, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 846, review denied 848 N.E.2d 1212

 

[pupchow]

Here's the case.

Comm. v. Parzick (2005) 835 N.E.2d 1171, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 846, review denied 848 N.E.2d 1212

"and possession of a firearm without a valid firearm identification (FID) card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(h). In his appeal, the defendant contends that guns stored in an unlocked bedroom closet within a locked bedroom are "secured 847*847 in a locked container,"

Yeah, I'm not using that yardstick.

========

ETA. For routine travel, I'm using a lock. For a one-off instance of travel (new purchase), if the included lock cannot be utilized, a beefy cable tie suffices for my needs.

 

[Len-2A Training]

"and possession of a firearm without a valid firearm identification (FID) card, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(h). In his appeal, the defendant contends that guns stored in an unlocked bedroom closet within a locked bedroom are "secured 847*847 in a locked container,"

Yeah, I'm not using that yardstick.

========

ETA. For routine travel, I'm using a lock. For a one-off instance of travel (new purchase), if the included lock cannot be utilized, a beefy cable tie suffices for my needs.

I just read the case and also conclude it isn't the best example.

 

[sbi]

I'll clarify. What I meant was putting a firearm in a case, 'locking it' and driving back and forth to the range.

I transport it my locked trunk. No locks on the case, the trunk is locked.

 

[Snora]

I've wondered the same. Both a zip tie and a lock cannot be opened with bare hands; both require tools (a key is a tool, as are bolt cutters) to remove, so who is going to be the first to make a legal argument for the precise difficult of locking device removal that would meet MA storage requirements?

My opinion (which in no way is backed by understanding of the laws) is that any lock that can be defeated nearly instantly by almost any readily available tool is not a lock. Zip ties can be cut with scissors, a pocket knife, or even melted off with a lighter.

 

[CaseHardened]

My opinion (which in no way is backed by understanding of the laws) is that any lock that can be defeated nearly instantly by almost any readily available tool is not a lock. Zip ties can be cut with scissors, a pocket knife, or even melted off with a lighter.

Many people store firearms in ballistic nylon bags, with the zipper pulls locked together.

You would have to destroy the bag to get into it, but a pair of tin snips would do the job easily.

For that matter, 90% of padlocks can be defeated with Bolt Cutter in ten seconds or less.

 

[CaseHardened]

My opinion (which in no way is backed by understanding of the laws) is that any lock that can be defeated nearly instantly by almost any readily available tool is not a lock. Zip ties can be cut with scissors, a pocket knife, or even melted off with a lighter.

A Cable Tie is not a lock because it is not sold as one. Even the steel ones which are very strong.

Don't argue it is one.

The Law says "Lock". And Laws do not have to make sense.

 

[Len-2A Training]

ANY pair of pliers will break off the zipper tab even if it is a lockable one with a padlock thru it.

ANY knife will slice thru a soft case.

Yes both of these are accepted as usable.

Any DA can make any case he wants against you. It's up to your FIREARMS KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEY to refute such allegations. Your average public defender will not usually be capable of doing so.

 

[MisterHappy]

My opinion (which in no way is backed by understanding of the laws) is that any lock that can be defeated nearly instantly by almost any readily available tool is not a lock. Zip ties can be cut with scissors, a pocket knife, or even melted off with a lighter.

The locks that they give away at the PDs are easily cut with lineman's pliers. That does not make them "not locks".

As I stated above, the fact that the PD gives you a gun lock to lock your gun makes it more "official" than other things that are just as easily defeated. Because PRM.

I'm not saying that it's logical, just that in the PRM form often takes precedence over function. There was a case (sorry, no cite, but it's been referenced on NES before) where a handgun in a plastic cooler was held to have been lawfully stored. I'm sure that most people would not consider that overly secure.

 

[CaseHardened]

The locks that they give away at the PDs are easily cut with lineman's pliers. That does not make them "not locks".

As I stated above, the fact that the PD gives you a gun lock to lock your gun makes it more "official" than other things that are just as easily defeated. Because PRM.

I'm not saying that it's logical, just that in the PRM form often takes precedence over function. There was a case (sorry, no cite, but it's been referenced on NES before) where a handgun in a plastic cooler was held to have been lawfully stored. I'm sure that most people would not consider that overly secure.

