Boston Globe: SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms

[ochmude]

I always wondered why out west they mandate that judges are elected, now I finally see why. No amount of corruption from elections and campaigns can compare to to lifelong appointments of people that think like that statements author. The only way to save this state from itself is to start a movement to have judges elected and therefore the ability to be unelected.

That movement has already started, about 9 years ago actually.

 

[Half Cocked]

The fact is that in the State Police officer case, everyone in law enforcement was looking for a way to provide the appearnce of due process while doing everything in their power to allow the officer to keep his job and ability to carry.

Scrivener is right, that no average citizen would have received the same 'consideration'!

Read for yourself the DA's position in the case of the Trooper

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS/3110313/-1/NEWS

"It's ridiculous to believe that the Second Amendment is not applicable to the state," O'Keefe said.

Having to lock up a gun when someone is sleeping defeats the purpose of having a gun for self-defense — an argument made by the Supreme Court in the Heller case, O'Keefe said.

 

[GSG]

Do we need reform or what?

Without a doubt.

OK, this little jewel is scary to say the least. It seems as though they are claiming we have a right ONLY to those firearms in use in 1791! There is not some special point in time where this right applies to. This is a present tense, not a past tense statement. Yet they read it like it is past tense. This is NOT TRUE and the fact that one of them believes this is scary.

It's scary and disgusting. By that same logic, the 3A doesn't apply to houses constructed differently than those in 1791 .

Virginia's (and other state's) constitution reads almost word-for-word the same as MA WRT to the right to keep and bear arms. Yet the lunatics in this state choose to interpret this in a manner that makes no sense whatsoever. Meanwhile Virginia interprets those same words as protecting their individual right to keep and bear arms.

Great point.

It might also matter that the VA legislature is part time versus the full time General Court in MA - you have to justify those salaries somehow.

Yup.

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.

It'd take a "perfect storm" type case; a high profile celebrity with lots of money, who survived a violent attack in their home, defended themselves against the criminal, but admitted that the gun wasn't locked up while sleeping.

That or a state government that recognizes a human right to self defense.

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.

I honestly think that it does, in spirit anyway. I'm admittedly biased, but logic obviously indicates that the justices ruling on Heller felt that people have a right to ready self defense in their homes, especially when roused in the middle of the night by a burglar.

Regardless of his profession, the glaring inequity here is runyan's kid did not do anything wrong with the real firearms (and was shooting BBs into another yard IIRC). The situation on the cape involved a kid pointing the real gun at another kid and pulling the trigger (it was unloaded thankfully). Who deserved to be punished more?

What I think is important is that in both cases, neither father did anything wrong. The child did wrong, and the parent was prosecuted for it.

In general, the reason judges are appointed for life is to make them less sensitive to the 'will of the people', as a hedge against the 'tyranny of the majority'. It doesn't always work, but the alternative doesn't work out well for minorities, as you've pointed out.

The good thing about elected judges is you still get a chance at a decent flush every once in awhile. With the appointed ones, until they die the toilet can stay clogged.

 

[Scrivener]

What I think is important is that in both cases, neither father did anything wrong. The child did wrong, and the parent was prosecuted for it.

NONSENSE.

In each case, a parent negligently left a gun readily available to a child. In short, exactly the scenario the statute was designed to protect.

 

[cekim]

NONSENSE.

In each case, a parent negligently left a gun readily available to a child. In short, exactly the scenario the statute was designed to protect.

For all the damage this statute has done to otherwise law abiding citizens - what good did it do here?

Here's a hint - NONE

You cannot legislate common sense. In fact, the more you try, the less people seem to develop on their own. Trusting the state to protect them from rotten food, bad medicine, bad people and now from themselves.

 

[Scrivener]

You cannot legislate common sense. In fact, the more you try, the less people seem to develop on their own. Trusting the state to protect them from rotten food, bad medicine, bad people and now from themselves.

Quite true as to common sense and the collateral damage from thinking it can be legislated.

However, the statute is not intended to protect people from themselves. It is intended to protect people from the incompetence of OTHERS.

Like the homicidal brat offspring of state troopers who leave their guns lying around.......

 

[cekim]

It is intended to protect people from the incompetence of OTHERS.

If they are unmoved by the potential violent death of their children at their hands, a law isn't going make the difference...

