What Counts as a "Locked Container" in Massachusetts

What do I need to legally store my firearms in Massachusetts, and do biometric safes count?

The New Statutory Definition

The safe storage law, MGL c. 140, Section 131L^[1], requires firearms to be either "secured in a locked container" or "equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device" when not carried by or under the owner's control. For years, the statute provided no definition of these terms. Chapter 135 changed this by adding a statutory definition to Section 121^[2]:

"Secured in a locked container": secured in a container that is capable of being unlocked only by means of a key, combination or similar means, including in an unoccupied motor vehicle, a locked trunk not accessible from the passenger compartment, a locked console or locked glovebox.

What the Courts Have Said

This definition resolves the question left open by Commonwealth v. Reyes, 464 Mass. 245 (2013), where the SJC held that a locked motor vehicle is not itself a locked container, a locked trunk qualifies, and whether a locked glove box qualifies was a "question of fact" for the jury. The new statute explicitly includes locked consoles and locked glove boxes as compliant containers.

Commonwealth v. Parzick, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 846 (2005) established that a container must be "securely locked... in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." A bedroom with a bobby-pin-defeatable lock failed this test.

Commonwealth v. Lojko, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 82 (2010) held that a locked Glock case with a cable lock satisfied the requirement even when placed inside an unsecured cooler on a back porch. The container need not be stored in a secure location.

Commonwealth v. McGowan, 464 Mass. 232 (2013) is the constitutional anchor: the SJC held Section 131L survives Second Amendment scrutiny under rational basis review because it falls outside the scope of Second Amendment protection, applying only when firearms are not being carried or controlled.

Biometric Safes

Biometric and quick-access safes have not been specifically addressed by any Massachusetts court, AG opinion, or EOPSS regulation. The new statutory language ("key, combination or similar means") is broad enough to encompass biometric readers, which serve the same access-limitation function. Defense attorneys routinely recommend biometric safes as compliant. The risk of a biometric safe being found non-compliant appears low given the statutory language, but this remains technically unresolved.

"Under the Control" Exception

The tension between storage compliance and defensive accessibility has been definitively resolved by Massachusetts courts. The "carried by or under the control" exception means a licensed owner can always have an unlocked, loaded firearm in hand or nearby.

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 316 (2011) established that "under the control" requires the owner to be "sufficiently near" to prevent unauthorized use. A gun in an upstairs closet while the owner was downstairs did not qualify. Commonwealth v. Cantelli, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 156 (2013) confirmed this is a fact-specific inquiry. The courts distinguished this framework from the D.C. law struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller, which required firearms to be locked at all times, including when the owner was present and awake.

Bottom Line

Settled: Locked trunks, locked consoles, and locked glove boxes all qualify as locked containers under the new statutory definition. A locked vehicle alone does not. The "under the control" exception permits ready access when you are present and nearby.

Unsettled: Whether biometric safes satisfy "key, combination or similar means" (almost certainly yes, but no court has ruled).

Do: Use a container requiring affirmative action to open (key, combination, biometric). Do not leave firearms in an unlocked vehicle or an unlocked room while away.