Mass. court upholds state gun-lock requirement
Lawyer Blogs
The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes in a ruling applauded by gun-control advocates.
The case had been closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.
Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.
The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.
"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.
The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court will hear case about vaccine side effects
Lawyer Blogs 03/08/2010The Supreme Court will decide whether drug makers can be sued by parents who claim their children suffered serious health problems from vaccines.The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Pittsburgh who want to sue Wyeth over the...
-
Federal judge allows Rumsfeld torture suit to proceed
Lawyer Blogs 03/08/2010A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Friday denied a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. Judge Wayne ...
-
Court Blocks Separate Claims Against UBS on Madoff
Lawyer Blogs 03/04/2010A Luxembourg court ruled on Thursday that investors who lost money to Bernard L. Madoff through a fund set up by UBS cannot seek compensation directly from the Swiss bank, Reuters reported.In November, private and institutional investors who lost mon...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.