 

[Scrivener]

If they are unmoved by the potential violent death of their children at their hands, a law isn't going make the difference...

Quite probably true.

But that kind WILL be more susceptible to appreciating the potential criminal charge if the negligent storage is discovered in less extreme circumstances (as they almost always are), and the consequences thereof.

 

[lupis42]

Quite probably true.

But that kind WILL be more susceptible to appreciating the potential criminal charge if the negligent storage is discovered in less extreme circumstances (as they almost always are), and the consequences thereof.

The law, however, also applies to people with no kids in the home. Everyone in my household has an LTC A, why am I subject to the same storage requirements as someone with a bunch of toddlers and children in the home.

 

[oceanblues]

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.

I'm fine with this assuming that the next person who breaks into my house is armed with a musket. I mean he may get the first shot off, but then its a race to reload faster. It really makes about as much sense as arguing there should be no freedom of the press on TV because there were no TV's in 1791

 

[matt1956]

It really makes about as much sense as arguing there should be no freedom of the press on TV because there were no TV's in 1791

+1

Still not sure if this is a good or a bad thing for MA. the only thing I can hope is that it opens the door to send the case to the FED and they in turn rule that the Heller case also applies to the States

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Still not sure if this is a good or a bad thing for MA. the only thing I can hope is that it opens the door to send the case to the FED and they in turn rule that the Heller case also applies to the States

It appear you missed the memo

 

[BWhite]

Here are some local responses to the decision. One of the commenters is out of his mind .
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/features/x90197436/SJC-gun-ruling-triggers-frustration

 

[depicts]

Here are some local responses to the decision. One of the commenters is out of his mind .
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/features/x90197436/SJC-gun-ruling-triggers-frustration

BWhite, welcome to the forum. Good link.

I liked the following response the most, because it's the most correct. This guy is really telling it like it is. Gun owners better wise up, because this is how it should be!!!

jack burton7 hours agoReport Abuse
Report Abuse
You must be logged in to report abuse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime. If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norwegians to help rummage through people's property.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can't get licensed will certainly force the church folk onto our side.

People who don't like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by Mayor Daly as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don't get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a 'non-event,' which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!

 

[GSG]

NONSENSE.

In each case, a parent negligently left a gun readily available to a child. In short, exactly the scenario the statute was designed to protect.

In the case of the trooper on the Cape, a crime was committed with the gun. In Runyan's case, the kid pointed out the gun to the cops...real dangerous behavior there. Yet still in both cases the parents wind up facing criminal charges. Were all Runyan's knives locked up as well? Where were his car keys? I trust they were in a safe, you know, to protect the children before they hurt themselves.

There's already other areas of law that cover criminally negligent behavior, there's no need for even more of it in the MGL's.

For all the damage this statute has done to otherwise law abiding citizens - what good did it do here?

Here's a hint - NONE

Exactly.

 

[n1oty]

99.999 percent of the time, I find myself in agreement with Scrivener's position. I find his comments direct, well supported and thoroughly explained. However, comparing the Runyan and Bolduc cases side-by-side, I must side with GSG on this one. Part of this may be due to my age and upbringing. The bottom line is that the storage laws are supposedly protective from the types of incidents that happened on the Cape, yet did not do so. But for the weapon being unloaded, we'd have a dead child on the Cape and nobody being held accountable criminally. On the other hand, we have Runyan where a shotgun was not being used. It simply rested under a bed, no doubt a nighttime safety purposed weapon when asleep, that was not in use by the child. Rather, it was simply pointed out to the police when they asked about "other weapons" in the house. I'm sorry, but I do not see that shotgun under the bed as a grave danger to anyone.

Frankly, I could be much more supportive of storage laws that ENCOURAGED locking up unused firearms, but only made it a criminal offense if a child got control of a firearm without the consent of the parent and committed a crime. Then, we wouldn't have make believe crimes like the Runyan case, yet still be able to prosecute more heinous events, like the Bolduc issue.

 

[Half Cocked]

The bottom line is that the storage laws are supposedly protective from the types of incidents that happened on the Cape, yet did not do so. .

Frankly, I could be much more supportive of storage laws that ENCOURAGED locking up unused firearms, but only made it a criminal offense if a child got control of a firearm without the consent of the parent and committed a crime.

Let's also only make OUI a crime only if someone is actually hurt or killed.

