Mass. High Court: Gun Owners Must Lock Up Firearms

By Andrew Ryan | July 18, 2006

  • July 18, 2006 at 8:39 am
    colyork says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    It is sad the state where the \”shot heard round the world\” is being run by people who want to take the right away that the patriots died for.
    Back to \”it\’s about time\” This whole thing smells like a ambulance chaser looking for a payday at the exspence(SP) of an innocent person.
    The killer has sole responsabilty for what he did, and the state of Mass/and his doctors are guilty of letting this guy on the streets when they knew he could have been a danger to some one else.

  • July 18, 2006 at 1:16 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    So now breaking & entering is \”negligent access\”??? Just when were the Mass gun owners notified what the required levil of security is?? Could she have overlooked the memo? As to the actual perpetrator, if he was so well known to be mentally incompetant and prone to violence, why was such a \”progressive\” state as Mass letting him run loose? Perhaps they missed that memo also. Nope, nope, nope; it\’s all the gun owners fault just for being the gun owner, and being rich enough or insured enough to make a tasty target for the lawyers.

  • July 18, 2006 at 1:23 am
    Michael says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    This is a long overdue development. The owners of firearms need to be held responsible if they do not take steps to prevent unauthorized use. More often than not, it is someone in their family or a family friend that gets injured or killed because someone (ususally a child) had access to a firearm. There is really no excuse for not securing firearms from unauthorized use.

  • July 18, 2006 at 1:25 am
    tank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I would guess that in Mass if you do not lock up your car keys in a safe, and someone you know with access to your house takes your keys (non-permissive) and runs over someone, then you are liabile even though your car was stolen. Or they take a knife out of your kitchen and commit a crime, then you are responsible. Or they take a lighter or matches from your home and committ arson, then you are responsible. One has only to look at the most famous Senator from Mass to understand the reasoning of the courts in Mass. I am just thankful I do not live there.

  • July 18, 2006 at 1:41 am
    Insguy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    We( or in this case the State of Mass ) need to take responsibility for the people that have menal illness and keep them under control. The last time I checked my car has never on its own or with me driving ran anybody over or my guns have never jumped out of the locked gun cabinet and shot anyone. Even when my guns were unlocked they have never taken it upon themselves to shoot anyone. But none of my guns have mental illness that I know of.

  • July 18, 2006 at 1:46 am
    gdsvt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    How secure is secure??? Someone takes a coal chisel and a sledge hammer and breaks into my gun safe and I am responsible??? If a person wants something bad enough they WILL find a way to get it, and if they get it……then I guess that it wasn\’t secure. Another blow to \”common sense\”

  • July 18, 2006 at 2:45 am
    GB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Michael, you are repeating an anti-gun argument refuted long ago. The notion that guns pose a great danger to their owners\’ families is erroneous.

    A gun IS more likely to be used in an accidental death than in the death of an intruder. However, this phony stat ignores the fact that in the vast, vast majority of cases guns used legally in self defense are not even fired, let alone used to wound or kill an assailant. Pointing the firearm toward the perp is usually all that is necessary.

  • July 18, 2006 at 4:04 am
    bob laublaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    I think Michael and Tank and correct in their sentiments. Every gun owner needs to act in a responsible manner, GB, I highly doubt you can dispute that. GB can you provide any documentation to support you assertions?

  • July 18, 2006 at 4:30 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so we all know that any one person can commit a crime. responsibility of the crime is the one whom commits the crime. how are we to know if a person is stable or mentally fit? are we all experts in that field? not likely! it took a bit of thinking to find a way to unscrew the hinges. he knew that a gun was there and that if can be a deadly weapon. so do we not try him for burglary for removing the gun? or is that mentally incompetant? i think we try too much to say i am not taking responsibility for any action i take. we are all adults and we have to be held accountable. why should the state keep accepting incompetance or insanities? who\’s going to keep paying for trial or restitution?

  • July 19, 2006 at 11:27 am
    jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    So if keep a gun by my bed to protect me from the nut case next door and he breaks in and takesthat gun without wakening me and shoots me it is my fault. That sure makes sense.

