This could still be challenged to help clarify Mass law, or even over turn the gun lock law all together, it all depends on the lawyer and how the case is argued.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Boston Globe: SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms
- Thread starter zerodown
- Start date
This could still be challenged to help clarify Mass law, or even over turn the gun lock law all together, it all depends on the lawyer and how the case is argued.
I would hope so. I don't know how anyone could argue that you are supposed to sleep with your firearm on your person in case of a night break-in/home invasion.
Requiring you to do so would IMO be against the 14th. It doesn't matter the button needs to be pressed regardless. This shit is getting tiresome.
The MA SJC would not bother to hear the appeal -- they already ruled on that issue and their ruling would still hold. It would have to be appealed in federal court. They may, or may not, agree with the SJC.
SJC based the decision on incorporation - thus Heller doesn't apply to MA. I'm not sure if Chicago comes in for Incorporation it will void this. I don't THINK so but it will open the door for future cases.
Yes... Though we will likely have to fight that point explicitly. The SJC has made it clear with this ruling timed as it is to show that they intend to force us to go above their heads to get incorporation recognized...
Heller does not yet apply because in the 100+ years since the 14th amendment was written the courts have chosen selective ignorance of it. Rather than accepting it as it was written and intended they have been sentence by sentence admitting that it applies to Amendments 1,3,4,5,etc... Even breaking that process down to specific clauses one-by-one of those amendments...
Wow, I'm surprised. Not at the specific ruling so much as that they would rule on this case while McDonald is still pending. I thought for sure that had this on the back burner.
Apart from the whole Heller / McDonald thing, the SJC clearly saw the mass storage law as distinct and different form the DC law that was overturned. And it is different in that MA law doesn't directly bar you for possessing a functional gun in your house as was the case in DC. If this is going to be challenged again post-McDonald, it will have to be in Federal Court with someone arguing that the MA law is effectively as much a bar to one's rights as was the law in DC.
BTW: Runyan was a crappy test case anyway.
Apart from the whole Heller / McDonald thing, the SJC clearly saw the mass storage law as distinct and different form the DC law that was overturned. And it is different in that MA law doesn't directly bar you for possessing a functional gun in your house as was the case in DC. If this is going to be challenged again post-McDonald, it will have to be in Federal Court with someone arguing that the MA law is effectively as much a bar to one's rights as was the law in DC.
BTW: Runyan was a crappy test case anyway.
Don't forget that DC is its own little island of insanity. Because DC is a federal district and not part of any state, then Heller only applies to areas of federal jurisdiction and has had no impact on any state laws no matter how ridiculous they may be. While seemingly useless to the rest of us, Heller was necessary in paving the way for McDonald.
That's not how I read it. The SJC said that the lower court judge was wrong on two counts:
1) the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated.
2) the MA law is consistent with Heller.
Even if the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, their finding #2 still holds, that current MA law is consistent with Heller.
So if MacDonald goes our way, MA law doesn't change, and appealing this back to the SJC will get us nothing.
It's a "statement" that this was done now...
Much like the Virginia, Montana, NH, et al. "sovereignty laws" - this is a political statement that MA will cling bitterly to its Jim Crow laws as long as it can...
Exactly. That is what happened in CT with open-carry and other due process issues. 2 Federal Lawsuits were filed and things are starting to change.
You're right, and it would be knocked down.
This ruling merely stated that the 2A doesn't apply to Mass, so the Heller ruling had no effect on current Mass laws.
If incorporated then we would be able to challenge every absurd Mass law on the books, hopefully after losing the first few challenges they would start changing the laws proactively, but I highly doubt it.
None the less, just the statement "Hand gun in common use" in the Heller decision could be used to knock out the EEOPS roster along with the AG regs since they prevent a person from owning hand guns in common use.
(Though I would love to see some one argue that a Desert Eagle .50 is common, EC would be the first inline for one I think)
You've lost me. In COMMONWEALTH vs. Richard RUNYAN. SJC-10480, the SJC ruled that 1) the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states and 2) even if it does, it doesn't matter because the storage provision is in accordance with Heller. So even if #1 goes away, #2 holds.
No.
Few of us are lawyers, so we are not the best advisers, but there was nothing in the language that changed the existing law which requires that it is "under your direct control".
Now, if you can define what that is, you are doing better than most (myself included). As far as I can tell the definition of this will be decided by how evil the judge/jury think you are when you become the test case. Classic MA legislation from the bench.
It would appear that statement from the reporter was a misreading of the comments from the judge about "defending yourself in your home". There was nothing I found in anything posted today that made a change to the laws as I would deem required to change the assumption that "under your direct control" requires more than your mere presence in the house.
But #2 would then be open to further challenges at higher levels, which Mass wouldn't want to happen because they could possibly lose even more control than just storage laws.
