Massachusetts Trigger Lock Provision Oral Arguments

Looks like oral arguments happened today in the case which challenges the constitutionality of Massachusetts safe storage provisions.

“They went out of their way to say that the … decision was not invalidating laws that were enacted to prevent accidents and that such regulations were presumptively lawful,” Lillios told the state Supreme Judicial Court in oral arguments.

Except that held directly in the case was that DC’s trigger lock provision was unconstitutional. Massachusetts is slightly different, in that a trigger lock is required if the firearms out of the direct control of the licensee, but is not absolutely required. Still, there’s a good case to be made that Heller applies.

One thought on “Massachusetts Trigger Lock Provision Oral Arguments”

  1. God I hope this is successful. This law protects nobody, endangers all, and is generally a pain in the ass (If I come home from the range, but want to grab a bite to eat or do something before I clean my guns, I have to lock them all up or disassemble them before I leave the room! Also I’ve had to turn back from the range because I left the key to my gun boxes on the counter at home. I’ve also sat waiting for the dryer to finish when I realized the key to my lock was in my pants pocket in the wash!)

Comments are closed.