Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Massachusetts High Court Upholds Gun-Lock Law

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 11, 2010

Massachusetts High Court Upholds Gun-Lock Law

From the Associated Press:

The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes, a case closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.…

The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.…

Gun proponents said the law makes it virtually impossible for homeowners to quickly access a gun for self-defense.

Check out the full story and tell us your reaction.

Comments (41)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Bella wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

As a Mass resident I have no problem with the law requiring firearms be kept locked. You lock your car don't you?
For my household defense I have a pistol safe with an ergonomic lock I can open one handed in the dark. I don't want anybody but me accessing my guns, I ain't here all the time, locks make sense! Gun locks prevent children and fools from having regrettable accidents.
Besides most of my firearms are black powder and aren't required to be locked anyway.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntnow wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

This is a perfect example of how ordinarily law abiding citizens are made into criminals. Because the legislaiton found a bs loophole in the constitution, the good people of Massechusetts, in some cases, will have difficulty defending themselves and their families. It is common sense to keep firearms away from children who don't understand how to use them and respect them no matter where you live.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from readtheconstitution wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

I can't really see how the law would be unconstitutional, although I haven't read the case. I don't live in MA, but I keep mine in a quick access pistol safe because I have a little one about. If we didn't have a child, I'd probably do the same because I don't want a burglar to have quick and easy carry off access. Not sure how I feel about a mandate from the state telling me I have to do it in my own home, though.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 13 hours ago

If I was a Massachusetts Resident, I would sue the State for failing to protect me as and individual.

The question should be asked, "What entity is responsible for my personal protection?"

Massachusetts say they need trigger locks and individuals don’t need personal protection because one would say, look at Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that 24,000 rapes, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes every year constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence.

I'm willing to bet you will not find a single individual for that bill with a trigger lock even in there home!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 13 hours ago

One moment Mr Bad Guy while I remove my trigger lock!

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff4066 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

So, if I decided to remove the lock from my "nightstand piece" every night before I went to bed, the only thing I would ever have to worry about is the Police breaking in to arrest me for an unlocked gun?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from gman3186 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

they are making there residents lock their guns up they might as well make them unload them to.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from gman3186 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

thats crazy

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

Jeff4066

YOU GOT IT!

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
-Ceasare Beccaria, 18th century criminologist, in On Crimes and Punishments

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

Sounds like

Alabama Sex Toy Law - No Vibrators Allowed

In Alabama, guns are sold everywhere, but sex toys are banned.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

My kids know not to touch my guns and if you ask them what would happen if they did? They will say, you do not want to go there!

Let’s face it, these draconian laws are for those who grew up without outdoor plumbing and cannot function without their daily dose of Prozac. They live there life watching Oprah Wind’freyand Rosie O'Funald Cake to learn how to live there life. They live, breath and follow these mindless gnomes’s believing everything they say is true and factual!

The other day, a couple believes the movie 2012 to be true. It’s interesting how people will ignore the Bible, yet they go to a movie like Star Wars, Avatar and some blood sucking creature to believe in it and such of a world is real.

Question, you have a intruder in your bedroom. You have the phone in one hand and a Glock in the other. Which one will you use first!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 10 hours ago

Hey Bella

Besides most of my firearms are black powder and aren't required to be locked anyway?

That shows the intent and how stupid this law really is!

You can say it's discriminating against a class or group of people.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sourdough Dave wrote 20 weeks 10 hours ago

I haven't been a little kid that needed looking after for my own good for half a century. I sure am tired of a nanny state always chasing after me trying to wipe my nose for me. All I want out of the government is them out of my business. If I need this level of looking after, I could live in England where at least the beer is better and the whisky cheaper. How about we get back to a land of the free and home of the brave instead of big brother dictating to me how I store my personal property inside my own home. "A government governs best that governs least"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

Only a fool would store a firearm in such a way that a child or cognitively disabled adult could easily get at it. It may also be that only a fool would store a firearm where anyone could access it, regardless of household membership. I feel like it's just good citizenship to keep your firearm in a locked container.

Now, the MA law says in a locked container or a trigger lock, when not under the owner's control. There are some very fast-opening lockable containers, so the law, as a matter of limiting a person's ability to defend themselves, seems reasonable. You can wear that thing on your hip all you want in your house, only being required to safe it when you're going to bed or in the shower or something. Arguably, you could lock the door and if you're the only one in the room it's "under your control."

