Middlesex DA to challeng Heller based ruling

[appraiser]

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_11817932

what an azzhole

OWELL -- Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone is challenging a Lowell District Court ruling -- and a U.S. Supreme Court decision -- that could put less responsibility on gun owners to secure their weapons when not in use and in storage.

Leone is directing prosecutors to fight, in state Appeals Court, the dismissal of a gun-storage case against a Billerica man who kept an unlocked semiautomatic hunting rifle under his bed where it could be accessed by his teenage son.

"Gun-storage laws are put in place to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands and to protect people from accidental shootings, particularly children,'' Leone said.

"In this case, we argue that current Massachusetts law works to assure that firearms are secured so that only the registered owner can use it, and that it does so without infringing on a person's Second Amendment rights," he added. "We believe that this is a fundamental issue of firearm and child safety, and we will continue to present our arguments to the courts."

 

[JonJ]

He's bucking for AG. Martha "raised" him.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

Maybe if azzholes like Leone would promote safe firearm instruction for kids instead of making it a crime to have easy access in the event a parent, oh, I dunno...let's say...NEEDS IT IN A FRIGGIN EMERGENCY, we wouldn't have to worry about "protecting the children". I didn't grow up in MA, thank Christ. My father kept a loaded .45 in his bedroom & it never dawned on me to touch it without him being there or else lose half my ass. Safe instruction + good parenting = very few problems.

Always chasing down the wrong thing, these mf'n anti-gun liberals.

 

[pdm]

This ought to be fun.

 

[hikerlt]

how many Taxpayer's dollars will be continue to be wasted trying to distort and get around the constitution.

 

[firestorm]

Forgive me if im being stupid, but if this appeal goes to the state court, and is upheld. (Heller is affirmed) Then wouldnt that set very good precedent for us wrt safe storage laws? If the DA loses, then it might allow people to fight the safe storage laws with a precident in this state.

 

[pdm]

Forgive me if im being stupid, but if this appeal goes to the state court, and is upheld. (Heller is affirmed) Then wouldnt that set very good precedent for us wrt safe storage laws? If the DA loses, then it might allow people to fight the safe storage laws with a precident in this state.

Yes, it would set binding precedent in that district. But they could also overturn the District Court.

 

[firestorm]

True, it is a risk either way. But in light of Heller one would hope that they were sent packing and the law could be overturned. Of course, this is mass, so probably this is going to bite us in the ass rather than help.

 

[cekim]

MA BS laws need to be challenged one way or the other...

So, I say go for it...

 

[Cross-X]

We need better facts before we take a case up on appeal.

 

[pdm]

We need better facts before we take a case up on appeal.

I couldn't find the district court opinion on the internet.

 

[Admin]

Gerard Leone is exactly why this country is going down the toilet.

 

[Len-2A Training]

He's bucking for AG. Martha "raised" him.

Exactly what I was thinking!

Yes, it would set binding precedent in that district. But they could also overturn the District Court.

Given this is MA and I don't believe that the judiciary is unbiased, I don't have the faith in this battle.

Of course, this is mass, so probably this is going to bite us in the ass rather than help.

Exactly!

We need better facts before we take a case up on appeal.

Yes, and preferably NOT with kids in the house that get into trouble with the gun. A clean case of "adults only", and all with LTCs would be a much better test case . . . they couldn't use the argument that it could fall into "unauthorized hands" in that case.

 

[RKG]

The challenged ruling will be reversed:

1) Per Pressman, the 2d Amendment does not apply to the states (unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise); and

2) Unlike the situation in Heller, Massachusetts law allows a licensee to keep his weapon at his side, and therefore satisfies the "ready availability" test of Heller.

 

[terraformer]

The challenged ruling will be reversed:

1) Per Pressman, the 2d Amendment does not apply to the states (unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise); and

2) Unlike the situation in Heller, Massachusetts law allows a licensee to keep his weapon at his side, and therefore satisfies the "ready availability" test of Heller.

The nighttime/sleep scenario would be nice to see challenged though...

 

[Len-2A Training]

The nighttime/sleep scenario would be nice to see challenged though...

Or the cop sleeping in his cruiser!

 

[firestorm]

If it is overturned, and he is reindicted (not sure if thats the word im looking for) can he appeal it to a higher court, thereby maybe forcing the issue up the chain?

 

[GSG]

LenS, I agree with you, and it doesn't help that the gun was found during the investigation of a "shooting" (yes, it was a BB gun, but try explaining that to the Brady Bunch).

The nighttime/sleep scenario would be nice to see challenged though...

Yeah it would. I think that's the gun owners best bet to get changed based on Heller here in Mass., since not many moonbats would support allowing someone to keep a dedicated home defense gun unlocked 24/7.

 

[Len-2A Training]

LenS, I agree with you, and it doesn't help that the gun was found during the investigation of a "shooting" (yes, it was a BB gun, but try explaining that to the Brady Bunch).

You mean that they were trying to convict on improper storage of a BB GUN??

That's not covered in the MA storage law, as it is not legally considered a "gun". Unreal if true.

 

[GSG]

You mean that they were trying to convict on improper storage of a BB GUN??

That's not covered in the MA storage law, as it is not legally considered a "gun". Unreal if true.

No no, sorry for any misunderstanding, I'll attempt to clarify.

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_11817932

The case took root from a routine police response to a call on April 1 that BBs were being shot through a window of a Billerica home at 7 Fernwood Road.

Upon arrival, Billerica officers noted a side window of a house at 9 Fernwood Road being closed by a young man.

After speaking to William Durant, the homeowner at 7 Fernwood, the officers went next door and spoke to Alexander Runyan, the 18-year-old son of Richard Runyan. Alexander has Down syndrome and was alone in the house that day.

