I read about this on Weer'd Beard's site yesterday. He's asked me not to link to him, so you'll have to find him yourself if you want to. I left a comment there which I don't know if he published. He may have adopted a commenting policy similar to mine which allows the deletion of comments containing personal attacks and name calling.
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.
My comment basically questioned whether Weer'd had always been in compliance with this law which was "upheld," indicating that it's been on the books already. I suggested that in the privacy of his own home with no children around and believing that it's an unjust law anyway, he's been in violation of it all along. This, combined with his several assertions that he's never broken the slightest law, would make him a liar.
I don't mind people breaking minor laws in the privacy of their own homes, but what I do mind very much is when those people proclaim to never have done so and all the while point fingers at others making unfounded accusations.
What's your opinion? Is this an unjust law in Massachusetts? Do you think most "lawful" gun owners break laws like this one? Do you think it's possible for someone to break a law like this one and still be a "law-abiding gun owner?"
Please leave a comment.