Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SJC backs trigger-lock law on guns in homes
Boston Globe ^ | March 11, 2010 | John R. Ellement and Martin Finucane

Posted on 03/11/2010 12:21:32 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
By citing Cruikshank, I wonder if this decision will affect the upcoming SCOTUS decision in McDonald? The Heller decision in 2008 said safe storage laws are a no go.
1 posted on 03/11/2010 12:21:32 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“the right of society to prevent tragedies “

Where, oh, where is that a constitutional item? And if so, does this mean we can abolish the government as it creates more tragedies than any gun ever has?


2 posted on 03/11/2010 12:25:15 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I would guess not, since DC is kind of an odd situatuon. In this case, odious as it may be, I have to side with the MA sjc. The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top. This is a case of “if you don’t like it, move” (and so many are doing just that).


3 posted on 03/11/2010 12:25:55 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“If the courts started interpreting the 2nd Amendment the way they interpret the 1st,we’d have the right to bear nuclear arms by now”- Ann Coulter


4 posted on 03/11/2010 12:28:01 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A gun is only useful if one can use it when one needs it.

Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

5 posted on 03/11/2010 12:28:32 PM PST by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Unlike some other amendments whice state “Congress shall make no law”, the 2nd amendment does not refer to the federal government alone. It says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ... which implies that it shall not be infringed by anyone.

SnakeDoc


6 posted on 03/11/2010 12:28:41 PM PST by SnakeDoctor (The night is darkest just before the dawn, but [...] the dawn is coming. -- Harvey Dent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I ok with this as long as the person kicking in my front door has a trigger lock on his gun.


7 posted on 03/11/2010 12:29:34 PM PST by Gabrial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

Really? So the states can individually ban free speech? Seems to me any constitutional guarantee by the Feds cannot be undone by any local law.
8 posted on 03/11/2010 12:29:49 PM PST by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Gun restrictions: Violent Felon Employment Protection Program


9 posted on 03/11/2010 12:32:07 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Gotta ban swimming pools and dogs over 30 pounds then. They kill far more children.


10 posted on 03/11/2010 12:32:37 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

Trigger locks eliminate all gun accidents and do not prevent a weapon from being brought into action quickly.

This is why police officers carry their weapons with trigger locks in place.


11 posted on 03/11/2010 12:32:51 PM PST by ConservativeWarrior (In last year's nests, there are no birds this year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeWarrior

You’re bad.


12 posted on 03/11/2010 12:35:38 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
Since the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, it supersedes state and local law. Only those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. In this case, a part of the Constitution specifically states a person's right, just as with the First Amendment.

A law saying that my guns must be locked up and, therefore, difficult to obtain when needed infringes on my right to bear (it's keep and bear) arms.

The Second Amendment needs to be interpreted as intended, not as what it could mean.

13 posted on 03/11/2010 12:37:30 PM PST by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lets see,some thug is busting in my door I wait till he enters then stab him with my trigger lock key then proceed to beat him upon the head and shoulders with the useless gun. then call police and hope thiers is unlocked OK.


14 posted on 03/11/2010 12:38:59 PM PST by bikerman (Buck Farack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Enforcement by door-to-door searches with Rahm’s Blueshirts?


15 posted on 03/11/2010 12:39:29 PM PST by dynachrome (Barack Hussein Obama yunikku khinaaziir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor; ronnyquest

This will be another in a long list of laws passed to say we did something to keep us safe from _______ in response to an event way into the tail of propablilities. How exactly can the use of trigger locks be inspected/enforced? If I duct tape it to the gun, then does that count as being on? What exactly constitutes a trigger lock? Are there certified manufacturers, licensed distributors? Is there a QA program for the metal used in the trigger lock? Does an independent agency routinely inspect the manufacturers to assure that the locks produced do what is intended?


16 posted on 03/11/2010 12:40:11 PM PST by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The USSC will overturn this.


17 posted on 03/11/2010 12:40:57 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas

I think general enforcement is problematic ... but criminal charges in connection with another incident would not be unheard of. For instance, if somebody accidentally gets shot, they’ll ring you up on criminal negligence for failure to secure the weapon according to the law.

SnakeDoc


18 posted on 03/11/2010 12:46:00 PM PST by SnakeDoctor (The night is darkest just before the dawn, but [...] the dawn is coming. -- Harvey Dent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

Dropped on your head much?
19 posted on 03/11/2010 12:46:10 PM PST by WackySam (To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Was the rifle loaded or not? It is not clarified in the article.


20 posted on 03/11/2010 12:46:48 PM PST by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock.

It must be an interesting story that reveals the reason for looking under the bed.

21 posted on 03/11/2010 12:47:48 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeWarrior
I expect some people would not understand your satire. It is a good way to make the point, though.

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).

22 posted on 03/11/2010 12:48:54 PM PST by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
In this case, odious as it may be, I have to side with the MA sjc. The 2nd simply constrains the fed gov; states are free to enact their own laws on top.

WTF??

You forgot the sarc tag, right??

23 posted on 03/11/2010 12:50:27 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


24 posted on 03/11/2010 12:54:33 PM PST by hotshu (Keep the Faith, that will be the only thing 0bama doesn't try to steal from us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

>> Seems to me any constitutional guarantee by the Feds cannot be undone by any local law.

Cannot and must not.


