Commonwealth v. Brandon Lojko, June 22, 2010
Firearm Storage
The defendant was convicted in a bench trial of improper storage of a firearm. The Appeals Court concluded that the judged erred as matter of law in construing the requirements of the statute, and reversed.
An officer was dispatched to the defendant’s residence as a result of a report that the defendant was suicidal and was threatening to harm himself and others with a firearm. The defendant admitted to suicidal threats. When asked about the firearm, the defendant told the officer that the gun was in a cooler located outside. Another officer found the cooler in the backyard. Upon opening the cooler, the officer found a locked box in which there was a firearm.
The box appeared to be made for the firearm by the manufacturer. The box was found with a cable lock through a small hole which lined up with the firearm’s trigger guard. This lock mechanism secured the firearm in the box and locked the box itself. The trial judge found the lock and box adequate.
An officer was dispatched to the defendant’s residence as a result of a report that the defendant was suicidal and was threatening to harm himself and others with a firearm. The defendant admitted to suicidal threats. When asked about the firearm, the defendant told the officer that the gun was in a cooler located outside. Another officer found the cooler in the backyard. Upon opening the cooler, the officer found a locked box in which there was a firearm.
The box appeared to be made for the firearm by the manufacturer. The box was found with a cable lock through a small hole which lined up with the firearm’s trigger guard. This lock mechanism secured the firearm in the box and locked the box itself. The trial judge found the lock and box adequate.
For the offense of improper storage of a firearm, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the defendant failed to keep the firearm “secured in a locked container” or “equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device.” G.L. c. 140, § 131L(a).
The judge framed the issue as whether the gun was maintained in a locked and secure location. The judge found that the gun was locked, but not in a secured location, because anyone could walk away with the cooler or with the locked box itself.
The Appeals Court held that the judge’s interpretation improperly expanded the statute to include the requirement of a secure location. The judge’s implicit determination that the lock box adequately secured the firearm would have satisfied the requirements of the statute and necessarily ended the inquiry.
The Appeals Court reversed the judgment.
- Prepared by AYK
