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 people’s homes.
In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s 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 Runyan’s then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbor’s 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...
--SNIP--
In yesterday’s 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 ...
“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?
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).
“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
Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
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
I ok with this as long as the person kicking in my front door has a trigger lock on his gun.
Gun restrictions: Violent Felon Employment Protection Program
Gotta ban swimming pools and dogs over 30 pounds then. They kill far more children.
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.
You’re bad.
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.
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.
Enforcement by door-to-door searches with Rahm’s Blueshirts?
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?
The USSC will overturn this.
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
Was the rifle loaded or not? It is not clarified in the article.
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.