That said, I think it's a foolish law to have on the books. IMO, you can't legislate 100% safety for the public against anything. So rather than increase the size of an intrusive bureaucracy, I say, let fools store their firearms how they will.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

Mike Diehl-
I don't consider my self a fool, nor do I need advice on how to store a firearm. I will store them as I was taught, long before an intrusive government thought to try to mandate laws for my safety.
Oh, BTW, the way I was taught to store a firearm was with loads in the magazine, ready to be chambered. 50+ years, no accidents, and a ready firearm with the simple throw of the bolt, lever, etc. Pistols are a different story, loaded and ready at all times.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

I'm a MA resident and I can honestly say that trigger guard law is the least offensive gun law we have.

There are others that far more worth fighting. Like the hoops a manufacturer has to jump through to make MA compliant handguns or rifles. Want to buy a new Glock in MA? TS, ain't gonna happen. How about a new AR? Ditto.

The trigger guard law is reasonable by comparison.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kingmauser wrote 20 weeks 7 hours ago

Another example of the good guys being made into the bad guys. Does Massachusetts require burglars to carry their weapons with a lock on them? Obviously this will be going to the SCOTUS.

This ruling is like saying that citizens can say what they want about their government as long as they do it in a sound proofed closet. Duh.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 20 weeks 5 hours ago

"The Second Amendament does not overrule"........since when does a state law overrule the Constitution of a republic? Did I miss something? I know amendaments 9&10 are there to keep some state's rights, but not against other parts of the constitution!!

Nate

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 20 weeks 5 hours ago

re-read the heller case..the topic of locking a firearm was discussed and it was either Alito or Scalia that commented on the stupidity of such a law....Another case for the supreme court???

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 20 weeks 3 hours ago

I have no problem with the priciple--keep your firearms safe--that will mean locked in many cases. But for the state to come into the home and tell us how to keep them safe is overstepping the state's authority. Not only does it violate the Second Amendment (as do every state's gun laws), but it violates our right to privacy in our homes--yes, privacy, that right that a lot of the far right-wingers say doesn't exist. I hope this goes up to the US Supremes--it should be overturned as an "unreasonable" restriction on our Second Amendment rights.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

When you don't need it securing it is fine but when you need it it's best to have it available and handy than locked up and out of reach.

If you're home and have positive control of it it is your responsibility as an adult, gun owner to judge the need or lack of need to utilize your firearm and exercise your right to protect and defend yourself.

Locking a firearm up may prevent you from gettin killed by your own firearm but it may also cost you your life in a situation you could have detterred or defended yourself.

If I could keep my family safe and from being assaulted and or murdered I chose to accept that responsibility and fire first We know the cliche that Clay always says has truth to it... When seconds count cops are Minutes away.

I guess Massachusettes thinks that Minutes outway seconds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

There is a level of responsibility even for our kids. If I or my Brother or Sister would have touched one of Dads guns without permission, he would hand his knife to us without saying a word and you should know the rest of the story for that one, but we never did it and never had to go to the tree but for only once and he showed us mercy instead,; we learned the lesson. This is a case and point were Government intrusion has overstepped its bounds!! Here we have a Government telling the people what to do. Isn't it the People to tell the Government what to do, GO FIGURE! No wonder they have so much problems up there including immanent domain!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

I have mixed emotions about the readiness of guns in the bedroom. I don't remember the state but I received a bulletion where a police officer when the phone rang at night picked up his service weapon which was beside the phone and shot himself in the head. I'm not saying this will happen all the time but I don't like to take the chance. Sometimes when I awaken I have cobwebs in my head and it takes a few seconds to shake them. My firearm was always ready but not quite that ready. I did have to get out of bed to access my firearm. In my hunter ed classes I tell the students they are 1000 times more likely to kill themselves a family member or a neighbor or friend from having a loaded firearm in the house than they ever are from having someone breaking into their house and doing them harm.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

OK?