  • July 19, 2006 at 2:47 am
    Ken says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Excuse Me?? did you think that moving the gun away from the home, to a completely different address, in a locked basement, locked cabinet is \”negligent\”
    If so you are indeed stupid enough to live in Massachusetts.

    the only negligence here is in not impeaching these \’superior\’ court judges

  • July 20, 2006 at 8:17 am
    Rich says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Before this gets overblown, all the SJC said is that ther was enough to let a jury decide, among other things, is: (1) Should Ms Kusak have expected Rivers to break and enter. Did she know Rivers (her boy friend\’s son)and was she aware of his mental state? and (2) If she should have realized that Rivers might have broken in and gone after her gun, was the cabinet reasonably secure even thoug it was broken into? Would it have been reasonable under the circumstances known to Ms Kusak to have used external hinges and were there oneway screws available?

    People with devices that can be used dangereously by others should assume RESPONSIBILITY for taking reasonablr care that the car, the ratpoison, the gun do not get used by less responsible people. That is not new law.

  • July 20, 2006 at 10:31 am
    Common Sense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    For all you anti-gun people. See what is happening over in England & Australia.

    For the US facts, just review the crime
    report put by the FBI, the accident
    reports put out by CDC, OSHA and the
    hospital ER stats.

    Stop blaming other people for your actions.
    Take responsibility for your own.

    Also, what about the courts? Many examples
    of cases around the country where people should be in jail. But, because of are
    liberal courts, they are roaming the streets. We have so many firearm laws on the books now(read the US Crimminal Code)
    we send anyone away for over 500 years.
    But we feel sorry for them and not the victim.

    It is time to take back America. You break
    into my home and you will stand before Jesus.

  • July 26, 2006 at 7:44 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    so if i secure my car in outside in my driveway, and it gets stolen. am i responsible, if the burglar hits someone? i have locked my car.

    a knife can be used as a weapon as well, but we don\’t lock them up. does that mean i might be responsible if the burglar grabs a knife from my kitchen drawer and he stabs either me or someone else?

    i think society has forgotten that the individual wielding/using these items are aware of what is in their possession. they just don\’t want to take responsibility for that action. everyone knows that wrong is wrong and right is right. so, whom ends up paying for the so called insanities? state does not want to, but does – using our tax money. but to recoup the spent money, they are trying find alternative ways to collect money. or at least giving an alternative way for the actual responsibile person a way to pay without paying.

    back to the original thought: whom is responsible? whom pulled the trigger?

    like drinking and driving, are you going to sue/place the blame on the person serving you the drink? or the person whom shipped the alcohol? or the company whom made the alcohol? we all know that the two don\’t mix. nobody put you behind the wheel or turned the vehicle over or placed the vehicle into drive.

    same with the gun! if you steal the gun, you had to steal the ammunition. you have to understand how to load the weapon, as well knowing how to pull the trigger. but who loaded the weapon or whom pulled that trigger.

    again: responsibility of the actions that you do.

    we can go crazy with all kinds of analagies on this. in the end, its back to the basic: being responsible for your own actions!

  • August 15, 2006 at 1:13 am
    Logical Steve-O says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I think the statement \”Wrongdoers who illegally possess firearms because of the negligence of others, now there is a legal remedy\”. What that REALLY means is the lawyers are excited because they have a foot in the door to sue the person who had the guns STOLEN. My question is – IF A PERSON STEALS MY CAR AND KILLS SOMEONE, AM I ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT TOO?

  • October 9, 2006 at 8:32 am
    AkelloDWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    On tablets how many are harmful to growing thin?
    I hate myself for the sizes.
    Whether it is valid, what they can cause irreversible damage to health?
    Now show on TV much as people become invalids as a result of treatment.

    surfing

  • January 28, 2007 at 9:24 am
    smokes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I live in mass and im fed up with the fact that goal has done s*** to fix these stupid laws. The nra wont even try to come in this state cause they know its a lost cause.the constitution of the u.s does not exist here raped in taxes and gun rights whats next ban pillows. Know wonder why the average person between 23 -35 are leaving this state,Im next.

  • April 9, 2007 at 11:20 am
    hfthcjcki says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 10, 2007 at 8:22 am
    liqlcthov says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 10, 2007 at 9:10 am
    cekczwzb says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 10, 2007 at 11:52 am
    skyfpbhyv says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 11, 2007 at 12:37 pm
    efyzezxl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 10, 2007 at 3:13 am
    glramdzyly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 11, 2007 at 3:24 am
    qcoezxuzog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 10, 2007 at 6:22 am
    yudzorjdya says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 11, 2007 at 8:46 am
    vzvfmetlw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 11, 2007 at 10:36 am
    smokes77 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    to Michael you obviously dont know that massachusetts is one of the toughest states to own a firearm before this happend. mass residents CAN\’T own some of the safest guns like h&k, glock to name a few i would like anyone to try to interpet mass genral laws chapter 140 and tell me there not confused about what qualifys as a locked container.When you buy a gun it must be sold with a trigger lock, so under mass law a trigger lock is compliant with a safety device or is a firearm that has a trigger lock on it is a secured device. before you say its about try knowing what bullsh** we already deal with here.

    first you have to take a safty course

    second you have to pay 100 dollars for a licence that you might not get

    then if you get the licence and buy a firearm you have to register it

    IF it was a knew firearm it COMES WITH a TRIGGER lock and a CASE and under mass law it is LEGAL to store a firearm in a case with a TRIGGER lock.

    again this state is guilty of TREASON
    against the constution of the United States of America

  • April 11, 2007 at 6:14 am
    osbttlwd says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 16, 2007 at 1:33 am
    togrbdopg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0
  • April 24, 2007 at 3:50 am
    Rob Lambert says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    If you own guns in MA, then you\’ve got them locked up – or you\’re already breaking the law. This is the reality that we live in here in MA. It\’s no big deal, you just do it. You put the trigger lock on them and you put them in the gun safe, and you lock the safe.

    Some idiot leaves an unlocked gun in an unlocked cabinet in an unlocked house where a known mentally ill person has access – and you\’re complaining that the law comes down on it?

    It\’s your responsibility to keep your guns out of the hands of your kids, or your kids friends, your mentally ill friends, your mentally ill relatives, your criminally inclined friends and your criminally inclined relatives. Why? because they\’ve got no business playing with your guns in the first place.

    You can\’t do that? Then you\’ve got no business owning guns in the first place.

    • September 5, 2014 at 12:15 am
      Ken says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I am a small arms instructor with many years teaching safe weapons handling while also teaching to use it properly — i.e., to stop someone from harming me, my family or others. I don’t think I would have a weapon in my house that I could NOT get to readily. That’s the main reason I have weapons in my house. Having one locked up in a safe with or without a trigger lock AND in the basement would surely tell me it was secure — it would also tell me that it was not available for what it was intended.True, I don’t think I know any mental incompetents and do not have children but, if I did, I don’t think I would let someone tell me I was responsible for some nut case stealing my weapon and harming someone. GIVE ME A BREAK!

  • June 26, 2007 at 10:21 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    now, look at the article, this person undid the outside of the secure case. u have to be somewhat intelligent to undo the hinges and whatnot.

    the grip on life, is – why should the owner whom have the safe in the basement unbeknowst to the movein, whom wandered in the house and physically undo the case to get the gun. it was locked up and out of the way. it does not make the owner a culprit of the crime. in fact, we need to remember – why are we always trying to lay blame on everyone else, instead of the person who actually committed the crime.

    the VT incident, whose to blame? not society for those who suggested that he be reviewed mentally, but the person himself. we have to stop blaming individuals or society for those actions that people cause. we need to place blame on the person whom committed the crime. we all know what is right and what is wrong. some of us think folks think differently, yet in reality, we all do know. if we can teach a dog manners and obedience, then we can teach our children. children do know and then as adults know what is right and what is wrong….

    so stop the blaming on others and put the blame on the individual.

  • July 23, 2007 at 10:30 am
    Dan Rush says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    When I left for the Navy in 1985 I since vowed never again to return to this putrid fascist liberal state for more than 24 hours. This Kennedy loving Enclave of illegal alien, tax hording liberal fucks can rot in hell.

    • March 3, 2011 at 9:39 am
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      As A gun owner, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.Good Riddance, with your anger we do not need you.

  • February 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm
    RareSense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Most firearm owners take reasonable precaution to secure their weapons. Most Banks take reasonable security precautions to protect their vaults. But robberies and break-ins still occur. Do we hold the banks liable when reasonable precautions were taken? Are firearms owners held to a different standard? Locked containers, whether they are vaults, locked boxes, secure cases/cabinets can minimize unauthorized entry, but no such container is break in proof. Where are we drawing the line? Banks are okay, but us gun owners . . . are we considered negligent and guilty because we own firearms? Damn anyone who doesn’t lock up their weapons, but like I said, most of us do take reasonable precautions and should be considered innocent until negligence can actually be proven. Criminals and the Mentally Ill seem to have more rights than us law abiding citizens.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*