Massachusetts High Court Rules That Homeowners Must Lock Up Their Guns,

[Desertdog]

MA residents, is this true or is it just more Brady lie?

Massachusetts High Court Rules That Homeowners Must Lock Up Their Guns, Says Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=68634

To: National Desk

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-898-0792

BOSTON, June 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today in Jupin v. Kask that homeowners must ensure that firearms in their homes are secured from theft, or they may be held liable for shootings with stolen guns. This is the first time that a court in Massachusetts has ruled that a homeowner may be liable for a shooting with a gun stolen from a home. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence submitted a friend of the court brief in this case, supporting liability for homeowners who fail to safely store their firearms.

The case involved the May 10, 1999, shooting of Westminster Police Officer Lawrence M. Jupin by Jason Rivers. Rivers shot Officer Jupin three times with a .357 Magnum handgun. Officer Jupin fell into a coma and died after 3 1/2 years in a vegetative state. Rivers had a history of violent criminal activity and was a paranoid schizophrenic. Despite Jason's record of violence, homeowner Sharon Kask allowed Jason's father to store an arsenal of thirty firearms in her home in a makeshift gun cabinet, and she gave Jason free access to her home. The cabinet was locked but was made of particle board and could easily be disassembled with a screwdriver. Jason unscrewed the cabinet's lock and took the gun he used to kill Officer Jupin.

Daniel Vice, Staff Attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, "This ruling sends a clear message that guns must be stored locked and unloaded. A police officer's life could have been saved if this arsenal of guns had been secured. Irresponsibility with guns is everyone's problem."

The ruling is the first of its kind in Massachusetts and sets new precedent allowing liability against people who allow guns to be stored unsafely in their home. The decision follows rulings in other states holding gun owners liable for shootings that occur because they have failed to secure firearms in their homes. Courts in Indiana, Kansas and Montana have recently expanded liability of gun owners who fail to secure their guns. The Brady Center submitted briefs to the courts in Indiana and Kansas urging them to find liability for irresponsible gun owners.

Between 1999 and 2003, firearms killed 973 people in Massachusetts, 390 of which were homicides. Failure to securely store firearms in the home is a leading cause of preventable shooting deaths. Studies have found a significant correlation between rates of household gun ownership and homicides.

The brief was submitted by attorneys for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Daniel Swanson, formerly of Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Massachusetts Million Mom March, and Stop Handgun Violence joined the Brady Center's amicus (friend of the court) brief.

-----

As the nation's largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

 

[beerslurpy]

It sounds like the guns were stored locked and unloaded. The problem was the crazy person in the house with enough spare time to defeat the locks and load the guns. Have they considered punishing him instead?

As an aside, this sounds like a ruling that they can be sued due to the fact that they had a crazy person in the house + guns lightly secured and failed to guard against the likely harm that would ensue. It isnt an actual finding that they are liable, only that they may be liable. I think the defense was trying to get summary judgment, and it got appealed. And to be honest, this looks close enough to the line that I dont see the harm in having a jury look at it. Sucks that the family has to go through the cost of a trial, but what do you expect will happen when your kid takes a gun and shoots a cop?

No surprise that Brady is misrepresenting the holding of this case to apply to "all stolen guns that werent properly secured." I also doubt that such a ruling would override state laws that create standards of care based on the presence of children who have access (like Florida). To be honest, I am surprised that MA doesnt have such laws. Could have sworn they did.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I Put This Up On Another Site:

This Is Not New - And No Less Repulsive

The federal government has done this as well, and in fact, is law. It is illegal to sell a gun to a felon. It is not only illegal for a felon to own a gun, but you can go down with the felon if, perchance, you sell it to him. The government, at what ever level, can't seem to get their act together prosecuting criminals and HOLDING THEM 'TILL THEY CAN BE TRUSTED OUT IN PUBLIC, so they turn to those they can get to - the law abiding. They'll make a normally law abiding citizen into a criminal because it is so much easier to grab someone who isn't running, hiding, or won't shoot it out to avoid getting arrested. Thus, the criminals still roam at will, armed at will, and care not one iota for whom they bought OR STOLE the gun from.

This is no less than the government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts saying they are incompetent to handle the crime in their realm. But, there are lines that should never be crossed regardless of the abounding incompetence. No one should ever be held liable for the criminal actions of another. The crime begins when the criminal lies to buy the weapon, or steals it - whether the gun is sitting on a pedestal in the middle of a room, on a pedestal in the middle of the front lawn, or welded in the center of a 5,000 pound block of steel encased in 46 feet of concrete. How it is stored makes no difference to the law abiding or the criminal. The law abiding won't steal it. It means diddly to the criminal how it is stored, because they want it, therefore, they will steal it.