Alexander took the officers to his bedroom, where they discovered a Daisy BB gun in his closet. Officers saw that the teen's bedroom window directly faces the kitchen window at 7 Fernwood where Durant was washing dishes when he was shot with BB pellets.

According to police reports, the teen admitted to officers that he shot at his neighbor's window.

Police confiscated the BB gun and, upon questioning Alexander, learned that other guns were in the house. Police said Alexander took the officers to his father's bedroom, where they found a 12-gauge shotgun and a semiautomatic hunting rifle under the bed.

Police said the shotgun had its trigger lock in place, but the hunting rifle did not. Both weapons were seized by police.

 

[GSG]

Although a later quote from the same article is something that doesn't help him out too much either:

Police said they later discovered that Richard Runyan's Firearm Identification Card had expired in September 2005.

On April 2, police filed a complaint in Lowell District Court charging Richard Runyan with improper storage of a firearm and possession of a firearm without a valid FID card. On Aug. 14, Runyan filed a motion to dismiss the charges, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Although I'm wondering about something else from the article as well:

Alexander has Down syndrome and was alone in the house that day.

and

That is especially true in the Billerica case, prosecutors explained, where Runyan's son, who police believed to be severely handicapped, not only knew where his father kept additional guns, but had easy access to, and the potential use of, an unsecured and operable firearm.

Yes, he's 18 years old, so he's legally an adult, but can someone who the police believe to be "severely handicapped" legally grant access to search, or even be held accountable for his actions? I've never heard of any cases (especially WRT firearms) where this has come up before.

Legal eagles, feel free to insert your thoughts.

 

[Number 6]

EXACTLY!! So next time you hear about what a budget emergency we're in and how some poor old veteran froze to death in his own house, or some special needs child doesn't get the proper care he needs or the music arts teacher got laid off...remember taking a case like this to the appeals stage is probably going to cost north of $500,000.

Just the government saying they value appeals like this more than midnight basketball and new curtains for the Gov's office....oh wait...the Gov DID get new cutains.

how many Taxpayer's dollars will be continue to be wasted trying to distort and get around the constitution.

 

[Len-2A Training]

GSG, IANAL, but I believe that questioning someone with Downs Syndrome (my late Sister had this) w/o legal representation/guardian/parent present should not be allowed to stand (fruits from the poisoned tree).

I'd be interested to hear what the attorneys think of this, leaving any issues about firearms aside for the moment. RKG? Darius?

 

[GSG]

GSG, IANAL, but I believe that questioning someone with Downs Syndrome (my late Sister had this) w/o legal representation/guardian/parent present should not be allowed to stand (fruits from the poisoned tree).

I'd be interested to hear what the attorneys think of this, leaving any issues about firearms aside for the moment. RKG? Darius?

I remember reading a lot about the Fells Acre daycare case, and how after the issues they had with that LEO's were only allowed to question young children in very limited circumstances, but I have no idea what the standards are for the mentally challenged.

 

[terraformer]

GSG, IANAL, but I believe that questioning someone with Downs Syndrome (my late Sister had this) w/o legal representation/guardian/parent present should not be allowed to stand (fruits from the poisoned tree).

I'd be interested to hear what the attorneys think of this, leaving any issues about firearms aside for the moment. RKG? Darius?

I agree with this and I would have used this as the basis for dismissal before I would have used Heller given what little I know about the machinations of law.

Oh, and sadly, I actually lock up the BB guns I have in the same safe I keep my shotguns and cheaper long guns.

 

[LoginName]

The challenged ruling will be reversed:

1) Per Pressman, the 2d Amendment does not apply to the states (unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise); and


I think a lot of gun owners overlook that fact.

Until the SCOTUS rules/incorporates that the 2nd amendment applies to the states, the Heller case is pretty much meaningless in MA and other anti-rkba states.

It might not be wise or prudent for MA to continue to uphold (or passing more gun control laws), some of laws challenged in Heller, but doing the correct and smart thing has never been a hallmark with our legislature, government officials and judges.

 

[cekim]

I think a lot of gun owners overlook that fact.

I think few understand it. Not a matter of "overlooking"...

That said, bad facts or not, it is actually a good thing if the anti states press the issues. Increases the chances of a case with "good facts" making its way up the food chain to have the incorporation issue heard...

 

[Another_David]

my 2 cents

It's an interesting case. My main question is does the defendant have a lawyer?

Legally it's not as clear cut as the article would imply. The 'teenage child' is really an adult. When Mass says it wants to protect children are they referring to 40 yo adults too? Everyone is someone's child. (sadly I think they are)

I'm inclined to think the judge had a reason to dismiss the storage charge and the article has omitted that reason. I'm also inclined to think the state is picking this case to go after because they smell an easy win because of a weak defendant.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that other storage case of recent that cited Heller. That would have been the more legally logical test case: child was underage, did access the gun, and the gun was a handgun--not rifle.

 

[Spanz]

Might this be a precedence setting case? I sure hope so. The case of the idiot cop on Cape Cod did nothing to further our cause.

Is this guy a chowderhead for leaving an unlocked rifle where a mental defective can get at it? Sure is!

If a father has either 1) not trained his children in safe firearms handling, or 2) judges that the children are not mature enough (too young, mental defective, suicidal, on anti depressants, etc) to be trained, he has a moral, legal, and comon sense duty to lock up the guns! And I am not just talking about Mass.

I hope he does not just get off due to an illegal search of the premises! I hope a legal precedent for storing the guns in the house ready and available for use is made instead.

BTW, my heart does go out to him as the father of an downs syndrom adult. That must be a rough deal day-in and day-out.

 

[pdm]

Incorporation might get considered by SCOTUS: linky