WOW!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from The Ry Guy wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

I agree that this is a stupid law, but how would it be enforced? Do they have the police come around and check to see that your guns are locked up? I certainly hope not! I for one would keep my guns in a safe place but close at hand, and to hell with the law. Like I said how are they going to enforce it?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 1 hour ago

Stupid is what stupid does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0oe7BUDWQ&NR=1

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 20 weeks 46 min ago

What I am concerned with is how the local authorities will react in cases of "declared state of emergency" and proceed to confiscate weapons. This is much easier when the local police have lists of who has what, via local registering of arms. A state of emergency can be declared for a natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina, an earthquake, tornado, a blizzard or economic collapse. And may be I am funny that way but it seems to me that is when you need you weapons the most.
In the best of times when seconds count the police are minutes away....
Then it really doesn't matter what was locked and how it was locked.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I have a friend who will not get a CWP, he feels that is letting the "state" know he has firearms and then he can be a target of the "radicals" if "they" seize power.
Yes he is a little paranoid, but what happened after Katrina made me wonder some what about it.I would think that a wise government, would appreciate CWP holders to be around after a "state of emergency" is declared, since you know the gangs and their ilk would be armed.
Just a few thoughts.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I don't see why having to keep my 1911 in a pistol safe slows me down. I'd have at least to keep it in a drawer, even if a lock wasn't required, you don't just leave it sit loaded on top of the dresser. I plant my hand on top of that box on the plancent and the lid springs open and it is in my hand. I get security and speed. I ain't gonna carry all the time anyway so the gunsafe is the way to go.
Clay I agree it is stupid to classify black powder pistols as "nonfirearms" when they certainly did the job a hundred fifty years ago. But I haven't heard of any crimes committed with black powder recently either. I often encourage friends to start handgunning with BP revolvers just because they are less regulated. NYC must be different, considering that poor guy getting hasseled by Bloomberg for his Flintlock Kentucky rifle.
I don't leave any of my guns, BP or modern cartridge type "laying about". Modern guns have trigger locks or a locking range box. BP guns have nice wood cases. Only the swords, spears, axes and other medieval terror weapons are out ready for easy access. But hey, any fool can learn to point a gun in a day or less. It takes years to make a swordsman. I pity the poor fool who takes a sword from my display rack and threatens anybody with it. They will experience something similar to "Bokkendori". I couldn't tell you how many hours I have spent practicing taking pointy things away from people in the Dojo! At any rate, if any house on my street were to be broken into, I would suspect our house would not be the first picked, our housemates kinda resemble the cast of "Deliverance".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I fully understand the need for immediate access to our firearms. As Mr. Cooper has stated one can't tell a burgler "hold on a sec till i open my safe!"
Having said that and reading the full article, the Mass. Supreme Court stated that one's firearms do not have to be locked when the owner is home.
Unless I misunderstood what I read, firearms in Mass. only have to be locked up when the owner isn't around. That is something I do anyway although I'm not required to.
I think that the worst thing about the Mass. case is the precedent it sets. Other states may refer to the above case should a similar one arise in a different state causing said different state to adopt a more stringent standard than Mass. (i.e. your firearms have to be locked up ALL the time!).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

i'll do as i wish with my firearms in my own home and if the state or our so-called government doesn't like it, come get 'em! ask yourself later, Was it worth it?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

'They will experience something similar to "Bokkendori".'

"Unless of course he has a-study his acrobatics..." ;D

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Don Mitchell wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

A lot of great comments so I'm not going to add one.not much more to be said,an extra + for some and a few for Clay Cooper

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

My gun safe "overfloweth" so I would need trigger locks if I lived in Mass. But that wouldn't make the guns any safer. If a burgler stole them, he could remove those silly little trigger locks in no time. Most of my guns are in the safe but the ones that don't fit are in cases with no ammo in a locked house with a burglar alarm, a dog, and no small children or irresponsible adults. My carry gun is with me or easily accessable at home or wherever I go. It's my business, not the government's, how I keep my guns safe.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 19 weeks 5 days ago

Forty miles away from closest law enforcement. No one to come and help in case of intruder. I have my guns loaded and ready in the corner. My father did the same and his before and so on. No accidents. We teach our children and that keeps them from being curious. Give them some toy guns and teach them what happens with them. Take them out and shoot some rounds in front of them and explain what will happen if they mess with the guns and they shoot themselves or someone else. Don't be scared to teach kids. My two year old knows not to touch my shotgun in the corner, so yours can also. If you teach them young they will be less curious and they won't mess with them. I teach my children that my guns are always loaded, and always will be just in case. Never know when a skunk is wandering around. If you always keep you guns loaded, you always know they are loaded and you will treat them that way. The least safe people I have known always get careless after they unload their guns. Someday they will learn the hard way.
The main point I want to express is that people should be able to take care of their own and don't need the gov. telling us when we can and can't have our guns loaded or locked up.
As for if someone comes after me with a sword, I tell them they should have known better to bring a knife to a gunfight.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 19 weeks 4 days ago