I am not supporting the storage laws I just do not agree with your rationale.

 

[n1oty]

Let's also only make OUI a crime only if someone is actually hurt or killed.

I am not supporting the storage laws I just do not agree with your rationale.

My rationale is simple and it is based on the old concepts of "prior restraint" and "mens rea", concepts that used to important to the application of criminal law years ago and less so now. Your analogy of OUI is completely bogus and obfuscates the actual issue. The car is analogous to the shotgun. When sitting alone and unused, it is the same as the shotgun under the bed that is also unused. Neither "object" is dangerous. If someone takes that shotgun and commits a robbery or other crime, then and only then should the Commonwealth take action. When someone commits the crime of OUI, then and only then should the Commonwealth take action. Sorry, but in my view, your analogy simply reinforces my position.

 

[Coyote33]

99.999 percent of the time, I find myself in agreement with Scrivener's position. I find his comments direct, well supported and thoroughly explained. However, comparing the Runyan and Bolduc cases side-by-side, I must side with GSG on this one. Part of this may be due to my age and upbringing. The bottom line is that the storage laws are supposedly protective from the types of incidents that happened on the Cape, yet did not do so. But for the weapon being unloaded, we'd have a dead child on the Cape and nobody being held accountable criminally. On the other hand, we have Runyan where a shotgun was not being used. It simply rested under a bed, no doubt a nighttime safety purposed weapon when asleep, that was not in use by the child. Rather, it was simply pointed out to the police when they asked about "other weapons" in the house. I'm sorry, but I do not see that shotgun under the bed as a grave danger to anyone.

Frankly, I could be much more supportive of storage laws that ENCOURAGED locking up unused firearms, but only made it a criminal offense if a child got control of a firearm without the consent of the parent and committed a crime. Then, we wouldn't have make believe crimes like the Runyan case, yet still be able to prosecute more heinous events, like the Bolduc issue.

I must say I agree with the first paragraph completely, and it sort of sums up many of the feelings and intuitions I was getting at regarding the similarities and differences of the two cases. The second paragraph I am not so sure of, and will elaborate below.

Let's also only make OUI a crime only if someone is actually hurt or killed.

I am not supporting the storage laws I just do not agree with your rationale.

Unlike OUI (DWI? DUI?), it can still be illegal, but just not "criminal". Put a fine on it, and leave it at that, similar to a building code violation.

 

[GSG]

Let's also only make OUI a crime only if someone is actually hurt or killed.

I am not supporting the storage laws I just do not agree with your rationale.

Well take a look at Florida's storage laws:

790.174(2):

(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor's parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:

(a) In a public place; or

(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.

This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

1(3) As used in this act, the term "minor" means any person under the age of 16.

It makes it illegal for you to leave a gun improperly stored if a child commits certain crimes with it. Because as long as no law is broken and the child is trained, it's perfectly harmless for a child to posess or have access to a gun.

Obviously if a crime has been comitted then someone should be charged. But this pre-crime crap is useless; should we not issue Mass. LTC's to anyone because they might sell a gun to a felon? Should it be illegal to carry a loaded gun in a car because you might do a driveby?

The presumption of the Mass. safe storage laws is that anyone who isn't old enough/wealthy enough for a license is dangerous to expose to firearms, or that unattended guns will transport themselves to crime, simply by being out of the owner's direct control. This simply isn't true.

 

[lupis42]

Were all Runyan's knives locked up as well? Where were his car keys? I trust they were in a safe, you know, to protect the children before they hurt themselves.

There's already other areas of law that cover criminally negligent behavior, there's no need for even more of it in the MGL's.

And the MGLs apply even when no minor has access to the home. If everyone in the house is licensed, shouldn't that be sufficient?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let's also only make OUI a crime only if someone is actually hurt or killed.

I am not supporting the storage laws I just do not agree with your rationale.

IIRC, NH has a law similar to what led to your comment.

I don't put OUI (an "active" action) in the same category as storing a gun (a "passive" action). Unless one believes that the gun is magically going to move itself, load and fire itself because it's not locked up.

 

[cekim]

IIRC, NH has a law similar to what led to your comment.

I don't put OUI (an "active" action) in the same category as storing a gun (a "passive" action). Unless one believes that the gun is magically going to move itself, load and fire itself because it's not locked up.

