2022 SB 1384 Min - Firearms: dealer requirements (Dealer CCTV + Liability Insurance)

[taperxz]

Where is the 4 camera requirement? I have more than 1 camera, but not all of them are set to record 24x7... the main one that matters is the one that has a view of all my exits (1 door) and can identify people doing paperwork.

Given that I work in a small office (and I assume many table top FFLs do too) I have 1 camera angle that covers the necessary requirements.

Also, the "failure notification system" I read as something that tells me it is broken. I don't see anything in the law that says you must have 24x7x365 NVR operations with 0 downtime and no loss of data. Everyone is assuming some version of that. It's unrealistic.

In theory, if my drives die and I lose months 6-12 then I lose it. I would explain what happened, fix the system and keep collecting the data again. What they want to make sure is that you don't know your system is broken and it stopped recording 6 months ago.

For example, I was away from my office for about a week.. 1st day into it I noticed my system was down, but I was away... couldn't fix it till I came back... I fixed it when I did...many people setup camera systems and never look at them until they need to so they would never know when it stopped recording/broke.

Also, what is the 3 year reference from? I just double checked the SB-1384 text and don't see any reference to 3 years. I was looking at this link from earlier in the thread: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220SB1384

If a $638 expense puts a LGS / brick and mortar place out of business they have much bigger problems then this new law. If that puts a table top FFL out of business then I would argue they were not really in business and it was more of a hobby. My full system cost me $1k and I didn't buy it all at once. it includes the PC, software, drives, and 7 cameras. There's a separate discussion in the FFL's only thread where I provided details/context for other small times dealers which I am more aligned with than a retail shop.

I've had some form of camera system in place since I started in 2008. I added more cameras in 2016 after we were burglarized and robbed. I only recently turned on the audio recording in prep for the new law coming up to see what my storage consumption would be. I likely will need to add 1 additional USB drive to account for the additional storage, but that's it. I'm not investing in any cloud storage or 24x7 type backups for this stuff. None of that is in the PC so there's no reason I'm going to add on that requirement.

I think the storage requirements is 1 year, not 3 years

[chris]

Gav Boy's got his signing pen ready. Any anti bill gun going through the committees is just a formality.

He has not vetoed on bill. He's signed I think about 25+ bills into law.

[bwiese]

In no way supportive of bill, but...

Video bitrates using VBR stream drop vastly when the scenery is unchanged.
A video stream of a door or empty floor - i.e., unchanging over time - will
be minimal. Slight changes - sunlight deltas or an occ fluttering paper on
a blllboard - might burn just a tad more.

[harbormaster]

No hi res requirements?

According to chatgpt math a single camera with a high resolution will require 82,000 TB which is not practical


To calculate the amount of digital memory required to store a recording from a single security high-resolution camera for 24 hours a day for three years, we need a few pieces of information:

Video Resolution: The resolution of the video captured by the camera, typically measured in pixels (e.g., 1920x1080 for Full HD or 3840x2160 for 4K).
Frame Rate: The number of frames captured per second, commonly expressed as FPS (e.g., 30 frames per second).
Compression: The level of video compression used, which affects the file size. Compression is often measured using a compression ratio (e.g., 10:1).
Bit Depth: The number of bits used to represent the color of each pixel (e.g., 8 bits for standard color depth).
Given these factors, we can estimate the storage requirement using the following formula:

Storage Requirement = (Video Resolution x Bit Depth x Frame Rate x Recording Duration) / Compression

Let's assume the following parameters for your scenario:

Video Resolution: 4K (3840x2160 pixels)
Frame Rate: 30 FPS
Compression: 10:1 (assuming moderate compression)
Bit Depth: 8 bits (standard color depth)

Recording Duration:
3 years = 365 days/year * 24 hours/day * 3 years

Now let's calculate the storage requirement:

Storage Requirement = (3840 x 2160 x 8 x 30 x (365 x 24 x 3)) / 10

Note: In this calculation, we assume no audio is being recorded along with the video. If audio is included, it will add to the storage requirement.

After performing the calculation, the estimated storage requirement for a recording from a single high-resolution camera for 24 hours a day over three years, using the parameters mentioned above, is approximately:

Storage Requirement ≈ 82,991,872 GB or 82,991.872 TB

Please keep in mind that this is an estimation, and real-world factors such as varying levels of motion, additional audio, or different compression ratios can influence the actual storage requirements.

[redhead]

I have to ask - have break ins and thefts are gun shops been a big problem? I would think gun shops already have serious security.

