Constitutional – Second Amendment

Listen to this article

Where a constitutional challenge has been brought to G.L.c. 140, section131L(a), which makes it unlawful to store a firearm that is not carried by or under the immediate control of the owner or other authorized user unless the firearm is secured in a locked container or equipped with a safety device that renders the firearm inoperable by anyone other than the owner or other authorized user, the challenged statute is constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

“… The issue presented by the reported questions is whether section131L(a) is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008) (Heller), which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home, and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036, 3050 (2010) (McDonald), which incorporated the guarantees of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, making the Second Amendment applicable to the States. We conclude that, where section131L(a) allows the owner of a firearm to carry or otherwise keep the firearm under the owner’s immediate control within the home, and where the storage requirements are reasonably designed to prevent persons who are not licensed to possess or carry a firearm, including felons, the mentally ill, and children, from gaining illegal access to a firearm, section131L(a) falls outside the scope of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. …

“We hold that, because section131L(a) is consistent with the right to bear arms in self-defense in one’s home and is designed to prevent those who are not licensed to possess or carry firearms from gaining access to firearms, it falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment. As a result, it is subject only to rational basis analysis, which it easily survives. Therefore, we conclude that section131L(a) is constitutional under the Supreme Court’s holdings and analysis in Heller and McDonald, and that Massachusetts may enforce section131L(a) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.”

Commonwealth v. McGowan (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-011-13) (19 pages) (Gants, J.) (SJC) Motion to dismiss heard by Leroy, J., and questions of law reported by him. John A. Rasmussen for the defendant; Katherine Robertson for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-11076) (Jan. 29, 2013).