Mass safe storage law

[40 Creedmoor fan]

The first highlighted statement is obviously true, as the second highlighted statement in just plain wrong under MGL.

How? Point us to the law.

P.S. How is it that THE SAME meaning of two sentences creates such a difference in reaction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How? Point us to the law.

P.S. How is it that THE SAME meaning of two sentences creates such a difference in reaction.

I think it's MGl Chapter 140 Section 131L.

It is well established in MA that a 'house' alone is not a secured container, and that the secure container requirement is NOT triggered by an unlicensed person being in the house. The Pastera case makes no mention of the presence of unlicensed persons being an issue when deciding that the privacy lock on a bedroom door does not render the room a secured container, and it's reference to "all but the most motivated" contains no exclusion that would render the house a "secure container".

Statements such as the one I quoted are incorrect and often occur when people think themselves qualified to determine what is lawful based on just reading the law. A great example is the allowance of carrying guns on postal property "incident to lawful purposes" does not include the lawful purpose of carrying a gun on postal property with the exception of things like hunters who walk onto postal land. Even Glidden's opinion in an earlier edition of his classic tome on MA gun law was rendered inaccurate by a federal court decision on that issue. Another is how the feds determined that organized shooting competitions using guns with > 10 round magazines are not a 'legitimate sporting purpose" like traditional target shooting and hunting.

Most on NES know how to spot such nonsense, but it could be dangerous to someone's legal welfare if they came here looking for advice and believed your claim.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I think it's MGl Chapter 140 Section 131L.

I stand corrected on storage.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I stand corrected on storage.

Just remember you are dealing with laws that define a firearm as a handgun, but only allow possession of low capacity long guns (which are not firearms under MA law) with a MA "Firearms Identification Card".

 

[tuna]

I used to store my hunting guns in a “safe”. (Cheap cabinet).

My home defense guns had a trigger lock on them, unlocked. If I locked them I’d be legal, but it defeats the point of HD guns.

It’d be fast enough to secure them if kids/cops came over and I had 30 seconds warning. I’d be screwed during a raid, but that’s a given.

I karma’d a cabinet when I moved to NH and use the last one for hunting guns. The rest are around the house, loaded and unlocked and legal.

 

[AHM]

So sure, a cable lock on your handgun is "enough" because it is more than is required. You can legally throw unloaded handguns around your car like skittles. Now when you park you had better meet storage so that cable lock helps...

If you don't "park",
but jump in and out of the vehicle
while the driver just orbits in the parking lot
it's still "transport", right?

That still talks about class A and B.
This is from Mass.gov - seems to be pretty clear that a locked container is needed if not under direct control while traveling.

Consider the alternative:

"In a locked container yet under direct control".
While traveling.

Cop at the traffic stop sez,
"is that an entire Pelican case in your pocket,
or are you just really glad to see me?".

P.S. That's effectively a "Fish and Game Glossy Pamphlet" -
not the actual statute. Cite at your own risk.

The mass.gov site you linked is nothing more than some politicians or bureaucrats summarizing what they think the law means or what they think they can tell you the law means that they want you to do. What matters is MGL. ...

^^^^^ This is spot on. Relying on ANYTHING posted on the state website re gun law, if it isn't a direct quote of the law, is very likely to be incorrect/out of date/just an opinion of a bureaucrat with no authority to make law . . . DO NOT rely upon it as fact.

If I relied upon that kind of crap,
I would have had to install halon fire suppression systems in our kayaks
in case we paddled somewhere with a hiking stove stuffed into a cargo compartment.

Just remember you are dealing with laws that define a firearm as a handgun, but only allow possession of low capacity long guns (which are not firearms under most MA laws) with a MA "Firearms Identification Card".

FTFY.

Not every occurrence of the term "firearm" in Mass laws
uses the definition in Ch. 140 §121.

That definition applies to Ch. 140 §§122-131Y,
plus any other law which cites §121.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you don't "park",
but jump in and out of the vehicle
while the driver just orbits in the parking lot
it's still "transport", right?

Well, sitting behind the wheel of a parked car with the keys in your pocket while drunk counts as "driving" for OUI purposes.

 

[groundscrapers]

That still talks about class A and B.

This is from Mass.gov - seems to be pretty clear that a locked container is needed if not under direct control while traveling.

Gun ownership in Massachusetts

Massachusetts residents 15 years and older who wish to possess, carry, and transport firearms, ammunition, and feeding devices are required to have a firearms license. Firearms licenses are issued by municipal police departments.

www.mass.gov

View attachment 566944

often the states quips about law don't match or even align with the law as written. I always go by the letter of the law because that is what you would be judged by, not a blog post on their website by a summer intern.

 

[groundscrapers]

^^^^^ This is spot on. Relying on ANYTHING posted on the state website re gun law, if it isn't a direct quote of the law, is very likely to be incorrect/out of date/just an opinion of a bureaucrat with no authority to make law . . . DO NOT rely upon it as fact.

Even goal fell victim to this on the recommendation of TSA locks for travel.

 

[G4Y4HK]

Well, sitting behind the wheel of a parked car with the keys in your pocket while drunk counts as "driving" for OUI purposes.

