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

[BAJ475]

So, WHY is this a Public Safety issue? My home isn?t public.

Easy, while your home is not public, that does not mean it could not endanger your neighbors or other members of the public, including yourself and your family. Furthermore, you may sell your home to someone else thereby potentially endangering them if an unsafe condition is not corrected.

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.

We are not talking about DOJ employees, but a building inspector who is potentially looking for safety concerns that you may not be aware of. Besides, unlike police who may issue citations that carry penalties, building inspectors issue notices to correct which do not include penalties. Big difference.

[JDoe]

It looks like there are ?acceptable gun safes?, and then Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale.

Regulatory Gun Safe Standards

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/gunsafe

Roster of Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist/

So you can have an acceptable gun safe that is not on the roster of firearm safety devices certified for sale.

How long until California requires annual registration of gun safes with a registration sticker (printed by one of their friends and family money laundering schemes)?

[boltstop]

??

Might as well just buy 3 crappy Stack-On 18 Gun cabinets instead, and build some regular lockable garage style wooden cabinets around them to hide them from plain sight. Will they be anywhere even remotely as secure as the Liberty I just paid for? Of course not. Not even close, you could probably break into them with ease using any standard power tools in your garage, BUT apparently they're on the approved list, so good enough for this Portantino jackhole and would certainly save me a bunch of money

Portantino knows this.

Even a child could see this.

The only logical conclusion is that Portantino deliberately wants to make gun storage less secure.

[cz74]

The only logical conclusion is that Portantino deliberately wants to make gun storage less secure.

Bingo!

[Rickybillegas]

Portantino knows this.

Even a child could see this.

The only logical conclusion is that Portantino deliberately wants to make gun storage less secure.

Yes, it's not so much about public safety or reducing deaths (even from suicide), it's about more virtue signaling and kowtowing to the anti-gun lobby.
Portantino has never seen a gun law he doesn't like and would ban guns entirely (to civilians) if it was within his power.

As I mentioned before, CA. already has a safe storage law and this law would only do two things (as far as I can tell);

1) require all storage to be DOJ approved.
2) Add required penalties for violation.

There are plenty of safe locking devices on the market. A box is a box, and a lock is a lock.

This is a waste of time.

[boltstop]

It looks like there are ?acceptable gun safes?, and then Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale.

Regulatory Gun Safe Standards

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/gunsafe

Roster of Firearm Safety Devices Certified for Sale

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist/

So you can have an acceptable gun safe that is not on the roster of firearm safety devices certified for sale.

How long until California requires annual registration of gun safes with a registration sticker (printed by one of their friends and family money laundering schemes)?

No.

The proposed law says:

25145. (a) Beginning on July 1, 2025, except when carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user, a person shall not keep or store a firearm in any residence owned or controlled by that person, unless the firearm meets both of the following conditions:
(1) It is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice?s list of approved firearms safety devices.
(2) It is properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.
(b) A first violation of this section shall result in a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). A second or subsequent violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

[Kevin James]

Yes, it's not so much about public safety or reducing deaths (even from suicide), it's about more virtue signaling and kowtowing to the anti-gun lobby.
Portantino has never seen a gun law he doesn't like and would ban guns entirely (to civilians) if it was within his power.

As I mentioned before, CA. already has a safe storage law and this law would only do two things (as far as I can tell);

1) require all storage to be DOJ approved.
2) Add required penalties for violation.

There are plenty of safe locking devices on the market. A box is a box, and a lock is a lock.

This is a waste of time.

I think you are most likely missing one thing. I'm sure it is also a money grab. As in, if you're a safe company and you want your products listed on the approved list you will need to pay a substantial fee for each individual product model number to be tested, approved, and added to the approved list. Because to your point it is not and never was about actual safe storage. It is to make things difficult for gun owners and safe manufacturers. I could be completely wrong about this, but I'd be highly surprised if thats not a big part of the motivation behind this.

[AlmostHeaven]

I think you are most likely missing one thing. I'm sure it is also a money grab. As in, if you're a safe company and you want your products listed on the approved list you will need to pay a substantial fee for each individual product model number to be tested, approved, and added to the approved list. Because to your point it is not and never was about actual safe storage. It is to make things difficult for gun owners and safe manufacturers. I could be completely wrong about this, but I'd be highly surprised if thats not a big part of the motivation behind this.

Generating marginally more revenue for a massively bloated state that runs a $68 billion deficit likely serves only as a secondary benefit to left-wing politicians. The fundamental primary intent of all gun control legislation pursued by Democrats stems from a deep-seated elite hatred of civilian firearm ownership and a desire to monopolize the use-of-force into an all-encompassing government.

[WithinReason]

Agreed.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The Los Angeles Times picked up the drum beat yesterday... California takes up White House call to toughen gun storage rules

...Even though many states, including California, have laws in place for safely storing guns when children are present, the Biden administration wants them to go further by requiring gun owners to secure firearms most of the time.

California's Senate passed a sweeping bill in January that would adopt the White House recommendation. State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), the author of SB 53, said the idea is to make it harder for anybody, not just children, to find and use a gun to commit crime or kill or accidentally harm themselves. Portantino spoke about his bill for a White House event in January...

The model legislation is part of a multipronged strategy by Democratic President Biden?s administration to encourage states to take the lead on gun safety as legislation has stalled in Congress, including bills to enact universal background checks and ban the sale and possession of assault weapons.

Legislation that would create the first federal gun storage mandate, which was introduced in January 2023, has yet to get a hearing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives...

The bill moving through the state's Democratic-controlled Legislature would extend gun storage rules to all residences, a mandate similar to the Biden administration's proposal, and require owners to secure firearms in a lockbox or safe. The White House proposal gives gun owners the option of using a trigger lock - a lock that fits over a gun's trigger mechanism that prevents the gun from being fired - instead of a lockbox or safe.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has signed a number of gun control laws, declined through a spokesperson to comment on the measure...

If California's bill becomes law, legal experts say, it will be challenged in court. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a long-standing concealed-carry law in New York, issuing a landmark ruling that firearm laws must be consistent with the nation's "historical tradition" of firearm regulation.

Since then, federal district judges have struck down California laws that ban people from carrying concealed guns in many public places and require a background check for ammunition purchases. Appeals court judges later overturned those rulings, allowing the laws to take effect while the legal wrangling proceeds.

"2nd Amendment law is profoundly unsettled right now," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who specializes in constitutional law. "And courts can't seem to agree on which gun laws are constitutional and which aren't."

And, yes, Heller (2008) did, kind of, address this...

...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...

[SpudmanWP]

The Government can play all the games it wants, but anything that "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense..is unconstitutional."

Imagine if the State made barrel cable locks, bore locks, or some other disabling tech mandated?

It is not the tech or function of the device that made it unconstitutional, but the effect on the citizen's ability to exercise its rights that make it unconstitutional. To that end, mandatory safe storage is just as unconstitutional.

[AlmostHeaven]

I am certain liberal states will argue that their laws satisfy Heller by only mandating safe storage when owners are not in the immediate presence or "in control" of their weapons.

[SpudmanWP]

Follow-home robberies are a thing and mandatory safe storage when "not in the immediate presence or 'in control' of their weapons" would fail the Heller test as it keeps me from defending myself. Then there is the whole Bruen THT test that it fails.

[buttfish]

Warrant must be issued for entry. Hmmm, now how will that play out?

[Subotai]

If you keep all of your guns in one place, you're doing it wrong.