Boston Globe: SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms

WayneWong said:
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?
Click to expand...

You could extrapolate this line of thinking to living with mentally ill, former felons, registered sex offenders, etc.

From a liability perspective, I would think the answer comes down to would it be reasonable to lock up the guns to prohibit access to such individuals? Depending on the cirumstances, it may or may not be. That doesn't answer your question as to whether the state should require the particular activity (I say they should not).
 
WayneWong said:
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?
Click to expand...

Should you have to lock up your car keys too?
 
cekim said:
Pure and simple "parting shot"... IMHO...
Click to expand...

That's my take too. One last hoorah for old times sake. But....

gjones77 said:
He can go to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and that would overrule the SJC ruling.
Click to expand...

They would likely kick it back to the state post mcdonald and say re-evaluate it now. The answer would be the same, but the point of them taking this pre mcdonald may be they wanted it out of the way so they didn't have to deal with it with any federal precedent. But the other benefit --to them-- is if it does come back via federal court, it is a great case for people who want to piss on the 2A. He had a mentally challenged kid who had access to the guns. They have seen this case before which ended up in murder. You have to be hard pressed to find the defendant sympathetic in the eyes of most.
 
I think all of these last few posts come down to whether or not the state should be regulating this activity.

Most here will agree that keeping guns out of the hands of kids, the mentally ill, Scrivener's cats and other questionable beings is a good thing. Many might choose to lock their firearms in a safe to do so. But that doesn't mean the state should be regulating it or requiring it.
 
I was taking my sick kids out for some fresh air and noticed WWLP TV22 at AAA Guns in West Springfield. I can only assume it has to do with this
 
Baystatesuks said:
Most here will agree that keeping guns out of the hands of kids, the mentally ill, Scrivener's cats and other questionable beings is a good thing. Many might choose to lock their firearms in a safe to do so. But that doesn't mean the state should be regulating it or requiring it.
Click to expand...

Exactly just because your liberal neighbor's kids are stupid doesn't mean the state should tell you to lock any firearm that isn't on your person.
 
HooVooLoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suspect you might be Ralph Gants or one of his clerks. Aside from that, I am unsure entirely what your issue even is? For the record, many non-judges interpret the law on a daily basis. This job is basically the role of distict attorneys, police officers and legislators (who, of course, also make the law).
 
Well, the law requires that you don't allow unlicensed drivers to use your car. The correct answer would be a law that requires you to prevent access to unauthorized persons, however you decide to do it.
 
Scrivener said:
A quick read of HooVooLoo's inability to comprehend "inherit" in the Mass. Laws section of the forum will quickly disabuse you of that notion.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have read many of Gants rulings when he was in Superior Court and then in the SJC, and many times question his understanding of the law. But I am a mere peasant who is likely banned from the Commonwealth of MA anyway.
 
Baystatesuks said:
I think all of these last few posts come down to whether or not the state should be regulating this activity.

Most here will agree that keeping guns out of the hands of kids, the mentally ill, Scrivener's cats and other questionable beings is a good thing. Many might choose to lock their firearms in a safe to do so. But that doesn't mean the state should be regulating it or requiring it.
Click to expand...
More to the point, no one was ever made responsible, made a better parent, or granted common sense by an act of law. There are already consequences legal and otherwise for negligence that brings harm to others.

At best, these laws do nothing. At worst, and perhaps more often, they ensnare people who never did nor intended to do anyone harm. Meanwhile we all suffer the loss of our civil rights and specter of a repeat of the genocidal history of socialist societies that place the right of the community and state so far above the right of the individual.
 
Baystatesuks said:
I don't know. I have read many of Gants rulings when he was in Superior Court and then in the SJC, and many times question his understanding of the law. But I am a mere peasant who is likely banned from the Commonwealth of MA anyway.
Click to expand...

Why would you leave the FIRST commonwealth to come to the second? I'd trade the Bay State for the Old Dominion in a heartbeat if it were feasible.
 
Derek, I tried sleeping with my pistol in my Pajamas at night, but someone told me that wasn't direct control because I'm not awake.

I bought a huge safe, fit my bed nice. Now I sleep in the safe at night. Did you know safes are easier to open from the inside than the outside? (Where is the Sarcasm, Massachusetts BS smiley?)
 
Martlet said:
Some of the posts here make me sad.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I think the decision means versus what I wish the law should be.

I think the MA gun law should be ruled completely unconstitutional from start to finish. But I just don't think that the Heller decision supports that, as much as I might wish that it did.
 
depicts said:
Derek, I tried sleeping with my pistol in my Pajamas at night, but someone told me that wasn't direct control because I'm not awake.

I bought a huge safe, fit my bed nice. Now I sleep in the safe at night. Did you know safes are easier to open from the inside than the outside? (Where is the Sarcasm, Massachusetts BS smiley?)
Click to expand...

Reminds me of drgrant's gun/defense coffin...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=908071&postcount=100

I get around the MA safe storage laws by sleeping inside a secure container, it's a metal coffin with a bed inside that can only be opened from the inside normally. The steel protects up to .308 Win AP. I have a camera and a small LCD screen so if I hear someone coming I can turn it on to see what's going on out there. There is also a small gun port from which I can aim one of my pistols through. In case of emergency I push a button and the coffin will stand itself up via a hydraulic cylinder operating off a charged pressure tank. This enables me to sleep laying down but in the event of an attack the coffin will "stand" so I can more easily assess any threats, and fire back if needed, but I really only would have to shoot at home invaders who have blowtorches or plasma cutters. I will tell you one thing, that sucks though, if one of the home invaders shoots at the coffin the noise of that bullet bouncing off the steel is very loud. I keep a set of earmuffs in there in case one of the douchebags tries to use it as target practice while I am still inside. That usually is not a problem because you just fire a few rounds off through the gun port and that scares em off. Criminals do not like target enclosures that fire back. One problem with this design is it's not revolver friendly. The "noise" that comes out of the cylinder gap would be deafening, so the gun port is really limited to use of bottom feeders.

-Mike
Click to expand...

[laugh2]
 
gjones77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about the case down the Cape with the cop who had an unlocked gun?
 
M1911 said:
Is the limit on appeals different than the limit on the statute of limitations of the crime itself?
Click to expand...

Good question, I don't know. I can't imagine it is longer than that of the crime, and it would make sense it would be shorter. But I do not know the answer.
 
FN8. We also note that, even if a firearm were secured in the manner required by G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), a gun owner threatened in his or her home today would be able to fire the weapon in self-defense at least as quickly as would a gun owner in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. At that time, laws were in effect requiring that gunpowder be stored separately from firearms, which meant that a law-abiding homeowner acting in self-defense would need time to load and fire a musket or flintlock pistol. See Heller, supra at 2849-2850 (Breyer, J., dissenting). A skilled soldier of that time using specially prepared cartridges required a minimum of fifteen to twenty seconds to load and fire a musket; a less skilled soldier could fire no more quickly than once per minute. Hicks, United States Military Shoulder Arms, 1795-1935, 1 Am. Military Hist. Found. 23, 30-31 (1937). A gun owner today could remove a firearm from a locked container or release a trigger lock more quickly than that.
Click to expand...

Bizarre beyond words...

Is this intended as some kind of joke?

CLMN
 

Similar threads

State to State
Replies
2
Views
222
50wt
50wt
State suicide training
2
Replies
36
Views
877
M1911
M1911
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
4K
pastera
pastera
Trigger job on a S&W Bodyguard 380?
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
2K
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Scott signs VT Suppressor Hunting Bill into law
Replies
23
Views
889
1sern
1
Back
Top Bottom