25 posted on 03/11/2010 1:00:12 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Did you eat lots of paint chips as a child?


26 posted on 03/11/2010 1:02:28 PM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BBell
Was the rifle loaded or not? It is not clarified in the article.

An earlier version makes it sound unloaded.

SJC will review gun lock ruling - Law at odds with US high court (MA)

The Lowell judge cited the Supreme Court’s 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.

27 posted on 03/11/2010 1:13:31 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeWarrior

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.


28 posted on 03/11/2010 1:16:58 PM PST by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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!


29 posted on 03/11/2010 1:19:29 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bookmark to read later


30 posted on 03/11/2010 1:21:16 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (Thank you for your contribution. Your comment has been submitted for review.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The One.Five Amendment.

Well, it’s for the children, dontchaknow.


31 posted on 03/11/2010 1:22:27 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is a CLEAR violation...which McDonald will overturn...eventually.


32 posted on 03/11/2010 1:25:08 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest; ConservativeWarrior

You evidently missed the sarcasm positively FLOODING throughout Conservative Warrior’s post.


33 posted on 03/11/2010 1:27:17 PM PST by Don W (I only keep certain folks' numbers in my 'phone so I know NOT to answer when they call)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Nothing new here. State law requires the gun owner to have control of their firearms at all times. That means if you are not carrying it around, then it must be stored under lock, in a case or with a trigger lock, unloaded.

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.

34 posted on 03/11/2010 1:28:09 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don W

Sure, because plain text allows all that nuance to just stand right out in front.


35 posted on 03/11/2010 1:38:29 PM PST by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This will not affect the upcoming ruling from Chicago. Instead, the reverse is true. The Chicago case does not review the D.C. case. That is now a given; the 2nd Amendment does guarantee a personal right to own and use a gun for personal protection.

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

36 posted on 03/11/2010 1:38:32 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Holy crap! If this is the case everyone I know would be a criminal in Massachusetts.


37 posted on 03/11/2010 1:39:10 PM PST by BBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Only under a pure tyrannical system would a simple complaint about a kid shooting his BB gun lead to a search of the parents house leading to this bogus case.

No longer does the ballot box have any long-term value for providing a cure.

38 posted on 03/11/2010 1:39:36 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

You actually think that any cop anywhere has a trigger lock attached to the gun on his hip?

Wow.


39 posted on 03/11/2010 1:54:35 PM PST by Don W (I only keep certain folks' numbers in my 'phone so I know NOT to answer when they call)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Don W

The law must apply to LEO’s at home as well.


40 posted on 03/11/2010 1:57:00 PM PST by colonialhk (Elect Veterans not Lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This will not affect the upcoming ruling from Chicago. Instead, the reverse is true.

I should have elaborated a bit more. Since they cited Cruikshank, the spawn of Slaughterhouse which basically tossed the "privileges & immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, could this MA SJC decision affect SCOTUS' reasoning to reconsider Slaughterhouse? Thanks for your comments.

41 posted on 03/11/2010 2:01:27 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Don W

You can subtly hint that I must be some sort of moron for taking something presented in a forum at face value, but considering the sheer volume of absolutely idiotic legislation and regulation that pervades our nation, it is not unreasonable to assume that some municipality, somewhere, has conjured this sort of legal sorcery into being and that a fact check is warranted.

Bite me.


42 posted on 03/11/2010 2:17:25 PM PST by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
As a general rule, the Supreme Court decides every case in a way that doesn't involve the reversal of any of its prior decisions. So, I think it more likely that the Court will simply extend Heller to the states on the same 14th Amendment grounds it has used for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For that reason only, I believe it is much likelier that the Court will leave the Slaughter House cases alone, than reverse them. I agree with the logic of reversing them. but that's the harder way to reach the same result.

John / Billybob

43 posted on 03/11/2010 2:34:19 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; bamahead

A stupid, unenforceable law...

Why only home owners? Why don’t they require armed home invaders to have trigger locks? Why don’t they require police to have trigger locks?


44 posted on 03/11/2010 2:58:34 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeWarrior
Trigger locks eliminate all gun accidents and do not prevent a weapon from being brought into action quickly. This is why police officers carry their weapons with trigger locks in place.

This is double bull.

When the trigger lock is removed, you can have a gun accident.

I have several friends that are PA State Police and none of them has a trigger lock on any of their weapons.

Where are these police officers that you refer to?

45 posted on 03/11/2010 3:04:49 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig; neverdem

States cannot transgress the 2nd amendment any more than they can the 1st. This is precisely why the 10th amendment basically procliams that ‘rights not enumerated above’ are left to the states. The 2nd is most decidedly enumerated above.

By your logic, states could enact speech codes ‘on-top’ of the 1st amendment.

Not how it works, bub.


46 posted on 03/11/2010 3:12:34 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
47 posted on 03/11/2010 3:13:22 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
A stupid, unenforceable, UNCONSTITUTIONAL law...

Yup :)
48 posted on 03/11/2010 3:15:33 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...

49 posted on 03/11/2010 3:44:12 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I wonder if someone broke into your home in Mass and you dispatched him with a few well placed blasts, if his estate would sue you because you did not have a trigger lock installed because if you did, he would have gotten to you before you had a chance to shoot?

Hey state officials, I got your trigger lock right here!


50 posted on 03/11/2010 3:47:51 PM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson