Lock up those guns.

[rogersmithiii]

California takes up White House call to toughen gun storage rules

California lawmakers are weighing legislation that would require gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and disabled most of the time.

www.latimes.com

 

[WanMan99]

I feel not safer already

 

[MaverickNH]

Portantino Continues to Lead on California Firearm Safety Policy as Safe Storage Bill Passes Senate Public Safety Committee

For Immediate Release: January 9, 2024 Contact: Lerna Shirinian, (818) 409-0400 Portantino Continues to Lead on California Firearm Safety Policy as Safe Storage Bill Passes Senate Publ

sd25.senate.ca.gov

So, revoking one’s right to purchase and possess firearms for a misdemeanor doesn’t infringe 2ndA? Just because this law will be overturned if passed doesn’t mean it won’t pass. It adds the "gun owner harassment" feature that Leftists just love.

“Safely storing your firearm is commonsense public safety policy and should not be partisan. Safe storage is proven to reduce firearm injuries and I’m pleased to be tightening California’s existing law,” stated Senator Portantino. “SB 53 does not infringe upon an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the home. Rather, it ensures that a firearm is stored in a manner that will prevent unintentional firearm injuries and protect Californians in the home and deter violence in public. It will unequivocally save lives.”
…SB 53 prohibits a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence unless the firearm is stored in a DOJ-approved locked box or safe. Under this bill, a violation results in an infraction for the first offense and a misdemeanor for a second and subsequent offense and subjects the violator to a one-year ban on the purchase and possession of a firearm."

 

[Bigfudge16]

 

[Steve600]

I am sure Pelosie and her democrat friends will be buying stock in those DOJ approved companies before there are released to the public.

 

[VTski4x4]

I am sure Pelosie and her democrat friends will be buying stock in those DOJ approved companies before there are released to the public.

They will pass it and then never release them to the public. Can't follow the law if they never intend to make it follow-able

 

[In God We Trust]

Portantino Continues to Lead on California Firearm Safety Policy as Safe Storage Bill Passes Senate Public Safety Committee

For Immediate Release: January 9, 2024 Contact: Lerna Shirinian, (818) 409-0400 Portantino Continues to Lead on California Firearm Safety Policy as Safe Storage Bill Passes Senate Publ

sd25.senate.ca.gov

So, revoking one’s right to purchase and possess firearms for a misdemeanor doesn’t infringe 2ndA? Just because this law will be overturned if passed doesn’t mean it won’t pass. It adds the "gun owner harassment" feature that Leftists just love.

“Safely storing your firearm is commonsense public safety policy and should not be partisan. Safe storage is proven to reduce firearm injuries and I’m pleased to be tightening California’s existing law,” stated Senator Portantino. “SB 53 does not infringe upon an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the home. Rather, it ensures that a firearm is stored in a manner that will prevent unintentional firearm injuries and protect Californians in the home and deter violence in public. It will unequivocally save lives.”
…SB 53 prohibits a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence unless the firearm is stored in a DOJ-approved locked box or safe. Under this bill, a violation results in an infraction for the first offense and a misdemeanor for a second and subsequent offense and subjects the violator to a one-year ban on the purchase and possession of a firearm."

Any time they say “common sense” you know the rest is bullshiite

 

[sbhaven]

California takes up White House call to toughen gun storage rules

California lawmakers are weighing legislation that would require gun owners to keep their firearms locked up and disabled most of the time.

www.latimes.com

For once Cali is late to the party. CT already expanded their "safe storage" law last year, very likely in violation of Heller, to mandate it be locked up no matter who's in the dwelling if not on your person or within close proximity.
Here is how CT's current storage law reads:

No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person.

And CT revamped its criminal negligence statute at the same time. Current law reads:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when such person violates the provisions of section 29-37i, as amended by this act, and another person obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of such person or any other person.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the person obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person and, if such firearm is stolen, such firearm is reported stolen pursuant to the provisions of section 53-202g, as amended by this act.

(c) Criminally negligent storage of a firearm is a class D felony.

 

[MaverickNH]

For once Cali is late to the party. CT already expanded their "safe storage" law last year, very likely in violation of Heller, to mandate it be locked up no matter who's in the dwelling if not on your person or within close proximity.
Here is how CT's current storage law reads:

And CT revamped its criminal negligence statute at the same time. Current law reads:

A CT Class D Felony makes one a prohibited person for life with a 1-5yr sentence. But it looks like the use of an “unsecured” firearms in the injury or death of anyone doesn’t apply if the person accessing/injuring/killing another made unlawful entry to the premises.

That’s a convoluted way of saying that if a resident, guest, service worker, etc., takes an unsecured gun and shoots themself or another, the gun owner is tagged with a felony. The law appears to give an out to someone whose unsecured gun is stolen in an unlawful entry and used in a shooting, as long as the gun owner report the theft within 72hr.

The really sad part is that criminals that shoot people are often given equal or lesser punishment.

 

[Mellero47]

it be locked up no matter who's in the dwelling if not on your person or within close proximity

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

 

[rogersmithiii]

A CT Class D Felony makes one a prohibited person for life with a 1-5yr sentence. But it looks like the use of an “unsecured” firearms in the injury or death of anyone doesn’t apply if the person accessing/injuring/killing another made unlawful entry to the premises.

That’s a convoluted way of saying that if a resident, guest, service worker, etc., takes an unsecured gun and shoots themself or another, the gun owner is tagged with a felony. The law appears to give an out to someone whose unsecured gun is stolen in an unlawful entry and used in a shooting, as long as the gun owner report the theft within 72hr.

The really sad part is that criminals that shoot people are often given equal or lesser punishment.

"The really sad part is that criminals that shoot people are often given equal or lesser punishment."

That's the plan. One of the many ways to make it so dangerous, inconvenient and annoying to own a gun that people will give them up.

The evil people know what they are doing. It's about the elite controlling the serfs.

 

[Kevin_NH]

So a Newsom-appointee can amend the California DOJ list of approved "firearms safety devices" on a whim, and anybody who doesn't keep their firearms in the $52K Breitling Internet-of-Things "safe" is in violation and becomes a CA-prohibited person for 10 years?

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

The text of CA SB53 is "stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices... properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user." or "The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.".

I recall a recent MA arrest where the police ordered somebody outside their home, then charged them with Improper Storage because in obeying they left a firearm unattended?

 

[whatluck]

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

 

[Mellero47]

I recall a recent MA arrest where the police ordered somebody outside their home, then charged them with Improper Storage because in obeying they left a firearm unattended?

I do not. Can you provide a link?

 

[JDL]

California is just trying to catch up with Massachusetts.

 

[Bigfudge16]

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

that's your prerogative. I dont allow "whoever's" to wander my home freely. Particularly into areas of my home where firearms are stored. I certainly don't need the state telling me how to store my own property in order to give "whoever" the illusion of being safe.

 

[Mellero47]

that's your prerogative. I dont allow "whoever's" to wander my home freely. Particularly into areas of my home where firearms are stored. I certainly don't need the state telling me how to store my own property in order to give "whoever" the illusion of being safe.

I don't let strange whoevers wander my home freely either. My young children however, tend to get into whatever they set their mind to. So I lock up my hardware when I'm not using it.

 

[allen-1]

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

Stop.
It's YOUR house - you determine who's allowed in it.

I live in Georgia. Right now, as I type this, there are two loaded handguns in an unlocked lockbox in the bedroom and another in my knapsack which is currently sitting on one of the barstools at the kitchen island.

In my garage right now, there are four unloaded handguns sitting on the bench waiting to be cleaned.

There is no "whoever can grab them" - it's MY house; I know who's here.

I do secure the loaded firearms when my grandchildren, (or any other kids), are here.

The responsibility's on me - not the state.

You've spent way too much time in Massachusetts - are you familiar with the term "Stockholm Syndrome"?

 

[Bigfudge16]

I don't let strange whoevers wander my home freely either. My young children however, tend to get into whatever they set their mind to. So I lock up my hardware when I'm not using it.

Thats great, you certainly should in your circumstance, but it shouldn't be a law for everyone who isn't living within those circumstances

 

[Bigfudge16]

Stop.
It's YOUR house - you determine who's allowed in it.

I live in Georgia. Right now, as I type this, there are two loaded handguns in an unlocked lockbox in the bedroom and another in my knapsack which is currently sitting on one of the barstools at the kitchen island.

In my garage right now, there are four unloaded handguns sitting on the bench waiting to be cleaned.

There is no "whoever can grab them" - it's MY house; I know who's here.

I do secure the loaded firearms when my grandchildren, (or any other kids), are here.

The responsibility's on me - not the state.

You've spent way too much time in Massachusetts - are you familiar with the term "Stockholm Syndrome"?

That's exactly right. This is the state trying to further regulate lawful gun owners based in the irresponsible behavior of others. As a lawful gun owner you need to do what's right for you and your family and be responsible for knowing the people you allow to access your property.

 

[Mellero47]

You've spent way too much time in Massachusetts - are you familiar with the term "Stockholm Syndrome"?

I am actually. You should be too.

Is Stockholm Syndrome even real? The bizarre story behind a problematic diagnosis

Few realize that ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is a term that was foisted on a woman by a male psychiatrist who had never met her after a Swedish bank heist worthy of a movie. Fifty years after the hostage situation that gave the syndrome its name, Sheila Flynn reports on how minds have changed — and...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[allen-1]

I am actually. You should be too.

Is Stockholm Syndrome even real? The bizarre story behind a problematic diagnosis

Few realize that ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is a term that was foisted on a woman by a male psychiatrist who had never met her after a Swedish bank heist worthy of a movie. Fifty years after the hostage situation that gave the syndrome its name, Sheila Flynn reports on how minds have changed — and...

www.independent.co.uk

That was interesting, thank you.

 

[sbhaven]

Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.

It comes down to a simple question. Should the government mandate, under threat of felony, how people should store their firearms (or cars, or knives or any other implement or tool) in their own homes, even when they live alone?

 

[Knob Creek]

 

[StevieP]

Wasn't this what Heller was all about?

 

[timbo]

Any time they say “common sense” you know the rest is bullshiite

Yeah, the dem's definition of "common sense" is 180° from the true meaning. They just love to redefine words...

 

[sbhaven]

Wasn't this what Heller was all about?

The 2007 Heller opinion delt with several issues; primarily the handgun band and disassembled or trigger lock requirement by DC. What the court stated in the opinion re the disassembled / trigger lock requirement:

"Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Certain ban states, like CT, have long had a safe storage law. In the past, at least CT's, was confined to minors (under 16) and loaded firearms. Then a few years later it was expanded and changed unloaded to just firearms, along with added residents who were prohibited persons, or who pose imminent personal injury risk to themselves or others. After a few more years minors was changed to under 18 and added persons subject to risk protection order. And now last year they just removed most of the previous language and now say guns locked up period unless on your person or immediate possession. Its mission creep by the politicians over the years.

Only case I can think of that reached SCOTUS trying to challenge a "safe storage" law since Heller was the 2015 one out of San Francisco challenging San Fran's 2007 ordnance. SCOTUS declined to take up the case which left the ordinance in effect.

U.S. Supreme Court lets stand S.F.’s gun storage law, bullet ban

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts by gun owners and the National Rifle Association...

www.sfgate.com

No doubt under Bruen it is possible such a broad government mandated storage law might be challenged and quite possibly overturned as being too broad or not having such a wide sweeping text, history, tradition analog from the time period.

 

[LakeTrout]

It comes down to a simple question. Should the government mandate, under threat of felony, how people should store their firearms (or cars, or knives or any other implement or tool) in their own homes, even when they live alone?

No. Shouldn’t have the power to mandate anything anyone does with firearms that isn’t harming someone else.

 

[Taipan01]

I don't need a blanket law stating how I store my firearms especially when it carries penalties. If the government feels it necessary to make a suggestion, fine, whatever but if I'm going to be charged for the act of a thief, then they should allow for a positive reaction on my part with a castle doctrine. What our state wants is for me to run away if possible and then either charge me with unsafe storage or charge me with some form of assault. In either case, I'd be on the shorter end of the sentancing stick than the actual criminal. You can't have it both ways.

When my sons were small, I would never leave anything lying about but that's just common sense. Years later, all my sons have their LTC's and were handling firearms since they were 4 under strict supervision so I'm not as concerned with putting things I may be working on away and such. Should I be considered a felon then?

If someday I become a grandad, which my wife would love, then I would fall back on my old habits law or no law.

 

[oldguy68]

Make sure they apply these laws to their police officers as well..
Don't worry though. I hear they are going to hire illegals into their police force.

Everyone is comparing today to what the country was like when the constitution was written.
Trust me when I say our minutemen would have laughed their as_es off if they read the laws today!