If a cop wanted to be a real big dick, he could nab someone riding a bicycle while drunk for DUI.

 

[apander]

Sometimes, NO, all the times some NES'ers overthink the laws of Ma., do they invite Mara over for rug-muchin ? Who cares, I have lived in Ma. for 42 years and never had a problem and haven't asked for one !

 

[AHM]

Well, sitting behind the wheel of a parked car with the keys in your pocket while drunk counts as "driving" for OUI purposes.

Need to troll with a car that's missing its distributor cap or something.

If a cop wanted to be a real big dick, he could nab someone riding a bicycle while drunk for DUI.

Must happen every month at least.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

often the states quips about law don't match or even align with the law as written. I always go by the letter of the law because that is what you would be judged by, not a blog post on their website by a summer intern.

But, if an official of the state tells you something is legal, you do it based on that representation, and get prosecuted you have the basis for an entrapment by estoppel defense. But, it does not work across the state/fed jurisidictional like - a state official giving you bad advise about federal law or vice versa is not the basis for such a defense.

 

[MAJoe]

Even goal fell victim to this on the recommendation of TSA locks for travel.

What’s up with TSA locks?

 

[Sparky123]

Here in Massachusetts, you can't be too safe. I not only use the trigger lock but I put my pistol in a safe and then in a bigger safe, and I keep the safes in a locked room in a house with an alarm system. Gee........ do you think that's enough to comply with the law or should I have an electric fence around my house.

 

[groundscrapers]

What’s up with TSA locks?

no bueno for flying with guns

Per 49 CFR 1540 "The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger retains the key or combination."

so if tsa has the key you don't comply with the law as written.

 

[groundscrapers]

But, if an official of the state tells you something is legal, you do it based on that representation, and get prosecuted you have the basis for an entrapment by estoppel defense. But, it does not work across the state/fed jurisidictional like - a state official giving you bad advise about federal law or vice versa is not the basis for such a defense.

I can't wrap my head around why they just don't cite the relevant statutes vs trying to put their spin on them.... like if the law is too hard to understand than change the verbiage.

this brings me back to my second thought I had lastnight which is we have too many laws. We should pretend that 90% of the police force walked off the job and we needed to tell the remaining 10% which laws were the most important for them to focus on. Those are the laws we need and the rest could go away.

 

[MAJoe]

no bueno for flying with guns

Per 49 CFR 1540 "The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger retains the key or combination."

so if tsa has the key you don't comply with the law as written.

Ahhh gotcha, thanks. I thought you meant with regard to MA storage or transport.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I can't wrap my head around why they just don't cite the relevant statutes vs trying to put their spin on them.... like if the law is too hard to understand than change the verbiage.

this brings me back to my second thought I had lastnight which is we have too many laws. We should pretend that 90% of the police force walked off the job and we needed to tell the remaining 10% which laws were the most important for them to focus on. Those are the laws we need and the rest could go away.

A starting point would be to allow no new law unless an existing law of similar size were removed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

often the states quips about law don't match or even align with the law as written. I always go by the letter of the law because that is what you would be judged by, not a blog post on their website by a summer intern.

The system does not always follow the letter of the law, so you need to know how it works as well.

For example, the courts have decided that legal concealed carry is not a "lawful purpose" for the purposes of "incidental to lawful purposes" in the post office ban.

The system, as backed up by the courts, has decided that formal practical shooting competition is not a "legitimate sporting purposes" for the purpose of ATFs interpretation of that term federal law.

And then there are "unliked" laws in the gun owners favor that are ignored - like the de-facto expansion of the school carry ban beyond what is stated in the law.

 

[Uzi2]

"Safe Storage" my fvcking ass......the only thing I'm trying to keep safe is me and my family and that is NOT going to happen when guns are locked up.

I couldn't care less if a gun is stolen, but I do/would care immensely if I didn't have immediate access to a loaded gun in the event of a home invasion.

 

[AHM]

Here in Massachusetts, you can't be too safe. I not only use the trigger lock but I put my pistol in a safe and then in a bigger safe, and I keep the safes in a locked room in a house with an alarm system. Gee........ do you think that's enough to comply with the law or should I have an electric fence around my house.

Ahhh gotcha, thanks. I thought you meant with regard to MA storage or transport.

Airlines are common carriers.

While in general they're highly regulated,
it's astonishing how swaths of gun laws
just don't seem to apply to them.

Ya know, I'm surprised that some NESer
hasn't tried to wallhack that somehow.

Say, claim that their school bus conversion RV
identifies as a UPS truck.

@FrugalFannie

 

[AHM]

A starting point would be to allow no new law unless an existing law of similar size were removed.

(I only now see that there is no known use
of the precise quote predating 1980's Western Cold War analysts;
but let that go).

 

[Lank]

^^^^^ This is spot on. Relying on ANYTHING posted on the state website re gun law, if it isn't a direct quote of the law, is very likely to be incorrect/out of date/just an opinion of a bureaucrat with no authority to make law . . . DO NOT rely upon it as fact.

This is correct. Mass.gov websites usually direct you to the statehouse book store for copies of regs