Like the difference between owning a gun and firing randomly in the air...

I do think we've gone overboard on OUI - handing down overkill sentences in some cases for what is in essence a regulatory crime (getting picked up by a check-point or a traffic stop where OUI was only determined by factors not apparent in the actual operation).

Much like civil rights legislation, I think people mistake the early success of "behavior modification" laws with the reality that the cultural change which brought about those laws was the actual driver of change.

For the most part, people DON'T drive drunk because they have a better understanding of the risks than they used to.

The simple fact is that people drive "impaired" in one way or another all the time for reasons unrelated to intoxication. Fatigue, illness, distraction, intelligence, age, inexperience, etc...

Our OUI laws are another demonstration of a "Zero Tolerance" policy with all the failings of every such policy.

 

[Half Cocked]

My rationale is simple and it is based on the old concepts of "prior restraint" and "mens rea", concepts that used to important to the application of criminal law years ago and less so now. Your analogy of OUI is completely bogus and obfuscates the actual issue. The car is analogous to the shotgun. When sitting alone and unused, it is the same as the shotgun under the bed that is also unused. Neither "object" is dangerous. If someone takes that shotgun and commits a robbery or other crime, then and only then should the Commonwealth take action. When someone commits the crime of OUI, then and only then should the Commonwealth take action. Sorry, but in my view, your analogy simply reinforces my position.

My point is that the elements of the law do not require anything other than the gun being unsecured.... the law does not require a further action be made with the firearm.

Both Runyan and Bolduc violated this..... there is no difference between the two cases from a legal standpoint. The difference is the beliefs of the two DA's responsible for prosecuting said cases. I have posted a link to the article stating the position of the Barnstable DA regarding the Bolduc case.

 

[Half Cocked]

Well take a look at Florida's storage laws:

Yup..... but I am not talking about what they could/should be.. I am talking about what they are in MA.

 

[Half Cocked]

I don't put OUI (an "active" action) in the same category as storing a gun (a "passive" action). Unless one believes that the gun is magically going to move itself, load and fire itself because it's not locked up.

They are both crimes in and of themselves whether someone get's hurt or not.... that is my only point.

 

[n1oty]

My point is that the elements of the law do not require anything other than the gun being unsecured.... the law does not require a further action be made with the firearm.

Both Runyan and Bolduc violated this..... there is no difference between the two cases from a legal standpoint. The difference is the beliefs of the two DA's responsible for prosecuting said cases. I have posted a link to the article stating the position of the Barnstable DA regarding the Bolduc case.

I and, I am reasonably certain, most others on this board KNOW the elements of the crime. My comments were a corollary to GSG's comments. My comments were made in order to show that the purpose of the MA storage laws have no basis in reality, nor are they applied equally in the Commonwealth. As such, my comments were about current policy and the current application of the statutes. If you believe that I do not know the elements that constitute this "crime", you are wrong. Furthermore, the discussion was revolving around whether the storage laws enhance safety or not. I understood Scrivener's position as advocating that it does enhance safety, where I took GSG's comments to reflect my own that the storage laws do NOT enhance safety. Furthermore, as GSG eloquently stated, there are far greater dangers to children than firearms.

 

[Scrivener]

Yup..... but I am not talking about what they could/should be.. I am talking about what they are in MA.

Well, there you go again - confusing a thread with relevance.

 

[Half Cocked]

My comments were made in order to show that the purpose of the MA storage laws have no basis in reality

How so?

nor are they applied equally in the Commonwealth.

No different than a lot of other laws. There are many laws that are prosecuted differently from County to County depending on the DA's office.

 

[GSG]

And the MGLs apply even when no minor has access to the home. If everyone in the house is licensed, shouldn't that be sufficient?

While I'm bothered by the storage laws in general, this is a very upsetting part of it. If the household is licensed in Mass. then they're trained, experienced, not legally prohibited (well in a perfect world they are anyway ), so the guns need to be locked up because...? It's a blanket law that doesn't take life into account.

Yup..... but I am not talking about what they could/should be.. I am talking about what they are in MA.

We're talking about storage laws, you referenced OUI and it being a crime whether or not someone was hurt. I referenced a set of state laws where "safe storage" isn't violated unless there's a crime comitted. Just pointing out that there's reasonable laws on the books in places that doesn't result in blood running in the streets.