SJC backs trigger-lock law on guns in homes

[Ashrak]

This is from the Boston Globe

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.

 

“Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition,’’ Gants wrote. “These cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them.’’

 

In a statement on the trigger lock case, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, applauded the SJC. “Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’ he said.

[lockman]

This is from the Boston Globe

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.

 

“Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition,’’ Gants wrote. “These cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them.’’

 

In a statement on the trigger lock case, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, applauded the SJC. “Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’ he said.

 

This ruling will be subject to litigation in the federal courts after incorporation.

[billzfx4]

“Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’

 

Funny, I didn't see a single 'gun criminal' at IGOLD yesterday lobbying for their rights. They must have another day scheduled for their rally.

[GarandFan]

This ruling will be subject to litigation in the federal courts after incorporation.

 

Certainly. The supreme court has already ruled that mandated safe storage renders firearms useless (or less useful) for defensive purposes, and is thus unconstitutional.

 

It's funny to see the Brady's parade this around as a major victory for common sense.

 

I am a strong advocate for safe storage of firearms, and a strong opponent of legal mandates for such.

[Ashrak]

This ruling will be subject to litigation in the federal courts after incorporation.

 

Certainly. The supreme court has already ruled that mandated safe storage renders firearms useless (or less useful) for defensive purposes, and is thus unconstitutional.

 

It's funny to see the Brady's parade this around as a major victory for common sense.

 

I am a strong advocate for safe storage of firearms, and a strong opponent of legal mandates for such.

+1

[Chiburbian]

This ruling will be subject to litigation in the federal courts after incorporation.

 

Certainly. The supreme court has already ruled that mandated safe storage renders firearms useless (or less useful) for defensive purposes, and is thus unconstitutional.

 

It's funny to see the Brady's parade this around as a major victory for common sense.

 

I am a strong advocate for safe storage of firearms, and a strong opponent of legal mandates for such.

+1

 

The safest place I can think to store my firearm is on my hip.

[ilphil]

I hope that court will be as decisive in following SCOTUS rulings after incorporation. Then they will have no choice but to toss out the MA law since it would violate the new precedent set by McDonald.