Of course Maura could issue a STORAGE ROSTER that lists acceptable Locks and Containers.

(groan)

 

[JAD]

Of course Maura could issue a STORAGE ROSTER that lists acceptable Locks and Containers.

(groan)

....incidentally MGL c. 140 s. 131K does require a state approved trigger lock (not provided by the buyer) to accompany ALL firearms (handguns) and large capacity weapons that are sold by Mass licensed dealers. [For storage purposes, the locking device does not need to be state approved]

 

[MaynardDad]

There was a case (sorry, no cite, but it's been referenced on NES before) where a handgun in a plastic cooler was held to have been lawfully stored.

The case is Comm v Lojko:

Meanwhile, another officer found a "little Igloo cooler" in the backyard. … Upon opening the cooler, the officer found a locked box in which there was a firearm. The box, which appears to be made for the firearm by the manufacturer, is composed of a plastic-type material and measures approximately ten-by-six inches. … The words "Glock 'safe action' pistol" are written in raised letters across the front of the box. The box is designed with a small hole, which lines up with the firearm's trigger guard. Here, the box was found with a cable lock ("a lock mechanism with a cable" attached) threaded through the hole, thereby securing the firearm in the box as well as locking the box itself. There was no direct testimony as to how the police opened the box. The trial judge, however, found that the box and the lock were adequate.

… The Commonwealth's theory of culpability was that, even though the handgun was stored in a locked box, the box and the lock were inadequate, and, further, that the gun was not "secure[]" because anyone could walk away with the cooler in which the gun was hidden or with the locked box itself. The judge adopted the Commonwealth's latter theory, framing the issue as "whether the gun was maintained in a locked and secured location." The judge found the defendant guilty on the ground that, "although . . . the gun was locked," it was not in a "secured location."

The defendant contends that he was not in violation of the statute because the statute permits the storage of a firearm in "any place" as long as it is "secured in a locked container" (emphasis added). G. L. c. 140, § 131L(a). We agree. In a prior case concerning the improper storage of firearms, we interpreted the word "secured" as indicating that "the container must not merely be locked, but securely locked . . . [i.e.,] maintained in [a] locked container[] in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." Commonwealth v. Parzick, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 846 , 850 (2005). [Note 6] Here, the judge's guilty finding was not based on any deficiency in the lock or the box. Rather, as we have noted, the finding was based on a failure to keep the box in a "secured location." However, the fact that the defendant placed the securely locked box in a cooler is of no consequence. The judge's implicit determination that the lock box adequately secured the firearm should have ended her inquiry; no more was required to determine that the defendant had satisfied the requirements of the statute. Although we acknowledge the safety concerns expressed by the Commonwealth, nonetheless, neither the statute nor our case law requires a gun owner who keeps a firearm "secured in a locked container" to also store that container in a secure location. The Commonwealth's interpretation of the statute is simply too expansive. … Should the Legislature choose to consider imposing stricter storage requirements, it is free to do so.

Judgment reversed.


Finding set aside.


Judgment for defendant.

 

[MaynardDad]

....incidentally MGL c. 140 s. 131K does require a state approved trigger lock (not provided by the buyer) to accompany ALL firearms (handguns) and large capacity weapons that are sold by Mass licensed dealers. [For storage purposes, the locking device does not need to be state approved]

Where did you see the "Mass licensed dealers" part? My understanding is that the requirement applies to everyone, including manufacturers, wholesalers, and private sellers.

The current list of approved safety devices is here. Not all of them are trigger locks.

 

[EddieZoom]

I read somewhere on the internet that trigger locks have been linked to cancer... they should be avoided at all costs

Shouldn't be this hard to figure out what is or is not legal.... law abiding folks don't stand a chance.

 

[MisterHappy]

Where did you see the "Mass licensed dealers" part? My understanding is that the requirement applies to everyone, including manufacturers, wholesalers, and private sellers.

The current list of approved safety devices is here. Not all of them are trigger locks.

Here's the link.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131k

Maynard is correct - "dealers" is not in the language (though it may be implied, as it's a "consumer protection" thing....)