2024 SB 53 Portantino - requires storage in 'approved firearms safety device'

[BigMac90660]

Isn't this unconstitutional under Heller?

[Rickybillegas]

Isn't this unconstitutional under Heller?

Yes

[Heatseeker]

Good luck with that. I don't see how my firearms storage is any of this State's business. I will continue to safely store my weapons in MY home the way I see fit and they can kiss my arse.

[Kevin James]

Clearly this whole thing is BS and is unconstitutional, basically trying to ban having a firearm setup for home defense, since it needs to be locked up. That said, maybe I'm missing something based on the discussion thus far, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but what I'm seeing says the following:

"For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or secure gun safe that meets specified standards."

Then Under the definitions it says:
“Certified firearm safety device” means any firearm safety device or gun safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of tested and approved firearm safety devices certified for sale pursuant to Section 23655."

“Secure gun safe” means a gun safe that meets the standards for gun safes adopted pursuant to Section 23650."

So, I would think from this you have an option. You can buy a gun safe listed on their stupid roster, but you don't need to have a safe listed on their stupid roster. You just need to have a safe that meets the minimum specified standards defined under section 23650.

Then it further states that:
"A person shall not be penalized for violating this section if they secure their firearm using a firearm safety device or gun safe that they reasonably believed to meet the requirements of this section, including a firearm safety device that was certified at the time the individual purchased the device or a safe that met the standards for gun safes adopted pursuant to Section 23650 at the time the individual purchased the safe."

Using myself as an example, I have a Liberty Safe's USA 50 gun safe. The thing is a behemoth, and far exceeds the minimum specified standards set forth in 23650, but it is not listed on their stupid roster. But you know what is? A POS $200.00 Stack-on gun safe that you could pry open with a can opener. Any reasonable person would look at my safe and the Stack-on safe and conclude that my Liberty USA 50 is FAR more secure than the approved Stack-on safe. I would think that is good enough to keep me out of trouble.

But again, I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong in my interpretation. And if I am wrong, I will happily go and buy the $200 Stack-on "safe", place it right next to my empty Liberty USA 50, and if I'm ever asked by a LEO why in the h*ll I have my guns in that POS rather than my Liberty safe, I will simply tell them to thank the brainiacks, Anthony Portantino, the entire democrat super majority in the legislature and Gavin Newsome who in their infinite wisdom determined that by California law, the Stack-on is the more secure safe.

[MountainLion]

Clearly this whole thing is BS and is unconstitutional, basically trying to ban having a firearm setup for home defense, since it needs to be locked up.

It does not always need to be locked up. There are exceptions for that, for example when it is being carried. From my limited understanding (haven't had time to actually read the text of the law), what it makes illegal is leaving a loaded gun around the house, unlocked without it being carried.

For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is ... locked by ... using a certified firearm safety device...

So it is also legal to have it outside of a safe, if it has a gun lock or trigger lock on it.

The constitutional law question here is whether Heller's "it is available for immediate self defense" is met by it having to be carried, or whether a small lock on it is sufficient. That's a question for the courts.

“Secure gun safe” means a gun safe that meets the standards for gun safes adopted pursuant to Section 23650."

Have these standards been adopted and published? I haven't spent much time looking for them.

[MountainLion]

Have these standards been adopted and published? I haven't spent much time looking for them.

I think this is the standards: I'm just going to quote the first half, since that is what most people's safes will meet:

A gun safe that meets all of the following standards:

1. Shall be able to fully contain firearms and provide for their secure storage.
2. Shall have a locking system consisting of at minimum a mechanical or electronic combination lock. The mechanical or electronic combination lock utilized by the safe shall have at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock shall be protected by a case hardened (Rc 60+) drill resistant steel plate, or drill resistant material of equivalent strength.
3. Boltwork shall consist of a minimum of three steel locking bolts of at least 1/2-inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe, which are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock.
4. A gun safe shall be capable of repeated use. The exterior walls shall be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge thick steel for a single walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls shall add up to at least 0.100 inches for safes with two walls. Doors shall be constructed of a minimum one layer of 7-gauge steel plate reinforced construction or at least two layers of a minimum 12-gauge steel compound construction.
5. Door hinges shall be protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include, but are not limited to: hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler's lugs and active or inactive locking bolts.

[Rickybillegas]

Doesn't have to be literally carried. Has to be 'under the control of the registered owner'. A subjective statement but presumably means the firearm is close enough to grab.

[broadside]

Doesn't have to be literally carried. Has to be 'under the control of the registered owner'. A subjective statement but presumably means the firearm is close enough to grab.

Under the control of the registered owner sounds like it being inside my locked house with me at home is under my control. I am able to control who enters my home and who does not. Forcible entry is forcible entry, no different than if they can break into a stack-on sheet metal box just like they can break into my house. Its unauthorized entry regardless. Leave the house then I can see storing it in a safe.

[buttfish]

The state has to get a warrant to come into my house and inspect my stuff, that was all lost in a boating accident.

[natman]

Isn't this nearly identical to what resulted in the Heller decision?

IIRC, these bills contain a loophole that allows you to carry a weapon on your person while at home. Then they can claim that your right to self protection isn't infringed.

[Ishooter]

Did this bill pass and become a regulation? If yes, is there anyone filing a lawsuit against it?

[Ron Jeremey]

way too many words. How about this? Someone commits a crime with your gun because you didn't sufficiently secure it, you get to be their cellmate. Let a jury decide what "sufficiently" means. If I'm on the jury and the bad guy was able to break into a proper gun safe, I'm gonna vote to acquit. But if you left your guns in the bedside table, your next bed is gonna be in house of many doors.

[EM2]

way too many words. How about this? Someone commits a crime with your gun because you didn't sufficiently secure it, you get to be their cellmate. Let a jury decide what "sufficiently" means. If I'm on the jury and the bad guy was able to break into a proper gun safe, I'm gonna vote to acquit. But if you left your guns in the bedside table, your next bed is gonna be in house of many doors.

Would your logic apply if I left my truck keys on the counter and some bad guys breaks in steals the keys and truck then proceeds to run over school kids at the bus stop?
Should I then share a cell with the BG?
Why the focus on the firearm instead of the perpetrator?

[BAJ475]

way too many words. How about this? Someone commits a crime with your gun because you didn't sufficiently secure it, you get to be their cellmate. Let a jury decide what "sufficiently" means. If I'm on the jury and the bad guy was able to break into a proper gun safe, I'm gonna vote to acquit. But if you left your guns in the bedside table, your next bed is gonna be in house of many doors.

How is letting a jury decide what sufficiently means comport with the due process requirement of adequate notice of what the law commands or prohibits?

[flyer898]

What is the status of the challenge to this law?