Should any interested group, such as the NRA, want to pursue this, SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. A legal interpretation would be required to determine if this was an encroachment on State's Rights. Here is the applicable portion of the ruling, quoted from the Heller decision:
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,
D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–290
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I The District

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

Even if it weren't the law here, I would still lock my guns. That way I know that I am the only person who will have access to my guns, which is a good thing.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Moishe wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

Why in Bloody H**L would anyone in their right mind live in taxachusetts anyway ?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from TOMCOYOTE8 wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

The Law is only when your not home those guns need to be locked.When your home the guns are under your control.you can have a gun in your night stand unlocked when your there look up the language.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 18 weeks 4 days ago

I grew up here, I lived in other places but I came back to Mass, because it is my home, (and people don't talk funny here like they do in them other places). I can't understand why people live unsustainably in deserts or in places like gawdawful California or (gack) Texas!
I am quite fond of Massachusetts, despite it's warts, If some of you "cons" don't like my state that is fine with me, means you just ain't likely to visit and overstay yer welcome.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from xiaoli wrote 2 sec ago

You're about to see is installed in the box some of the watches,they are very beautiful Watch winder box I recommend that the RM011 Philippe Massa this series of products, I believe you already have heard of it on their RM011 Philippe Massa Watches Oh, this is not bad!Ball Diver Chronograph Green watches For Roger Dubuis this series of products, their shining is too much Roger Dubuis Easy Diver Watches,Burberry watches are carefully crafted and manufactured to the highest engineering design standards Burberry Watches.Raymond Weil impeccable Raymond Weil watches Zenith watches of our 99.9% of the original precision Zenith Defy Extreme Watches , Zenith El Primero WatchesI am pleased to introduce you to a copy of Longines watch! Longines watches Roger Dubuis Excalibur Chronograph Watch is worth a good appreciation doubled.Roger Dubuis Excalibur Chronograph Watches U-BOAT really low prices, high quality! U-BOAT WatchesOne can not say that Swiss watches, not to mention the name product of the production.Jaeger LeCoultre Watches. Is not it a dizzying? Because they are so perfect!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 13 hours ago

One moment Mr Bad Guy while I remove my trigger lock!

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff4066 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

So, if I decided to remove the lock from my "nightstand piece" every night before I went to bed, the only thing I would ever have to worry about is the Police breaking in to arrest me for an unlocked gun?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntnow wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

This is a perfect example of how ordinarily law abiding citizens are made into criminals. Because the legislaiton found a bs loophole in the constitution, the good people of Massechusetts, in some cases, will have difficulty defending themselves and their families. It is common sense to keep firearms away from children who don't understand how to use them and respect them no matter where you live.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

Jeff4066

YOU GOT IT!

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
-Ceasare Beccaria, 18th century criminologist, in On Crimes and Punishments

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

My kids know not to touch my guns and if you ask them what would happen if they did? They will say, you do not want to go there!

Let’s face it, these draconian laws are for those who grew up without outdoor plumbing and cannot function without their daily dose of Prozac. They live there life watching Oprah Wind’freyand Rosie O'Funald Cake to learn how to live there life. They live, breath and follow these mindless gnomes’s believing everything they say is true and factual!

The other day, a couple believes the movie 2012 to be true. It’s interesting how people will ignore the Bible, yet they go to a movie like Star Wars, Avatar and some blood sucking creature to believe in it and such of a world is real.

Question, you have a intruder in your bedroom. You have the phone in one hand and a Glock in the other. Which one will you use first!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sourdough Dave wrote 20 weeks 10 hours ago

I haven't been a little kid that needed looking after for my own good for half a century. I sure am tired of a nanny state always chasing after me trying to wipe my nose for me. All I want out of the government is them out of my business. If I need this level of looking after, I could live in England where at least the beer is better and the whisky cheaper. How about we get back to a land of the free and home of the brave instead of big brother dictating to me how I store my personal property inside my own home. "A government governs best that governs least"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kingmauser wrote 20 weeks 7 hours ago

Another example of the good guys being made into the bad guys. Does Massachusetts require burglars to carry their weapons with a lock on them? Obviously this will be going to the SCOTUS.

