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

[AlmostHeaven]

This is pretty much my experience as well. I'm rebuilding my house after having a fire and my city inspector has been pretty cool. Technically my project is a remodel, so a lot of newer state codes do not apply to me.

My wife's cousin is building a house in another city/county, and she was recently told that the bathroom sink she wanted to put in will not be approved because it "isn't ADA complaint". I've never heard of this before. Why would a city demand a homeowner make their home ADA complaint? It isn't a business open to the public.

Voluntarily upgrading some components during rebuilding to the newest standards, such as insulation, HVAC, and electrical systems, can potentially benefit.

I am glad to hear that your local government is easy-going. Some really maliciously abuse property owners.

[bool1tholz]

Maybe a workaround is to buy a stack-on safe and stick it inside the real safe like a Russian nesting doll. Or maybe he other way around? Make roster approved compliance gym lockers that fit over the real safe like a condom.

Contacting the bill author's Portantino is useless since this is his last term.

Portantino termed out of the California assembly and is terminated out of his California senate seat and is running for congress and is trying his turn in the district 30 seat of Adam Schiff. Need to identify the next strongest candidate for district 30 and help them to end Portantino's career in politics.

I dont liberty safe connected people in his donor list but data only goes up through September.

This is pronbably resume builder gun control virtue signaling fluff for Portantino congressional run. Portantino was the author of SB2.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I agree that Congress, the branch of government vested with the most constitutional powers, possesses the greatest ability to enforce the right to keep and bear arms.

However, in your proposed political reality, a sufficiently strong pro-gun majority exists in both legislative chambers to manifest the ability to deny liberal states social spending funding. I find this a roundabout proposal. If Second Amendment-supporting representatives and senators could achieve such a feat, they could instead directly preempt state and local gun control laws with federal legislation, codifying public carry, semi-automatic weapons access, high-capacity magazine ban sales, and more.

Not necessarily. You're assuming a political extreme in the latter case. Remember, many, as with SCOTUS, also favor states' rights. But, a 'strong' majority which favors the rule of law, which includes deference to SCOTUS decisions, isn't necessarily synonymous with a zealous pro-gun majority looking to grant everything on our 'wish list.'

This has been the source of much disappointment with Republicans. Simply because they don't do everything we want, they are deemed RINO's or turncoats or similar. Such isn't always the case. By that metric, even Reagan would have been considered a RINO and, truth be told, many do hold him to have been just such given the necessity of his 'deals' with Tip O'Neal...

...Matthews says this kind of relationship is sorely lacking in today's Washington. "There were rules in those days," Matthews writes. "Tip would say, 'I'll cut a deal on Social Security if you let me focus on taxing the wealthier people.' There was always a deal. It's not that they always found common ground, it's that they each got something out of every deal. ...A lot of times it was just getting something from the other guy.?...

Regardless of their party affiliation, the friendship between Reagan and O?Neill seemed to work well. They disagreed often but still worked toward the common goal of making our country better...

You see? My 'proposed political reality' is similar to what we used to have, a Government which operated by a sense of rules and fairness. One can debate the merits of 'fairness' or, at least, the degree to which it was achieved; but, so long as 'the rules' were abided by, it was rare that anything truly egregious snuck through. Even if you had a supermajority, you didn't always get 'everything' in that the other side also came to the table expecting to and usually getting something.

That's actually what the Bill of Rights is all about. Even a 'strong majority' isn't able to act beyond a certain point. At least, it's not supposed to. Unfortunately, that's where we are today, with one side having a bare minimum amount of 'control,' but not necessarily abiding by 'the rules.'

[SpudmanWP]

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

Yes, it's already been ruled on.

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.

[lastinline]

Why would I want to object to them inspecting my home to help me ensure that it is safe?

Because government should have limits. You can hire a reputable home inspector to do that, without the potential for some bureaucrat finding something else to ding you for and making you spend money that you had never imagined.

[marcusrn]

Resist! When they defile the sanctity of my home this "cultural cold war" becomes an active hot war!

[TruOil]

And yet another plan to price the poors out of the gun market.

[OlderThanDirt]

Wait until you have a new roof done. in order to get signed off they will want to come inside and make sure you have Co2 monitors and smoke detectors. they will not sign off until they see them. this happened to a coworker of mine. He fought them but ended up losing.

I think you are making up crap unless your friend lives in Section 8 housing.

[AlmostHeaven]

Not necessarily. You're assuming a political extreme in the latter case. Remember, many, as with SCOTUS, also favor states' rights. But, a 'strong' majority which favors the rule of law, which includes deference to SCOTUS decisions, isn't necessarily synonymous with a zealous pro-gun majority looking to grant everything on our 'wish list.'

