I have a locked room that is not accessible by anyone other than me. I consider it a “container” but who can determine the size of a locked container under this law? It is not some cheap door handle with a hole that you can jab a nail or paper clip into to release the latch. Any thoughts guys?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
What constitutes a “locked container” under the gun storage laws?
- Thread starter DJBrad
- Start date
I would not want to be on the wrong end of that argument for the cost of a trigger lock, which is all it would take ( IMHO IANAL ) to satisfy the letter of the law.
I think it is a stretch to call a secured room a container
General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131L
I think it is a stretch to call a secured room a container
General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131L
My opinion, not law.... but in MA if I were building " a room to put guns in" I wouldn't settle for anything less than something that would require a torch, jackhammer or explosives to get into, lol. A friend of mine
has that in MA... but yet he still has locking cabinets inside the secured storage, just in case.
-Mike
has that in MA... but yet he still has locking cabinets inside the secured storage, just in case.
-Mike
I think the terminology the courts have used is "thwart all but the most persistent". For whatever that is worth to you. I'm with Drgrant on this one.
The "most" persistent would be people who bring dedicated burglary tools. Cutting torches, big ass pry bars, other power tools like maybe a sawzall, etc.
If a couple of thugs can kick in a door, then that's not stopping "all but the most persistent" IMHO...
The "most" persistent would be people who bring dedicated burglary tools. Cutting torches, big ass pry bars, other power tools like maybe a sawzall, etc.
If a couple of thugs can kick in a door, then that's not stopping "all but the most persistent" IMHO...
Oddly enough there's precedent and direct verbiage from the court saying a glass-door gun cabinet is adequate.
Wouldn't think that by reading the law, though.
inkdesigner
NES Member
Was'nt there some former cop somewhere in MA that was recently convicted of multiple firearms related charges, including improper storage? I recall that even though the weapons in question appeared to be properly secured based on the news reports and how folks here at NES read the law, he was somehow still found guilty because the locks were reported by the PD to be flimsy/inadequate/easy to break even though they were indeed trigger locks (similar to what every FFL provides when you buy a gun). I sorta remember this because there was debate here and it was pointed out that nowhere in MGL is ir stated as to what the quality of the lock must be.
Kicker96FS
NES Member
Does the same apply to your reloading room? No firearms, just components, locked room.
It was the Ed Fleury case, and the staties used crowbars and other tools to break into the attic where he had stored some guns. For what it's worth, it was a Northampton judge and jury in a region where his prior case surrounding the death of an 8-year-old at a machine gun shoot had ended in a not guilty verdict after months of screaming headlines. But that case might provide a prosecutor with precedent if the quality of your locks ever became an issue.
EddieZoom
NES Member
My Home Is My Castle...
My Castle Will Repel All But The Most Determined Intruders...
I May Have Guns In My Castle...
...I'm sorry, I forgot what point I was trying to make here ;-)
It's exhausting to try to "do the right thing" and be on good guy side of these f'ed up MA laws. Mostly because deep down we all know they can make most of them go *for* or *against* you depending on the circumstances.
My Castle Will Repel All But The Most Determined Intruders...
I May Have Guns In My Castle...
...I'm sorry, I forgot what point I was trying to make here ;-)
It's exhausting to try to "do the right thing" and be on good guy side of these f'ed up MA laws. Mostly because deep down we all know they can make most of them go *for* or *against* you depending on the circumstances.
That quote is not from a criminal case, but from a *civil* case where the family of a cop who was killed by a gun that they believe was insufficiently protected from theft sued for wrongful death.
Note that the craptastic trigger locks you get with every gun purchase fulfill the requirements of safe storage.
I'd really love to have a reference to that case. Can you remember enough so I can google for it?
AHM
NES Member
You can't booby-trap per se the door to your gun storage room,
but if you line the hallway with some Chompers,
odds are the warrant squad won't try to breach the door.
No it was a criminal case. IIRC a 18 yo stole the guns from the locked bedroom (lock was cheesy bathroom push-pin lock) and they convicted the live-in boyfriend of the 18 yo's mother.
Comm. v. Parzick (2005) 835 N.E.2d 1171, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 846, review denied 848 N.E.2d 1212
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 639
- Likes
- 808
I would offer up if the lock can be found on the MSP approved list you might have a fighting chance before even a marsupial judge.
Of late I have been getting handed little red plastic affairs with a two pin spanner type "key". It would be difficult for anyone to consider them locks.
This is what I am using minimum.
Of late I have been getting handed little red plastic affairs with a two pin spanner type "key". It would be difficult for anyone to consider them locks.
This is what I am using minimum.
Last edited:
nstassel
NES Member
This is the basic state of the law from Commonwealth v. Reyes, 464 Mass. 245 (2013):
the "locked container" must make the firearm "secure." See Commonwealth v. Parzick, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 846, 850 (2005); State v. Wilchinski, 242 Conn. 211, 225 (1997) (construing "secure" to mean "preventing minors from gaining access to guns and on preventing them from being able to misuse the weapon"). In this regard, we agree with the Appeals Court that, as a general proposition, to be secure, "guns [must] be maintained in locked containers in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." Commonwealth v. Parzick, supra (door lock that was easily defeatable by using "bobby pin" did not prevent access to unauthorized persons other than owner and therefore was "not secure"). At a minimum, to be secure, any qualifying container must be capable of being unlocked only by means of a key, combination, or other similar means. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34)(C) (2006) (requiring "secure gun storage or safety device" be designed to unlock only by means of key, combination, or other similar means). Beyond this requirement, the types of containers that might qualify are plainly varied. Although not enumerated in the storage statute itself, several types of qualifying containers are identified in other Massachusetts and Federal statutes regulating the storage of firearms. These provisions provide significant guidance on the subject, and we can presume that gun owners are familiar with them because in order to obtain either a firearm identification card or a license to carry a firearm in Massachusetts, a prospective gun owner must receive a basic firearm safety certificate after completing a course approved by the colonel of the State police. The curriculum of that course must cover "(a) the safe use, handling and storage of firearms; (b) methods for securing and childproofing firearms; (c) applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage of firearms; and (d) knowledge of the operation, potential dangers and basic competency in the ownership and usage of firearms" (emphasis added). G. L. c. 140, § 131P (b).