This ruling is like saying that citizens can say what they want about their government as long as they do it in a sound proofed closet. Duh.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from gman3186 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

they are making there residents lock their guns up they might as well make them unload them to.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 10 hours ago

Hey Bella

Besides most of my firearms are black powder and aren't required to be locked anyway?

That shows the intent and how stupid this law really is!

You can say it's discriminating against a class or group of people.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

Mike Diehl-
I don't consider my self a fool, nor do I need advice on how to store a firearm. I will store them as I was taught, long before an intrusive government thought to try to mandate laws for my safety.
Oh, BTW, the way I was taught to store a firearm was with loads in the magazine, ready to be chambered. 50+ years, no accidents, and a ready firearm with the simple throw of the bolt, lever, etc. Pistols are a different story, loaded and ready at all times.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

I'm a MA resident and I can honestly say that trigger guard law is the least offensive gun law we have.

There are others that far more worth fighting. Like the hoops a manufacturer has to jump through to make MA compliant handguns or rifles. Want to buy a new Glock in MA? TS, ain't gonna happen. How about a new AR? Ditto.

The trigger guard law is reasonable by comparison.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

My gun safe "overfloweth" so I would need trigger locks if I lived in Mass. But that wouldn't make the guns any safer. If a burgler stole them, he could remove those silly little trigger locks in no time. Most of my guns are in the safe but the ones that don't fit are in cases with no ammo in a locked house with a burglar alarm, a dog, and no small children or irresponsible adults. My carry gun is with me or easily accessable at home or wherever I go. It's my business, not the government's, how I keep my guns safe.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 19 weeks 5 days ago

Forty miles away from closest law enforcement. No one to come and help in case of intruder. I have my guns loaded and ready in the corner. My father did the same and his before and so on. No accidents. We teach our children and that keeps them from being curious. Give them some toy guns and teach them what happens with them. Take them out and shoot some rounds in front of them and explain what will happen if they mess with the guns and they shoot themselves or someone else. Don't be scared to teach kids. My two year old knows not to touch my shotgun in the corner, so yours can also. If you teach them young they will be less curious and they won't mess with them. I teach my children that my guns are always loaded, and always will be just in case. Never know when a skunk is wandering around. If you always keep you guns loaded, you always know they are loaded and you will treat them that way. The least safe people I have known always get careless after they unload their guns. Someday they will learn the hard way.
The main point I want to express is that people should be able to take care of their own and don't need the gov. telling us when we can and can't have our guns loaded or locked up.
As for if someone comes after me with a sword, I tell them they should have known better to bring a knife to a gunfight.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from crm3006 wrote 19 weeks 4 days ago

Should any interested group, such as the NRA, want to pursue this, SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. A legal interpretation would be required to determine if this was an encroachment on State's Rights. Here is the applicable portion of the ruling, quoted from the Heller decision:
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,
D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–290
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I The District

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 13 hours ago

If I was a Massachusetts Resident, I would sue the State for failing to protect me as and individual.

The question should be asked, "What entity is responsible for my personal protection?"

Massachusetts say they need trigger locks and individuals don’t need personal protection because one would say, look at Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that 24,000 rapes, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes every year constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence.

I'm willing to bet you will not find a single individual for that bill with a trigger lock even in there home!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from gman3186 wrote 20 weeks 12 hours ago

thats crazy

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 11 hours ago

Sounds like

Alabama Sex Toy Law - No Vibrators Allowed

In Alabama, guns are sold everywhere, but sex toys are banned.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 20 weeks 5 hours ago

"The Second Amendament does not overrule"........since when does a state law overrule the Constitution of a republic? Did I miss something? I know amendaments 9&10 are there to keep some state's rights, but not against other parts of the constitution!!

Nate

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 20 weeks 5 hours ago

re-read the heller case..the topic of locking a firearm was discussed and it was either Alito or Scalia that commented on the stupidity of such a law....Another case for the supreme court???