[waygeekierthanu]

I have to ask - have break ins and thefts are gun shops been a big problem? I would think gun shops already have serious security.

Yes, it's a real problem. People steal from gun shops just like any other shop and when they break in, it tends to be somebody driving a stolen car through the front door

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[mshill]

I have to ask - have break ins and thefts are gun shops been a big problem? I would think gun shops already have serious security.

That's not the point of the statute... the overall goal is to 1) harass gun stores sufficiently that it's not worth doing business in the state and 2) harass potential gun purchasers with the knowledge that their purchase is being recorded. To be honest, anyone wandering around in public these days already knows (or should know) they are being recorded.

[redhead]

That's not the point of the statute... the overall goal is to 1) harass gun stores sufficiently that it's not worth doing business in the state and 2) harass potential gun purchasers with the knowledge that their purchase is being recorded. To be honest, anyone wandering around in public these days already knows (or should know) they are being recorded.

That?s why I asked the question. It sounds like harassment.

[AlmostHeaven]

That's why I asked the question. It sounds like harassment.

Every single California gun law from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 to the "sensitive places" carry bans of 2023 are nothing but harassment of law-abiding gun owners.

Assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, handgun rosters, mandatory registration, waiting periods, etc, are all intended to discourage gun ownership and kill gun culture.

The only driving philosophy is "guns are bad".

[redhead]

Every single California gun law from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 to the "sensitive places" carry bans of 2023 are nothing but harassment of law-abiding gun owners.

Assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, handgun rosters, mandatory registration, waiting periods, etc, are all intended to discourage gun ownership and kill gun culture.

The only driving philosophy is "guns are bad".

I should have said ?continued harassment.? That would have been more accurate.

[kydave]

The requirement to record audio is equally troubling. The .ca.gov crowd should not be able to listen to private conversations. If you express wrongthink, the DOJ will know. This law kind of seems to presume guilt of dealers and customers of firearms related stuff.

THIS disturbs me a lot!

I just found out about this law today when I went in Big 5 and saw they'd stopped selling firearms. I asked and was told of this law.

I was amazed in that I tend to keep up on new developments and laws like this catch my eye. I'm equally amazed that I've seen zero press about it and that there (to my knowledge) are no legal challenges yet.

How often have you had a chat with your buddy behind the gun counter about clever ways to circumvent the letter of XYZ CA Stupid Law. So much for casual banter inside the LGS.

I read the bill and audio recording (and storage of that recording) along with video is MANDATED as of 1/1/24.

Does anyone know of any legal challenges yet?

[boltstop]

All conversations between a doctor and patient should be recorded and available for the government to review anytime it wants without a warrant.

See where this is going?

[ugimports]

THIS disturbs me a lot!

I just found out about this law today when I went in Big 5 and saw they'd stopped selling firearms. I asked and was told of this law.

I was amazed in that I tend to keep up on new developments and laws like this catch my eye. I'm equally amazed that I've seen zero press about it and that there (to my knowledge) are no legal challenges yet.

How often have you had a chat with your buddy behind the gun counter about clever ways to circumvent the letter of XYZ CA Stupid Law. So much for casual banter inside the LGS.

I read the bill and audio recording (and storage of that recording) along with video is MANDATED as of 1/1/24.

Does anyone know of any legal challenges yet?

I don't think you can have a legal challenge until 1/1/2024 after someone is "harmed" by the new law being put into effect. Technically, there are no victims yet.

[Preston-CLB]

The requirement to record audio is equally troubling. The .ca.gov crowd should not be able to listen to private conversations. If you express wrongthink, the DOJ will know. This law kind of seems to presume guilt of dealers and customers of firearms related stuff.

^^^This!

Does this not violate CA law requiring consent from both parties to be recorded?

Does it not also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution?

If I cannot say what I think (risking retribution from the gov't), that infringes on my freedom of speech.

The ultimate goal of this provision of the 4th Amendment is to protect people?s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government.

One could argue that our right to privacy and "freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government" is violated by this new law.
-P

[kydave]

I don't think you can have a legal challenge until 1/1/2024 after someone is "harmed" by the new law being put into effect. Technically, there are no victims yet.

I would submit that every gun dealership in California is currently a victim.

The new law would require those gun dealers to have the new measures in place on 1/1/24, which means large outlays of capital beginning before then.

Consequently, while the invasion of privacy aspect has no victims yet, it is impossible to say that small dealers who will never be able to respond to the new law in a practicable manner should be forced to plan on closing their doors on January 1st. This, in anticipation of a law which very possibly will be found unconstitutional, certainly creates current victims.