Skip to comments.SJC backs trigger-lock law on guns in homes
Posted on 03/11/2010 12:21:32 PM PST by neverdem
In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in peoples homes.
In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the states highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.
We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional, Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.
The gunlock case involved Richard Runyan, a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock. Police in 2007 discovered the firearm as they investigated complaints that Runyans then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbors house.
A Lowell District Court judge threw out the case. Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.s office appealed in 2009.
Leone said in a telephone interview yesterday that the SJC had struck the proper balance between the right to self defense and the right of society to prevent tragedies such as a child mishandling a loaded firearm...
In yesterdays SJC cases, Justice Gants wrote that an 1875 US Supreme Court ruling (called Cruikshank) remains in force and gives Massachusetts the authority to chart its own course when it comes to regulating firearms and ammunition...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It must be an interesting story that reveals the reason for looking under the bed.
If Massachusetts (or any other state) can enact a law that makes guns virtually useless as defensive weapons, then the 2nd Amendment is rendered meaningless. I expect the USSC will clarify the matter through "incorporation", which would still allow state regulations consistent with substantive due process (in not restricting Constitutional liberties).
You forgot the sarc tag, right??
I’m sure glad I don’t live in that hellhole! It would cost me a bloody fortune to comply - IF I had the inclination.
>> Seems to me any constitutional guarantee by the Feds cannot be undone by any local law.
Cannot and must not.
Did you eat lots of paint chips as a child?
An earlier version makes it sound unloaded.
The Lowell judge cited the Supreme Courts ruling in dismissing the case against Richard Runyan of Billerica, who in April 2008 was charged with improperly storing a semiautomatic hunting rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a drawer full of ammunition.
I called a few different municipal police departments, my sheriff, and the sheriffs of the neighboring counties about this. They all seemed amused at the prospect of their officers carrying handguns with trigger locks in place. The most often repeated reason given: officers need to be able to use their guns at a moment’s notice without fumbling in a high-stress situation to unlock it. I’ll ask a few officers I know when I see them tonight.
Your premise is faulty.
So pretty much any law abiding citizen able to successfully defend himself from a thug breaking into his home will be IMMEDIATELY arrested for violation of this asinine law—it being OBVIOUS that he could NOT have had his gun LOCKED!!! Hey, ain’t that swell! Just let the criminal kill you and you won’t get into trouble!
Bookmark to read later
The One.Five Amendment.
Well, it’s for the children, dontchaknow.
This is a CLEAR violation...which McDonald will overturn...eventually.
You evidently missed the sarcasm positively FLOODING throughout Conservative Warrior’s post.
The case in hand is about a prosecution of a gun owner who did not lock up their rifle while not under their direct control.
Sure, because plain text allows all that nuance to just stand right out in front.
Once the Court rules that the 14th Amendment applies this part (2nd Amendment) of the Bill of Rights to states and counties, the Chicago gun ban will be dead. This decision in Massachusetts will also be dead.
For the SJC of Massachusetts to reach back a century in the Supreme Court to justify their decision, while ignoring the recent Heller decision, just shows you how far liberal judges will go to lie about the law to get the results that they favor.
Liberals in Massachusetts, California and elsewhere appoint judges they expect will lie about the law to get the results they want. To my view, that is what makes the 2012 election so important.
John / Billybob
Holy crap! If this is the case everyone I know would be a criminal in Massachusetts.
No longer does the ballot box have any long-term value for providing a cure.
You actually think that any cop anywhere has a trigger lock attached to the gun on his hip?
The law must apply to LEO’s at home as well.