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from seadog wrote 20 weeks 3 hours ago

I have no problem with the priciple--keep your firearms safe--that will mean locked in many cases. But for the state to come into the home and tell us how to keep them safe is overstepping the state's authority. Not only does it violate the Second Amendment (as do every state's gun laws), but it violates our right to privacy in our homes--yes, privacy, that right that a lot of the far right-wingers say doesn't exist. I hope this goes up to the US Supremes--it should be overturned as an "unreasonable" restriction on our Second Amendment rights.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

There is a level of responsibility even for our kids. If I or my Brother or Sister would have touched one of Dads guns without permission, he would hand his knife to us without saying a word and you should know the rest of the story for that one, but we never did it and never had to go to the tree but for only once and he showed us mercy instead,; we learned the lesson. This is a case and point were Government intrusion has overstepped its bounds!! Here we have a Government telling the people what to do. Isn't it the People to tell the Government what to do, GO FIGURE! No wonder they have so much problems up there including immanent domain!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from The Ry Guy wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

I agree that this is a stupid law, but how would it be enforced? Do they have the police come around and check to see that your guns are locked up? I certainly hope not! I for one would keep my guns in a safe place but close at hand, and to hell with the law. Like I said how are they going to enforce it?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I have a friend who will not get a CWP, he feels that is letting the "state" know he has firearms and then he can be a target of the "radicals" if "they" seize power.
Yes he is a little paranoid, but what happened after Katrina made me wonder some what about it.I would think that a wise government, would appreciate CWP holders to be around after a "state of emergency" is declared, since you know the gangs and their ilk would be armed.
Just a few thoughts.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I fully understand the need for immediate access to our firearms. As Mr. Cooper has stated one can't tell a burgler "hold on a sec till i open my safe!"
Having said that and reading the full article, the Mass. Supreme Court stated that one's firearms do not have to be locked when the owner is home.
Unless I misunderstood what I read, firearms in Mass. only have to be locked up when the owner isn't around. That is something I do anyway although I'm not required to.
I think that the worst thing about the Mass. case is the precedent it sets. Other states may refer to the above case should a similar one arise in a different state causing said different state to adopt a more stringent standard than Mass. (i.e. your firearms have to be locked up ALL the time!).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

i'll do as i wish with my firearms in my own home and if the state or our so-called government doesn't like it, come get 'em! ask yourself later, Was it worth it?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from TOMCOYOTE8 wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

The Law is only when your not home those guns need to be locked.When your home the guns are under your control.you can have a gun in your night stand unlocked when your there look up the language.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

When you don't need it securing it is fine but when you need it it's best to have it available and handy than locked up and out of reach.

If you're home and have positive control of it it is your responsibility as an adult, gun owner to judge the need or lack of need to utilize your firearm and exercise your right to protect and defend yourself.

Locking a firearm up may prevent you from gettin killed by your own firearm but it may also cost you your life in a situation you could have detterred or defended yourself.

If I could keep my family safe and from being assaulted and or murdered I chose to accept that responsibility and fire first We know the cliche that Clay always says has truth to it... When seconds count cops are Minutes away.

I guess Massachusettes thinks that Minutes outway seconds.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 1 hour ago

Stupid is what stupid does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0oe7BUDWQ&NR=1

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 20 weeks 46 min ago

What I am concerned with is how the local authorities will react in cases of "declared state of emergency" and proceed to confiscate weapons. This is much easier when the local police have lists of who has what, via local registering of arms. A state of emergency can be declared for a natural disaster such as hurricane Katrina, an earthquake, tornado, a blizzard or economic collapse. And may be I am funny that way but it seems to me that is when you need you weapons the most.
In the best of times when seconds count the police are minutes away....
Then it really doesn't matter what was locked and how it was locked.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

I don't see why having to keep my 1911 in a pistol safe slows me down. I'd have at least to keep it in a drawer, even if a lock wasn't required, you don't just leave it sit loaded on top of the dresser. I plant my hand on top of that box on the plancent and the lid springs open and it is in my hand. I get security and speed. I ain't gonna carry all the time anyway so the gunsafe is the way to go.
Clay I agree it is stupid to classify black powder pistols as "nonfirearms" when they certainly did the job a hundred fifty years ago. But I haven't heard of any crimes committed with black powder recently either. I often encourage friends to start handgunning with BP revolvers just because they are less regulated. NYC must be different, considering that poor guy getting hasseled by Bloomberg for his Flintlock Kentucky rifle.
I don't leave any of my guns, BP or modern cartridge type "laying about". Modern guns have trigger locks or a locking range box. BP guns have nice wood cases. Only the swords, spears, axes and other medieval terror weapons are out ready for easy access. But hey, any fool can learn to point a gun in a day or less. It takes years to make a swordsman. I pity the poor fool who takes a sword from my display rack and threatens anybody with it. They will experience something similar to "Bokkendori". I couldn't tell you how many hours I have spent practicing taking pointy things away from people in the Dojo! At any rate, if any house on my street were to be broken into, I would suspect our house would not be the first picked, our housemates kinda resemble the cast of "Deliverance".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Don Mitchell wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

