Mass. Court says trigger lock laws constitutional, 2A does not apply to states

[Jackson1999]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/_in_a_victory_f.html

Are these guys asking to be overruled?

Gants wrote that Massachusetts law requires trigger locks when the gun owner is not at home, and therefore avoids the self-defense concern raised by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller case.

Seems like he is splitting hairs, but what really got me was this..

"We conclude that, based on current Federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise,'' Gants wrote.

Are they trying to influence the McDonald ruling? Didn't they read the McDonald transcript?

[X_Digger]

1. They can't reach past current precedent..

Even if they have read the McDonald oral argument, and feel that it's only a matter of time..

They just don't have the authority to make that call based on their own precedent.


Stupid ruling that would have likely been ruled different (and no doubt will) had the decision happened after this SCOTUS term.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. This is consistent with all current district court rulings, EXCEPT the 9th.

7th, and 2nd and others have all recently ruled this, and it is accurate/true insofar as the SC has not yet ruled.

Once the SC rules on this, if they hold a contrarian viewpoint and incorporate, this Mass ruling will be null and void.

[Jackson1999]

6. Yabut...

You think the judge would have seen the writing on the wall and given himself some wiggle room. The 9th said it did apply. Or at least put off the decision for a few months.

I guess that question is moot, however since the main question was on the locks.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I think the ruling was reasonable given the circumstances.

Another option might have been to delay the trial a month.

I think the 9th Circuit suspended that ruling after issuing, it, once other courts started opposing it.

[Euromutt]

18. Why not keep the rulings as narrow as possible, though?

Note that these are actually rulings in two separate cases, by the way. But IM(NS)HO, both rulings could have been arrived at without touching on the question whether the Second Amendment applies to the several states.

The trigger lock ruling is fair enough; when you are physically distant from the firearm, being required to keep it locked up doesn't negatively affect your ability to use for self-defense anyway.

In the second case, Nathaniel DePina, was arrested by gang officers after a .22-caliber revolver fell out of his clothing. Gants said that DePina loses because the Second Amendment does not apply – and because the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has never meant that an individual is free to own firearms.

According to court documents (http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/amicus/sjc-10558.html), DePina faced charges of unlawful carrying of a firearm, unlawful carrying of a loaded firearm, and possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card. DePina was carrying concealed, it seems, and from an earlier thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x258140 it appears he was at most 17 at the time. It strikes me that the SJC could have ruled that either of those conditions--let alone both--rendered the Second Amendment question moot in this particular case.

So why not just punt, instead of issuing a ruling that may be open to being overturned as soon the SCOTUS rules on MacDonald?

[havocmom]

3. LOL if the Constitution and its amendments does not apply to states...

Do states get to deny voting rights to women and people of color?

Do people get to own other people (openly, we know slavery still exists in some enterprises)?

WTF are they thinking with an argument that a Constitutional provision doesn't count if a state doesn't want to abide by it?

[X_Digger]

4. Selective incorporation doctrine is a mess..

It's a rotting corpse that continues to stink even after 137 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

[PavePusher]

13. It should be pretty simple.

Any state that ratified the Constitution (and that would be, duh, all of them) has thereby agreed to be subject to such Constitution.

Any state that thinks otherwise, should have it's entire elected government, down to county level, held under arrest until they understand that.

Silly me, being such a Constitutional absolutist....:hide:

[X_Digger]

15. You'd think so, ya? *sigh* n/t

[PavePusher]

20. Only lawyers and politicians can screw things up this badly.

Makes me wish that every law had to pass a reading by 1000 random 10th graders. If less then 65% can understand it, back to commitee, and the people who drafted it and voted in favor of it get publicly horse-whipped.

I think we'd end up with a better class of pols, and a better class of education. Birds, 2. Stones, 1.

Hey, I can dream, right?

[TheWraith]

16. Amen to that. They really need to throw incorporation out the window.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Period.

[spin]

5. So if I live in Mass and I decide to go to the store ...

I have to put trigger locks on my guns while I'm gone.

Makes sense to me.

You never know when these damn guns are going to jump up and start shooting. While I'm in the house, all my guns behave properly, but I know they are just waiting for me to leave.

[Glassunion]

8. It's not the guns... I setup a webcam while I was out once...

It's the damn cat!!!




Also I go hunting with a fox, but he has to stay supervized.


Either way, keep em locked up when you are not home.

[PavePusher]

12. Teh nuu Awwsumm.

I hazz it.

[Tejas]

14. MH/ u r the typical poster child for teh NRA

Some day one of your guns will snap and bullet-riddled satellites will rain from the sky and they'll land in streets full of blood....and you'll be thrilled! /MH

[Statistical]

9. What I don't understand is since Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments in McDonald...

why not delay ruling until after Supreme rules.

I am not saying they HAVE to just think it would make sense that they do.

So they rule that it isn't unconstitutional. Then next month SOCTUS rules 2A applies to states.

This doesn't automatically "undo" this MA ruling. It will require a whole new lawsuit and the case will need to be reheard before another ruling will be made.

Hmm maybe that is the intent? Makes the MA trigger lock law stay on the books a couple more months? Nah I am too much of a cynic.

[spin]

10. It may be to gain employment for lawyers...

and think of all the jobs this law will save.

[Statistical]

11. True. Maybe it is part of stimulus plan.

Got to keep lawyers employed too.

[PavePusher]

17. Better we starve them.

They work harder when they're hungry....

Ya know, sharks and all....

[visigoth]

19. That's what we thought

I really though they would stall and not issue an opinion until McDonald was resolved. They do have some cover as the MA law is a lot different from the one in DC that was shot down. This will probably have to be re-challenged at some point in federal court. It also didn't help our cause that the gun owner was clearly irresponsible. It was a bad test case.