The case stems from a challenge to the state law that requires stored firearms be secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant safety device, except when "carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user."
While there are technical legal points in the Massachusetts law that make this case different from DC vs Heller, the bottom line is that its thrust is the same. It's the next thing to impossible to keep a ready-use firearm anywhere but in a holster on your person and comply with Massachusetts law on "proper" firearms storage. I could not find a reference to ascertain if it's legal under that law to store a firearm loaded and ready for use in a lockbox, such as one of the fast-action gun safes that use either pushbuttons or biometric scans to let you open them quickly when it comes to the crunch. I suspect it is not.
This Massachusetts law disarms the subjects of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts quite as effectively in practice as the DC gun laws overturned in Heller did. A superior court judge pointed this out in dismissing the case, and the leftist anti-gunners promptly challenged it, appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. This being Massachusetts, the most rabidly anti-gun state in the nation according to the Brady Bunch, I have little confidence that the Massachusetts Supreme Court will follow the precedent established in Heller and tell the anti-gunners to sit down and shut up. Whether or not this case ends up in front of the Supreme Court will depend to a large extent on the result of McDonald vs. Chicago, I believe.
We do live in interesting times, as the Chinese would say.