A lot of great comments so I'm not going to add one.not much more to be said,an extra + for some and a few for Clay Cooper

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Moishe wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

Why in Bloody H**L would anyone in their right mind live in taxachusetts anyway ?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from yhwebcn01 wrote 2 days 40 min ago

Top Quality Replica Watches
Luxury watch is a high false,Royal Oak Offshore Watches Replica Baume & Mercier Riviera Watchestrue high-level watches to buyers never leave any regrets,Bell & Ross Watches Accessories BR 01 - Instrument 46mm Watches from the exterior to the movement of people everywhere to work are moving fine. Rolex Submariner Watches Replica Full Rose Gold Watches Although it is advanced counterfeit goods, but worth Have.BR 02 - Instrument 44mm Watches Replica Rolex Sea Dweller Watches BR 03 - Instrument 42mm Watches

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from yhwebcn01 wrote 2 days 40 min ago

Return to the classic top-watch
Seems natural is elegant watches, fashion, noble synonymous with cell phones,50 Fathoms Watches
Breguet Classique Tourbillon Watches computers have become a daily necessity, Replica Yatchmaster Ladies Watches Replica Full Stainless Steel/White Gold but wearing a watch of their own, Replica Breguet Type XX Watcheshas become a living, a taste, a romantic, a symbol. Love life, love yourself, from now on,Audemars Piguet Jules Audemars Watches Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Watches from the watch started! Replica Yatchmaster Men Replica Yatchmaster Mid Watches

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from yhwebcn01 wrote 2 days 40 min ago

Upper-class elite are the most popular senior jewelry watches
The precise timing process and challenges of self-warrior temperament and fast cars and sports spirit Coincidentally,Replica Swiss Chronomat Watch Evolution the two complement each other, to its "extraordinary creativity,Replica Swiss Montbrillant Watch Replica Swiss Navitimer Watch Replica Swiss Superocean Watch from the traditional" spirit of play to the extreme brand.Replica Rolex GMT Master Watches Full Gold

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from yhwebcn01 wrote 2 days 40 min ago

Top male fashion must-watch
In order to better provide you with satisfactory products and services, Replica IWC Watches
IWC Special Edition Aquatimer Chronograph Cousteau Divers Replica they are top of the watch
Watch brand in the area, the most attractive than material and design.BlackBird Replica Watches For men, from the "watch" the details disclosed by the taste and feel gorgeous,Bentley Swiss replica Avenger Swiss Replica Watchesis just right for the most stylish, offbeat reflection. This man should have a luxury brand watch.Rolex Daytona Watches Rolex Explorer Watches Replica Yachtmaster Watches learning watches buy watches Appreciation collection of such knowledge;Here you will see the world's top watch.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sarge01 wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

I have mixed emotions about the readiness of guns in the bedroom. I don't remember the state but I received a bulletion where a police officer when the phone rang at night picked up his service weapon which was beside the phone and shot himself in the head. I'm not saying this will happen all the time but I don't like to take the chance. Sometimes when I awaken I have cobwebs in my head and it takes a few seconds to shake them. My firearm was always ready but not quite that ready. I did have to get out of bed to access my firearm. In my hunter ed classes I tell the students they are 1000 times more likely to kill themselves a family member or a neighbor or friend from having a loaded firearm in the house than they ever are from having someone breaking into their house and doing them harm.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 20 weeks 2 hours ago

OK?

WOW!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mark4567 wrote 6 weeks 3 days ago

How to use Remote Desktop Connection for the two systems which have same IP Address?
cheap hosting | ucvhost | windows vps | forex vps

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tosh wrote 1 week 5 days ago

m65 kamagra attorney lawyer scrub
My gun safe "overfloweth" so I would need trigger locks if I lived in Mass. But that wouldn't make the guns any safer. If a burgler stole them, he could remove those silly little trigger locks in no time. Most of my guns are in the safe but the ones that don't fit are in cases with no ammo in a locked house with a burglar alarm, a dog, and no small children or irresponsible adults. My carry gun is with me or easily accessable at home or wherever I go. It's my business, not the government's, how I keep my guns safe.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from senthils wrote 6 days 17 hours ago

I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!!
windows vps | cheap vps | cheap hosting | forex vps | ucvhost

