Commonwealth v. McGowan
464 Mass. 232, 2013 WL 310235, 982 N.E.2d 495 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law requiring that firearms not under the owner's immediate control be secured in a locked container or with a safety device does not violate the Second Amendment because it falls outside the scope of the right to bear arms for self-defense in the home.
Facts:
- The defendant, McGowan, was licensed to carry a firearm in Massachusetts.
- McGowan kept his loaded Smith & Wesson handgun in an unlocked drawer of a bedroom side table in his home.
- On October 19, 2008, McGowan had an argument with his roommate over a ten-dollar loan.
- The roommate became angry, went into McGowan's bedroom, and retrieved the loaded, unsecured handgun from the drawer.
- The roommate left the house, threw the firearm into the bushes of a neighboring property, and locked McGowan out of the house when he went to retrieve it.
- McGowan called the police to report the domestic disturbance, and responding officers secured the loaded handgun from the bushes.
Procedural Posture:
- McGowan was charged in the Springfield Division of the District Court Department with violating G. L. c. 140, § 131L (a).
- McGowan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional.
- The District Court motion judge reported two constitutional questions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion before the Appeals Court could rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts law requiring that firearms not under the owner's immediate control be secured in a locked container or equipped with a safety device violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home, as established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago?
Opinions:
Majority - Gants, J.
No. The Massachusetts firearm storage statute, G. L. c. 140, § 131L (a), does not violate the Second Amendment. The law is fundamentally different from the one struck down in Heller because it does not require firearms to be kept inoperable at all times; it only applies when a firearm is stored and not under the owner's immediate control. The court reasoned that certain 'presumptively lawful' regulations, such as those designed to keep firearms away from unauthorized users like felons, the mentally ill, and children, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection. Because this statute serves that purpose without interfering with the core right of a licensed owner to carry or keep a loaded firearm under their immediate control for self-defense within the home, it does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment and is therefore not subject to heightened scrutiny.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant analytical framework for lower courts evaluating the constitutionality of firearm regulations post-Heller and McDonald. By concluding that reasonable storage laws fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment, the court sidesteps the difficult question of what level of heightened scrutiny applies to gun control measures. This 'scope-based' approach provides a roadmap for states to enact public safety laws aimed at preventing unauthorized access to firearms, so long as those laws do not functionally prohibit a licensed individual from possessing an operable firearm for self-defense in the home. The ruling strengthens the state's ability to regulate the manner in which firearms are kept, distinguishing this from an outright ban on possession.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. McGowan