This has been the source of much disappointment with Republicans. Simply because they don't do everything we want, they are deemed RINO's or turncoats or similar. Such isn't always the case. By that metric, even Reagan would have been considered a RINO and, truth be told, many do hold him to have been just such given the necessity of his 'deals' with Tip O'Neal...



You see? My 'proposed political reality' is similar to what we used to have, a Government which operated by a sense of rules and fairness. One can debate the merits of 'fairness' or, at least, the degree to which it was achieved; but, so long as 'the rules' were abided by, it was rare that anything truly egregious snuck through. Even if you had a supermajority, you didn't always get 'everything' in that the other side also came to the table expecting to and usually getting something.

That's actually what the Bill of Rights is all about. Even a 'strong majority' isn't able to act beyond a certain point. At least, it's not supposed to. Unfortunately, that's where we are today, with one side having a bare minimum amount of 'control,' but not necessarily abiding by 'the rules.'

I now understand your position. I personally strongly desire federal preemption of state and local gun control laws, but agree that a "balanced" legislative situation with respectful dealmaking would ultimately improve the health of the United States and its body politic as a whole.

[DolphinFan]

So, WHY is this a Public Safety issue? My home isn?t public.
And how would you enforce this? Any DOJ employee that knocks on my doo can F off, and what judge is going to sign a warrant for them to enter to inspect how they store their firearms?
4th amendment, need a warrant to enter.

[MountainLion]

Resist! When they defile the sanctity of my home this "cultural cold war" becomes an active hot war!

Little story about a neighbor. He was ultra-conservative, and a bit of an alcoholic. One day he decided to build a 3-car garage, exactly on his lot line, with the edge of the garage right up to the sidewalk. Obviously without building permits, since he didn't believe in government interfering with his rights.

Unfortunately, another neighbor was building WITH building permits. So one day the building inspector comes by, and sees the half-finished garage, and wonders: why didn't I see the paperwork for that one cross my desk? So he decides to stop by and ask: "Good morning, I'm from the Santa Rosita city building department, can I see your building permit?". The owner says "Just a second, I'll get it", and goes into his house, and returns with a 12-gauge, which he points at the building inspector. Who leaves, carefully and slowly walking backwards.

The next day, the building inspector returns. This time he comes with his own driver, you know the one that wear uniform, have a green car, and have a gun on their belt. This time our neighbor was smart enough to not pull a gun; instead he left in handcuffs in the back of the car. The building department made him hire a licensed contractor to completely remove the half-finished garade, and when he built it again (this time with setbacks), he had to follow the building code accurately. I don't actually know what happened to his criminal case, but after this incident he never owned guns again.

So go ahead, start a hot war. Good luck, you'll need it.

[AlmostHeaven]

Little story about a neighbor. He was ultra-conservative, and a bit of an alcoholic. One day he decided to build a 3-car garage, exactly on his lot line, with the edge of the garage right up to the sidewalk. Obviously without building permits, since he didn't believe in government interfering with his rights.

Unfortunately, another neighbor was building WITH building permits. So one day the building inspector comes by, and sees the half-finished garage, and wonders: why didn't I see the paperwork for that one cross my desk? So he decides to stop by and ask: "Good morning, I'm from the Santa Rosita city building department, can I see your building permit?". The owner says "Just a second, I'll get it", and goes into his house, and returns with a 12-gauge, which he points at the building inspector. Who leaves, carefully and slowly walking backwards.

The next day, the building inspector returns. This time he comes with his own driver, you know the one that wear uniform, have a green car, and have a gun on their belt. This time our neighbor was smart enough to not pull a gun; instead he left in handcuffs in the back of the car. The building department made him hire a licensed contractor to completely remove the half-finished garade, and when he built it again (this time with setbacks), he had to follow the building code accurately. I don't actually know what happened to his criminal case, but after this incident he never owned guns again.

So go ahead, start a hot war. Good luck, you'll need it.

Sheesh. I knew people with this kind of attitude regarding property rights, but none crazy enough to pull a gun on a government inspector.

[AlmostHeaven]

So, WHY is this a Public Safety issue? My home isn't public.
And how would you enforce this? Any DOJ employee that knocks on my door can F off, and what judge is going to sign a warrant for them to enter to inspect how they store their firearms?
4th amendment, need a warrant to enter.

Rest assured that plenty of leftist judges in California would sign anything in the name of civilian disarmament.

[broadside]

this is extra stupid.

SB2 does not change 23635 which allows for a safe affidavit when purchasing but once you get home that storage device which meets purchasing requirements is not actually meeting 25145 storage now

[PaIadin]

So why are cops exempt from safe gun storage?