So there's allot that hangs on McDonald, just the new threat of having the SCOTUS rule their laws Unconstitutional would scare them enough to clarify and lossen them possibly.
(or one can hope)
HooVooLoo
NES Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,536
- Likes
- 251
The only thing that beats arm-chair quaterbacks are arm-chair lawyers.
I report the news, facts, and quote court opinions. YOU decide on what is the truth. Oh, wait, how many judges do we have on this site that can interperet and make a decision in a firearm case here in MA?
I am thinking ZERO. If I am wrong on that count, then let the judge make his voice heard. If you are not a judge and have something to say about my research, and how it may or may not "work", then don't say it. Because by everyone's argument, only a court judge is allowed to interperet the law. So if you are not a judge, don't try to interperet the law. OK?
In return, I will retract my idea that what I found and posted there defines "control of a firearm." Let's leave it to the courts to decide.
I predict that at least 6 different people will respond, even though they are not judges.
I report the news, facts, and quote court opinions. YOU decide on what is the truth. Oh, wait, how many judges do we have on this site that can interperet and make a decision in a firearm case here in MA?
I am thinking ZERO. If I am wrong on that count, then let the judge make his voice heard. If you are not a judge and have something to say about my research, and how it may or may not "work", then don't say it. Because by everyone's argument, only a court judge is allowed to interperet the law. So if you are not a judge, don't try to interperet the law. OK?
In return, I will retract my idea that what I found and posted there defines "control of a firearm." Let's leave it to the courts to decide.
I predict that at least 6 different people will respond, even though they are not judges.
It would have to be challenged in federal court. Just as the City of Chicago is defending its gun ban all the way to SCOTUS, even though it knows it would lose, I'm sure that MA authorities would defend MA gun laws all the way to SCOTUS.
Not a chance in heck that they will do anything that isn't crammed down their throats by SCOTUS.
I think the quite the opposite - this threat would appear to be fuel on the moonbat fire.
Were they inclined to be "more cautious" in the face of future risk of being overruled, they would (as a prior poster put it) kept this issue on the back burner until SCOTUS ruled.
This is them lashing out with, what we can only hope, is a last gasp of liberal totalitarianism on 2A preemption of state powers.
More than likely this case was scheduled ahead of McDonald, and even after, they're basically trying to strengthen the "2A only applies to the Fenderal Government" argument in hopes that it might have some impact on the SCOTUS if they read the news, but more than likely it was some lefty judge's last hurrah against the rights on the citizens of this state.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
This hypothetical you point out would be reviewable though because as people pointed out, runyan was reviewed prior to incorporation. Incorporation fast tracks a review on anything that comes next. The thing is, we need a test case for someone who was sleeping with their gun out. You can bet that there will be no test cases for that specifically unless some spouse rats out their partner during a divorce proceeding.
Runyan could challenge appeal the ruling to a higher court after the McDonald ruling.
Even though this is a piss poor case for trying to overturn the gun lock law, it's already in the system, and can be used in appeal.
They had plenty of time, notice and leeway to back-burner this if they wanted - I believe McDonald was already granted cert at the time arguments were heard for Runyan. Pure and simple "parting shot"... IMHO...
It really isn't correct to say that Runyan can appeal to a higher court. There isn't a higher court. The SJC is the peak of the MA court system. He can appeal to federal court, which isn't really above the SJC.
It is insomuch as it can overrule the SJC if the Constitution's incorporated clauses and/or preemptive Federal law has been violated.
He can go to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and that would overrule the SJC ruling.
Forget Runyan. If SCOTUS rules that 2A applies to the states, then it would be better to find a better plaintiff with better facts than Runyan and then file that action in federal court. Maybe some juicy facts about how the swat team kicked in her door because she was a minority, who was gay and partially disabled, and they heard she didn't use trigger locks.
Did the SJC ever define direct control?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum, except for thoughts in Deval Patrick's head. After the McDonald case gets decided, there will be jurisdictions all over the place weeping and gnashing their colllectivist teeth. Ultimately, this will all play out. There will be standard elements of what safe storage requires, and what reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms means. Having to lock up my guns when I'm out of the house is something I can live with.
Here's some food for thought. Lets say you live with your kid who is a drug addict. Should you be required by law to lock your guns away from him or her even while you are in the house?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum, except for thoughts in Deval Patrick's head. After the McDonald case gets decided, there will be jurisdictions all over the place weeping and gnashing their colllectivist teeth. Ultimately, this will all play out. There will be standard elements of what safe storage requires, and what reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms means. Having to lock up my guns when I'm out of the house is something I can live with.
Here's some food for thought. Lets say you live with your kid who is a drug addict. Should you be required by law to lock your guns away from him or her even while you are in the house?
