A state trooper accused of letting his 12-year-old son gain access to his unloaded gun wants the charge against him dismissed based on a recent ruling by the nation's highest court.
Lt. Richard Bolduc, 51, of Sandwich appeared in Barnstable District Court yesterday for a hearing on a charge he improperly stored his gun. The charge is a felony that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
At the core of the trooper's argument for dismissal is a June 26 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, in part, said Washington, D.C., could not require trigger locks on guns.
Bolduc is accused of leaving his service sidearm in an unlocked bureau while he was not at home. Police said Bolduc's 12-year-old son took the gun, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor and pulled the trigger. The gun was not loaded, but police said when they found the firearm, they also found a loaded clip in the same drawer.
The boy was charged separately as a juvenile.
Though Judge Joan Lynch indicated she was leaning toward defense attorney Daniel O'Malley's argument, she did not elaborate and took the motion under advisement. A Feb. 20 status hearing was scheduled.
Bolduc smiled widely as he left the courtroom. Outside he declined to comment, referring questions to his attorney.
"There's nothing to say," O'Malley said. "It's under advisement."
Inside the courtroom, O'Malley argued that the charge should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court ruling that found a ban on handguns in the nation's capital, violated the Second Amendment. The so-called Heller decision, which came one day after the June 25 gun incident in Sandwich, also took issue with requiring trigger locks because it hinders a person's right to self defense.
Requiring a gun to be locked "cancels out the ability to defend one's self," O'Malley said during the brief hearing.
Massachusetts law requires firearms to be locked in a cabinet when not in the gun owner's possession. It also requires trigger locks.
A gun owner would have to ask an intruder to wait until he unlocked his gun, O'Malley said. "It's impractical, it's illogical and it flies in the face of the (Supreme Court) ruling."
However, prosecutor Matthew Kelley pointed out that Bolduc wasn't even home at the time his son took the gun.
Also, Kelley said, while the Supreme Court decision did rule that outright gun bans are unconstitutional, it did allow "wiggle room" for laws that prevent accidents.
"Are you allowed to have a whole arsenal of machine guns?" Kelley said. "Is there no law the commonwealth can have to protect the public?"
After he was charged by Sandwich police, Bolduc was placed on restricted duty by state police. He was reassigned to the Middleboro barracks, where he no longer has access to a state police vehicle, and his gun has been taken away.
That status remains unchanged, a state police spokesman said yesterday.
Even if the charge is dismissed, Bolduc could face sanctions by the state police, which has a policy that all service weapons must be locked away and unloaded when the officer is off-duty.
During the hearing, two state troopers from internal affairs sat in the front row of the courtroom. It is a routine policy for internal affairs to monitor a criminal case involving a trooper, spokesman David Procopio said.
Source: Cape Cod Times
Lt. Richard Bolduc, 51, of Sandwich appeared in Barnstable District Court yesterday for a hearing on a charge he improperly stored his gun. The charge is a felony that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
At the core of the trooper's argument for dismissal is a June 26 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, in part, said Washington, D.C., could not require trigger locks on guns.
Bolduc is accused of leaving his service sidearm in an unlocked bureau while he was not at home. Police said Bolduc's 12-year-old son took the gun, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor and pulled the trigger. The gun was not loaded, but police said when they found the firearm, they also found a loaded clip in the same drawer.
The boy was charged separately as a juvenile.
Though Judge Joan Lynch indicated she was leaning toward defense attorney Daniel O'Malley's argument, she did not elaborate and took the motion under advisement. A Feb. 20 status hearing was scheduled.
Bolduc smiled widely as he left the courtroom. Outside he declined to comment, referring questions to his attorney.
"There's nothing to say," O'Malley said. "It's under advisement."
Inside the courtroom, O'Malley argued that the charge should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court ruling that found a ban on handguns in the nation's capital, violated the Second Amendment. The so-called Heller decision, which came one day after the June 25 gun incident in Sandwich, also took issue with requiring trigger locks because it hinders a person's right to self defense.
Requiring a gun to be locked "cancels out the ability to defend one's self," O'Malley said during the brief hearing.
Massachusetts law requires firearms to be locked in a cabinet when not in the gun owner's possession. It also requires trigger locks.
A gun owner would have to ask an intruder to wait until he unlocked his gun, O'Malley said. "It's impractical, it's illogical and it flies in the face of the (Supreme Court) ruling."
However, prosecutor Matthew Kelley pointed out that Bolduc wasn't even home at the time his son took the gun.
Also, Kelley said, while the Supreme Court decision did rule that outright gun bans are unconstitutional, it did allow "wiggle room" for laws that prevent accidents.
"Are you allowed to have a whole arsenal of machine guns?" Kelley said. "Is there no law the commonwealth can have to protect the public?"
After he was charged by Sandwich police, Bolduc was placed on restricted duty by state police. He was reassigned to the Middleboro barracks, where he no longer has access to a state police vehicle, and his gun has been taken away.
That status remains unchanged, a state police spokesman said yesterday.
Even if the charge is dismissed, Bolduc could face sanctions by the state police, which has a policy that all service weapons must be locked away and unloaded when the officer is off-duty.
During the hearing, two state troopers from internal affairs sat in the front row of the courtroom. It is a routine policy for internal affairs to monitor a criminal case involving a trooper, spokesman David Procopio said.
Source: Cape Cod Times
