Massachusetts law concerning the presence of a firearm in the home for home defense?

Big Daddy 45acp said:
As I understand the law, I am commiting a felony if I happen to fall asleep on the couch with my Glock 21 on my hip. As I am asleep, the firearm is not under my "direct control".

Has the phrase "direct control" ever been legally defined? Or is it still left open for interpretation?
Click to expand...

Big Daddy, after meeting you earlier this week, I'd sooner tangle with a grizzly bear than try to get your Glock 21 from you while you were asleep!

C-X
 
Seriosly though- I have to believe that the laws were written in such a way that the phrase "under the control" is vague almost intentionally (IMHO). As I sit here typing this I have a G26 IWB and my K9 next to me on the chair. Now I would argue both are under my "control" but if I was to suffer a heart attack like Scrivener's client the control is lost and my license can be revoked. Control doesn't necessarily mean contact, but it doesn't imply how much "authority over something" is needed.

When I'm cleaning my guns I often do so many at a time... sometimes I need to use the bathroom during these tasks... is it reasonable to expect someone to bring all parts into the bathroom?

Don't get me wrong I'm in no way, shape or form intending to imply that people should exhibit illegal behavior.. but MA laws make it so that "technically" it's VERY easy to break the damn laws.
 
At least back in the days when I started with the PD part-time, many officers on the mids would hide the cruisers at the F&G club, behind churches/community center and one officer used to be in plain-view in the square (a required post 24hrs/day), and frequently they would take a snooze. [The one in the square got reported a few times.] Under today's interpretation of the 1998 law (this all happened years earlier), they could be charged with "illegal storage" for not being in control of their weapon! I think not!

I don't doubt that some chiefs will try to persecute someone for sleeping with a gun . . . I just don't see this as a "reasonable" read of the law. IANAL and I'm sure that some anti-gun judges would push this hard, but in many cases you can count on a chief pulling the LTC . . . even if the person carrying doesn't fall asleep but suffers a heart attack and is unable to "store" the gun properly before being carted off to the hospital. This is just further proof that the "suitability" aspect is totally out of control in MA!
 
Len-2A Training said:
For others benefit, as I just spoke with the OP.

- Guns must all be locked at all times when not under direct control of licensed person.

- May be legal to lock with round chambered, but not a smart thing to do. Better to train with the Israeli method of carry/loading for safety reasons.

- AR trigger guard can easily be opened, I am told (I just looked at both of mine and it appears you need to use a punch), so some will question the legality. I have done this and would continue to do so if necessary, but consider it a gray area in light of the recent court ruling (key to house and keeping guns "ultra secure").
Click to expand...
Recent court ruling? Can you post a link? Tia
 
drgrant said:
You don't want a loaded gun with a trigger lock... bad news.

Technically, that might be legal, but practically speaking its a dumb
idea. Trigger locks suck, and are often hard to remove in an
emergency.

Get a container thats lockable (eg a gun safe, or gun cabinet, or a fast
action safe). That definitely qualifies the letter of the law AND makes it
easier to deal with.

-Mike
Click to expand...

This is excellent advice, as far as it goes. I would add:

The world of cabinets, boxes and the like marketed for storing firearms fall into two general categories: those that meet the letter of the law for storage at home but provide no real security, and those that provide a measure of real security. The former include anything employing a wafer lock, a tubular lock, a solenoid lock, or the four-pin cores typical of Master padlocks and virtually all of the flex cable "gun locks" provided with new pistols.

A common strategy is to "secure" one nightstand pistol in a lockbox, but really secure all the rest in a real safe that employs a mechanical Sargent & Greenleaf combination lock. Such real safes are expensive, cumbersome to acquire and have delivered, and require periodic inspection/servicing by a real safe shop, but if you want real security, such is life.

As for the nightstand box, I strongly advise folks to avoid biometrics, which as a class display a frightening frequency of both false positives and, worse, false negatives. Get a one that uses a sequential button push lock that uses a motor (versus a solenoid) to actuate the lock bar.

The nightstand pistol can legally be stored loaded in such a box; whether that is a tactically sound idea is up to the individual user.
 
Is this not a clear cut, no grey area, violation/conflict with the HELLER ruling? I.e. now that Heller is passed, can we ignore this and sleep easy knowing that if we ever got brought up on charges for it, there is a clear legal path to overturning the mass storage law as it pertains to handguns in the home? I suppose to be clear, you would want to "properly" store rifles, but let handguns be accessible, to comply with Heller?
 
Atlantis said:
Is this not a clear cut, no grey area, violation/conflict with the HELLER ruling? I.e. now that Heller is passed, can we ignore this and sleep easy knowing that if we ever got brought up on charges for it, there is a clear legal path to overturning the mass storage law as it pertains to handguns in the home? I suppose to be clear, you would want to "properly" store rifles, but let handguns be accessible, to comply with Heller?
Click to expand...


Massachusetts state courts have ruled that the safe Massachusetts statute requiring safe storage does not conflict with constitutional right to maintain a firearm for self defense within the home that is protected by the 2d amendment because the Massachusetts statute is more permissive than the Washington DC ordinance that was found to be unconstitutional. (See Commonwealth v. Runyan, SJC 2010)
 
JAD said:
Massachusetts state courts have ruled that the safe Massachusetts statute requiring safe storage does not conflict with constitutional right to maintain a firearm for self defense within the home that is protected by the 2d amendment because the Massachusetts statute is more permissive than the Washington DC ordinance that was found to be unconstitutional. (See Commonwealth v. Runyan, SJC 2010)
Click to expand...

And if you were to lose a case on the grounds of that precedent, could it not be appealed up to a Federal court? Would that be a tough argument to win?
 
This may be one of the best Necro Revivals in the history of NES.

Sad thing is, I'd read the original and I haven't been here that long.

Don't Stop Believing Friends. 2020 will let us go.
 
Atlantis said:
And if you were to lose a case on the grounds of that precedent, could it not be appealed up to a Federal court? Would that be a tough argument to win?
Click to expand...

The SJC ruling in Runyan was written in a way that was intended to take direct aim at likely challenges had it been appealed (e.g. by addressing questions such as the individual right, establishment, and the history of safe storage laws going back to the colonial era). Here is a really interesting article about that analyzes the Runyan ruling: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3210&context=bclr

Why would anybody choose to engage in a behavior that state precedent indicates will be upheld, so they can make an appeal to a federal court (i.e. SCOTUS) that has the option to hear or decline to hear cases at its sole discretion, when indicators point to the law that is being challenged as constitutional-- in a day and age when when convenient/effective/compliant safe storage solutions are available for less than what a lawyer would charge for a consultation? (Hint: Anybody putting themselves in that position would be making a really dumb decision.)
 

Similar threads

duty to retreat in home
2
Replies
38
Views
868
WJ406
W
How do the new laws affect face to face ammo sales in MA?
Replies
14
Views
623
zboys
zboys
Borrowing a firearm.
Replies
11
Views
552
houdini
houdini
LTC massachusetts medical questions
Replies
25
Views
397
juuliyattt
J
New law: who voted For / Against
Replies
7
Views
287
jek
jek
Back
Top Bottom