If everyone stored their weapons in gun safes, I'd bet there would be no less guns stolen. Without knowing this for fact, I'd have to guess that more people would be killed or held at gunpoint and forced to open their gun safes.

No, Massachusetts. Put the criminals away and let your subjects - er, I mean citizens - live in armed peace. You won't run afoul of your constitution or the Constitution for the United States of America, either.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well. As in this case, the Court is derelict.

 

[Fletchette]

"You may own books, but they must be kept closed. It is for the children"

I am so glad I got out of there.

The people in the slave states must vote with their feet and move to a free state...and leave any inkling of socialism behind them. People in the Kingdom of Kennedy need to move to Vermont and oppose any and all gun control, even "reasonable" gun control. Otherwise, you will slowly slip into the same situation you are in today.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Feh. Whaddya expect from a state historically known for executing people who refused to sign confessions that they consorted with Satan?

 

[Hoppy590]

beerslurpy

No surprise that Brady is misrepresenting the holding of this case to apply to "all stolen guns that werent properly secured." I also doubt that such a ruling would override state laws that create standards of care based on the presence of children who have access (like Florida). To be honest, I am surprised that MA doesnt have such laws. Could have sworn they did.

im not sure if this is what ur asking/wondering. but all weapons in MA must be stored, unloaded and either in a locked container ( gun safe, foot locker, box made out of paper thin glass. ya, no one said the laws are well thought out) or with a trigger lock or breach blocking device in place. (exception to flint,match and percussion)

Chapter 140: Section 131L

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

 

[johnny blaze]

This is unbelievable. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to live in that state.
They want to make everyone safe in their homes. I guess having your gun locked up and unloaded is keeping people safe.
I really get steamed when they try to put the blame on some poor sole that just got his guns ripped off. Why can't they blame themselves for not being able to handle the bad guys. They have no clue that they have failed.

 

[one45auto]

Ironic indeed that the very state where an attempt at gun confiscation started the Revolutionary War has now become the most draconian in terms of gun control legislation.

 

[Spot77]

Ironic indeed that the very state where an attempt at gun confiscation started the Revolutionary War has now become the most draconian in terms of gun control legislation.

Perhaps the British never really left, eh?

 

[Hoppy590]

i cant find anything pertaining to keeping it unloaded during inhome storage. so i may have gotten that confused with that must be kept unloaded during travel. ( similar law, during transport must be in locked container.trunk, or gun case. trigger locks dont matter in the car. handguns must be under "direct control" of the owner. wich is interperatable by the cops. some towns means arms reach, others mean physicaly on your persons.)

 

[RealGun]

We are going to see more of this regarding failure to use trigger locks or failure to demonstrate that a trigger lock was purchased with the gun. That law specifies that trigger lock ownership imparts less liability, implying that lack of a lock leaves one free to be prosecuted.

My issue with this is the law having jurisdiction inside my locked front door or locked vehicle. If someone steals my gun, it seems to me that the only issue is the theft. Secondary liability is ridiculous and harassing, but admittedly it is not smart to carelessly allow the possibility that guns can be stolen, especially when loaded and ready to fire or nearly so.

 

[Ira Aten]

Folks in States like MA. desperately need to get a handle on their legislature and especially, try and make sure to elect District Attornies in the counties (I guess they call them counties, they may be "sectors" up there) they live in, that will not prosecute Unconstitutional gun laws. (It is up to the sole choice of the D.A. if they will or will not seek indictment)

For a State to simply stamp VOID on the Second Amendment with a loonie law like that, is something they just should not stand by and allow.

It is just plain dangerous not to be able to defend yourself in your home.

 

[ArmedBear]

Whaddya expect from a state historically known for executing people who refused to sign confessions that they consorted with Satan?

Well, .45, we now have empirical evidence that it was true.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Ira Aten,

This is what happens when you get pure democracy, and the majority of people are dingbats. MA voters made Massachusetts the way it is. Funny thing is, they move to New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, and mess up the politics (which are interesting to say the least) of those states, and then get surprised when the socialist policies they adopted in their own state begin to mess up the areas they move to.

You want to throw blame for this somewhere, you don't have to look much farther than Boston, Roxbury, etc. That is where all the nuts that are destroying the place for gunowners live by not leaving us alone.

Fletchette:

I love the fact you called Mass a "slave state." You know, I'm thinking about doing a libertarian list of laws which are antithetical to freedom, and identifying states as "free" or "slave" or "on the fence."