Statutory and regulatory references to acceptable containers include safes, weapon boxes, locked cabinets, gun cases, lock boxes, and locked trunks of vehicles. A leading secondary source, Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law (20th ed. [*254] 2012), published by the Municipal Police Institute, Inc., states that a securely locked container can include a soft gun case secured with a padlock, "as well as an expensive gun safe," and that even "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked." Id. at 93. Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977)
[omitted language related to whether a locked car is a locked container] A contextual reading of these statutory provisions, focused particularly on firearms in motor vehicles, leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not consider a locked motor vehicle itself to be a secure container for the storage of firearms.
This does not resolve whether a locked glove compartment might be adequate under the storage statute. We are of the view that it might depending on the particular factual circumstances including the nature of the locking mechanism, whether the motor vehicle was also locked and alarmed, and ultimately whether in the circumstances it was adequate to "deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." This is a question of fact, properly decided by the fact finder at trial.
the "locked container" must make the firearm "secure." See Commonwealth v. Parzick, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 846, 850 (2005); State v. Wilchinski, 242 Conn. 211, 225 (1997) (construing "secure" to mean "preventing minors from gaining access to guns and on preventing them from being able to misuse the weapon"). In this regard, we agree with the Appeals Court that, as a general proposition, to be secure, "guns [must] be maintained in locked containers in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." Commonwealth v. Parzick, supra (door lock that was easily defeatable by using "bobby pin" did not prevent access to unauthorized persons other than owner and therefore was "not secure"). At a minimum, to be secure, any qualifying container must be capable of being unlocked only by means of a key, combination, or other similar means. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34)(C) (2006) (requiring "secure gun storage or safety device" be designed to unlock only by means of key, combination, or other similar means). Beyond this requirement, the types of containers that might qualify are plainly varied. Although not enumerated in the storage statute itself, several types of qualifying containers are identified in other Massachusetts and Federal statutes regulating the storage of firearms. These provisions provide significant guidance on the subject, and we can presume that gun owners are familiar with them because in order to obtain either a firearm identification card or a license to carry a firearm in Massachusetts, a prospective gun owner must receive a basic firearm safety certificate after completing a course approved by the colonel of the State police. The curriculum of that course must cover "(a) the safe use, handling and storage of firearms; (b) methods for securing and childproofing firearms; (c) applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage of firearms; and (d) knowledge of the operation, potential dangers and basic competency in the ownership and usage of firearms" (emphasis added). G. L. c. 140, § 131P (b).
Statutory and regulatory references to acceptable containers include safes, weapon boxes, locked cabinets, gun cases, lock boxes, and locked trunks of vehicles. A leading secondary source, Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law (20th ed. [*254] 2012), published by the Municipal Police Institute, Inc., states that a securely locked container can include a soft gun case secured with a padlock, "as well as an expensive gun safe," and that even "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked." Id. at 93. Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732, 734 (1977)
[omitted language related to whether a locked car is a locked container] A contextual reading of these statutory provisions, focused particularly on firearms in motor vehicles, leads us to conclude that the Legislature did not consider a locked motor vehicle itself to be a secure container for the storage of firearms.
This does not resolve whether a locked glove compartment might be adequate under the storage statute. We are of the view that it might depending on the particular factual circumstances including the nature of the locking mechanism, whether the motor vehicle was also locked and alarmed, and ultimately whether in the circumstances it was adequate to "deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." This is a question of fact, properly decided by the fact finder at trial.
nstassel
NES Member
In in the quote above.
Take it up with the courts. I'm only citing the case law on the topic. Don't like it, that's not my problem.
Questions Re: MA High-Cap Rifle Storage Rules
I'm talking specifically about the phrase, "all but the most determined" (persistent, whatever)
EDIT: (I retract my statement)
The context in the above link wasn't clear to me.
Here's the links for anyone else who wants to read them:
COMMONWEALTH vs. STEPHEN PARZICK:
PARZICK, COMMONWEALTH vs., 64 Mass. App. Ct. 846
Last edited:
Neil,
Thank you and all who else confirmed this. The most persistent and determined with the modifier “BUT” is good enough for me. I’m confident to just use trigger or chamber locks in my locked room.
BUMPA01603
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,852
- Likes
- 13,510
Is this good? or is it to much?
That might be adequate enough..... though I might be able to pop it with a bent paper clip if I had a little time
It depends on your marsupial judge and/or jury as to "what is adequate". But because "gunz" even this vault might be declared unacceptable in a Mass court.Is this good? or is it to much?
556USER
NES Member
So in Massachusetts on any given day some prick LEO may decide that your container or lock does not thwart all but the most persistent. Now you're in court with lawyer who has to trot out a litany of case law to hopefully prove you are in compliance with the vague "laws" of our fine state. After your days or weeks of continuances you finally win, that is, if you consider "winning" paying your attorney 5 to 10K. God help us! Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the lawyers but our plight here.
Similar threads
