Here’s another surprise (after Ted Nugent’s hunting endorsement): the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t obviate the state’s right to tell owners how to keep those guns. In other words, the Commonwealth can require gun owners to keep their firearms (both handguns and long guns) in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when “not under the owner’s control.” Home defense that. “We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional,” Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous Court. “And that the defendant may face prosecution on this count.” That would be Richard Runyan, the AP tell us, “whose mentally disabled son [what happened to “challenged”?] 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.” Gun rights advocates had hoped that The Bay State’s highest court would hang fire until the Supreme Court ruled on the McDonald case, which will determine who’s zooming who in terms of gun laws (American vs. state constitutions). To which Massive Taxes top judges gave a massive middle finger. “The Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition.” That’s what you think . . .