The reference to that time in our history really put it in perspective for me.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

So in Mass, it's illegal (ingnoring the U.S. Constitution) to keep a gun in your house that isn't locked up? That's worse than California law--that law just holds you criminally liable if you keep your gun unlocked, and someone under age 18 does something bad with it. That doesn't bode well for keeping a gun on the nightstand for self defense. Guess you'd have to wear it as you slept--good thing the law give you that exception!

Chapter 140: Section 131L

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

 

[Justin]

Feh. Whaddya expect from a state historically known for executing people who refused to sign confessions that they consorted with Satan?

That right there is a pure nugget of comedy gold.

 

[Beren]

Utter hogwash. The weapons /were/ locked up in a cabinet. So..let's do the match.

I lock up my pistols in a "real" gunsafe.

Someone comes along who has enough time to open the safe. I know a guy who trains FBI agents on this stuff. He can get my safe open in thirty seconds with his bare fingers. *I* can't open it that fast and *I* know the combination.

Gosh, look, my safe wasn't "secure." I'm now liable for some scumball who broke into my home and then into my "safe."

Cable locks for guns? Um, how do those not take ten seconds to remove with a cable cutter?

 

[cbsbyte]

The most Conservative areas of Mass, in the sense that most voters in the towns vote Republican, or Conservative Democrats are in the suburbs of Boston, Wochester, Springfield and on the Cape. The more Liberal parts of the state are the in rural towns with a high percentage of farmers and rednecks. Go fiqure.

http://merlot.caliper.com/maptitude/MassStatsNETVersion/(z5t3x52o4f2zpxvw21wgr155)/Map.aspx

 

[Rockrivr1]

I agree with cbsbyte. The biggest anti-gun movement is in the big cities where crime seems to be on the rise. That's what's in the publics eye and the folks that live in those areas are pushing for anything that will help reduce this crime wave. Since the big city and town leaders can't seem to get the crime down, they harp on bogus issues like it's not their fault there are more criminals with guns. It's them damn "free" states that make it easy to get guns imported into our fine state, they say. Hell, there's a HUGE billboard on the Mass Pike entering boston with an AK-47 on it with a saying "Coming soon to a town near you". Hummmm, what does that tell you?

Once you get out of the big cities and towns, gun ownership becomes an accepted part of life for the most part. CLEO's are more inclined to issue LTC permits and LE as a whole doesn't mess with you as long as you follow the rules, however miss guided they are. This is especially true of towns west of Worcester. I think if it was up to the people in Boston, they would consider that part of the state a different state all together.

 

[Hoppy590]

Rockrivr1

got it dead on. Western MA is a differant state. i go to school in the east ( near brockton) and live in the west. near springfield. no one out there knows anything past worcester. the two sides of the state couldnt be more differant. here out west we got better things to do than blame others for our problems. man, western MA should break off from the rest of the state.

this is my interpritation of a bostonian view of MA, like a map from the 1600's

 

[cbsbyte]

Western Mass is solid Democrat.

Sorry, Hoppy Western Mass is far more Liberal/socialist than the rest of the state. The most rural western county is Berkshire county which is solid blue. It is the only county in the state that every town votes Democrat. It is due to the large amount of old union dems, and the many transplants from NYC and Boston. Like I said before the middle part around Springfield and Wochester and around Boston are the most conservative areas in the state. It seems that the largest cities and towns are very liberal, and so are many rural small towns in the western part of the state, though many surbubs of Boston are very red.

 

[distra]

Next thing you know MA will blame CT, NH and VT for the unsecured guns. I'd say move north NH, VT or come on down to CT, Mass gives me the willies

 

[Hoppy590]

cbsbyte
well we all know who you vote for doesnt stand for how you feel on specific causes. iv lived at both sides of the state, and i can honestly say, theres a big differance in personal attitudes even if the political results may not show it. ( dont forget politics are bull, and the general sheeple do as they are told)

 

[jeepmor]

They're still blaming the guns eh....

When are these liberals going to start holding the perpetrators of violence accountable for their actions?

I mean really, someone could go on vacation and leave their nightstand gun on the nightstand. Said criminal element breaks into the home, steals the gun, then goes on a shooting spree and wipes out a bunch of sheeple at McDonalds.

Please explain to me how the homeowner is responsible for this killing spree.

Blame the violence on the people who commit it, not the tools they use, or the people they stole the tools from.

Isn't this the main problem in society nowadays, no one is held accountable anymore. Not crooks, robbers, rapists, major corporation embezzlers, government officials or high dollar celebrities. RIDICULOUS.

jeepmor

 

[deanf]

So if I live in MA, I'm now responsible for the anti-social behavior of (potentially) every person on the planet?

You would think that the doors of the house being locked would be enough notice to everyone that I don't want you in my house playing with my things.

Very disturbing.