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from yhwebcn123 wrote 20 hours 54 min ago

You're about to see is installed in the box some of the watches,they are very beautiful Watch winder box I recommend that the RM011 Philippe Massa this series of products, I believe you already have heard of it on their RM011 Philippe Massa Watches Oh, this is not bad!Ball Diver Chronograph Green watches For Roger Dubuis this series of products, their shining is too much Roger Dubuis Chronoexcel Watches,Burberry watches are carefully crafted and manufactured to the highest engineering design standards Burberry Watches.Raymond Weil impeccable Raymond Weil watches Zenith watches of our 99.9% of the original precision Zenith Defy Extreme Watches , Zenith El Primero WatchesI am pleased to introduce you to a copy of Longines watch! Longines watches Vach constantin is worth a good appreciation doubled.Vach constantin Overseas Watches U-BOAT really low prices, high quality! U-BOAT WatchesOne can not say that Swiss watches, not to mention the name product of the production.Jaeger LeCoultre Watches Is not it a dizzying? Because they are so perfect!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from xiaoli wrote 2 sec ago

You're about to see is installed in the box some of the watches,they are very beautiful Watch winder box I recommend that the RM011 Philippe Massa this series of products, I believe you already have heard of it on their RM011 Philippe Massa Watches Oh, this is not bad!Ball Diver Chronograph Green watches For Roger Dubuis this series of products, their shining is too much Roger Dubuis Easy Diver Watches,Burberry watches are carefully crafted and manufactured to the highest engineering design standards Burberry Watches.Raymond Weil impeccable Raymond Weil watches Zenith watches of our 99.9% of the original precision Zenith Defy Extreme Watches , Zenith El Primero WatchesI am pleased to introduce you to a copy of Longines watch! Longines watches Roger Dubuis Excalibur Chronograph Watch is worth a good appreciation doubled.Roger Dubuis Excalibur Chronograph Watches U-BOAT really low prices, high quality! U-BOAT WatchesOne can not say that Swiss watches, not to mention the name product of the production.Jaeger LeCoultre Watches. Is not it a dizzying? Because they are so perfect!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from readtheconstitution wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

I can't really see how the law would be unconstitutional, although I haven't read the case. I don't live in MA, but I keep mine in a quick access pistol safe because I have a little one about. If we didn't have a child, I'd probably do the same because I don't want a burglar to have quick and easy carry off access. Not sure how I feel about a mandate from the state telling me I have to do it in my own home, though.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 20 weeks 9 hours ago

Only a fool would store a firearm in such a way that a child or cognitively disabled adult could easily get at it. It may also be that only a fool would store a firearm where anyone could access it, regardless of household membership. I feel like it's just good citizenship to keep your firearm in a locked container.

Now, the MA law says in a locked container or a trigger lock, when not under the owner's control. There are some very fast-opening lockable containers, so the law, as a matter of limiting a person's ability to defend themselves, seems reasonable. You can wear that thing on your hip all you want in your house, only being required to safe it when you're going to bed or in the shower or something. Arguably, you could lock the door and if you're the only one in the room it's "under your control."

That said, I think it's a foolish law to have on the books. IMO, you can't legislate 100% safety for the public against anything. So rather than increase the size of an intrusive bureaucracy, I say, let fools store their firearms how they will.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 19 weeks 6 days ago

'They will experience something similar to "Bokkendori".'

"Unless of course he has a-study his acrobatics..." ;D

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 18 weeks 5 days ago

Even if it weren't the law here, I would still lock my guns. That way I know that I am the only person who will have access to my guns, which is a good thing.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 18 weeks 4 days ago

I grew up here, I lived in other places but I came back to Mass, because it is my home, (and people don't talk funny here like they do in them other places). I can't understand why people live unsustainably in deserts or in places like gawdawful California or (gack) Texas!
I am quite fond of Massachusetts, despite it's warts, If some of you "cons" don't like my state that is fine with me, means you just ain't likely to visit and overstay yer welcome.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 20 weeks 14 hours ago

As a Mass resident I have no problem with the law requiring firearms be kept locked. You lock your car don't you?
For my household defense I have a pistol safe with an ergonomic lock I can open one handed in the dark. I don't want anybody but me accessing my guns, I ain't here all the time, locks make sense! Gun locks prevent children and fools from having regrettable accidents.
Besides most of my firearms are black powder and aren't required to be locked anyway.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment