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

[Warbonnet]

This would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. How I store my guns inside my own home is my business. The state should have no legal jurisdiction over that unless my gun handling or storage becomes criminal.

The only reason I own a gun safe is to protect some of my guns from being stolen. Other guns are always loaded and easily available to me, or other members of my family-- all the time. Because apart from each of us walking around the house strapped 24/7, having defensive firearms at the ready is in my opinion necessary. Nobody can defend their lives with an unloaded trigger locked firearm inside a safe.

There have been multiple times upon hearing a noise, or having somebody come to the door late at night, when I pop up and within a second have a firearm in my hand. I can't imagine having to go to a safe and unlock it when I need protection.

Clearly if there are visitors, especially children, or others coming in. Then firearms are stored or hidden from where they can be accessed.

Like somebody else said, the walls of my home IS my locked/controlled storage container.

[chris]

Good catch. So if convicted, even as infraction for the first time offense, one would lose his 2A rights for a year? There?s no way that is constitutional.

Do you think this state cares?

[AlmostHeaven]

This would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. How I store my guns inside my own home is my business. The state should have no legal jurisdiction over that unless my gun handling or storage becomes criminal.

The only reason I own a gun safe is to protect some of my guns from being stolen. Other guns are always loaded and easily available to me, or other members of my family-- all the time. Because apart from each of us walking around the house strapped 24/7, having defensive firearms at the ready is in my opinion necessary. Nobody can defend their lives with an unloaded trigger locked firearm inside a safe.

There have been multiple times upon hearing a noise, or having somebody come to the door late at night, when I pop up and within a second have a firearm in my hand. I can't imagine having to go to a safe and unlock it when I need protection.

Clearly if there are visitors, especially children, or others coming in. Then firearms are stored or hidden from where they can be accessed.

Like somebody else said, the walls of my home IS my locked/controlled storage container.

Amen. When liberals propose or enact safe storage laws that require law-abiding citizens to store their weapons unloaded and separated from ammunition, burglars and home invaders end up as the ultimate beneficiaries.

Do you think this state cares?

The state cares in the other direction, about making exercising the right to keep and bear arms as impractical, onerous, and unpleasant as possible.

[AlmostHeaven]

Duplicate

[AlmostHeaven]

Again, SCOTUS does not have the power to enforce much of anything.

The Supreme Court in Operation



This is part of what was implied when it was stated: "Elections have consequences." It's also why, ultimately, the power of Government rests in the consent of the People; i.e., if the People don't consent, the Government doesn't necessarily have the 'power.'

Now, try to convince the Government of that.

I suppose ultimately, the gun rights community needs constitutionalist presidential administrations to enforce Supreme Court jurisprudence.

[Bullets&Whitewalls]

I get your point, but no building inspector forced me to have smoke detectors, handrails on staircases, and earthquake-resistant stud spacing.

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.

[Bullets&Whitewalls]

This is where I?m at.



Error. The building inspector has no authority to enter my home. That ended when the home was constructed, inspected and approved.

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.

[Avocado Toast]

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 just had a new roof put on through a licensed and insured contractor. No one asked to see or if I had C02 monitors or smoke detectors. It took them 2 weeks because of architectural changes and when it was done, $32k. Not a cheap job and no one said, hinted or inferred that "they" wouldn't sign off in it. I'm not even sure who "they" is or are but there was no inquiry on those items. None, whatsoever.

[32spoke]

This d*ck nugget portan-porta potty is looking to move his career path upward. His staff never replies to my emails relating to making laws that are unconstitutional, with with warnings from warning from the brain trust that?s wrote SB2 with the awareness that they knew the legislation is illegal, yet pushed through, nonetheless


Where I live in Petaluma, we have to lock guns and gun parts, city ordinance, and the screen shot explains it all? after a monster breaks into multiple homes/attempted rape?.

[BAJ475]

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.

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

[bigdaddyz1776]

This d*ck nugget portan-porta potty is looking to move his career path upward. His staff never replies to my emails relating to making laws that are unconstitutional, with with warnings from warning from the brain trust that?s wrote SB2 with the awareness that they knew the legislation is illegal, yet pushed through, nonetheless


Where I live in Petaluma, we have to lock guns and gun parts, city ordinance, and the screen shot explains it all? after a monster breaks into multiple homes/attempted rape?.

bLuE LiVeS MAttER amirite?

Something tells that that ordinance is just a feel good measure that is used against political opponents of the Democrat party.

They are not going to send the police nor the police would have the will to go into low income areas to try and pull this enforcement ordinance.

[AlmostHeaven]

These issues depend heavily on the specific locality. When I embarked upon renovations to my rear porch, the local government needed to approve the new structural elements and pre-inspect, costing thousands of dollars before any work even began. A person I know living several counties away experienced no such requirements.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I suppose ultimately, the gun rights community needs constitutionalist presidential administrations to enforce Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Actually, the Executive Branch has limits as to what it can do as well. At best, it can make it 'uncomfortable' for a state so long as someone resides in the Office who is 2nd Amendment friendly. Any more than that and we would be unlikely to relish the idea.

A more immediate option would be the Legislature, which has a more prescient and existential mechanism - the power of the purse. However, as we've seen, 'immediate' is a relative term and very much depends on supposed pro-2nd Amendment politicians doing their job with regard to budgets. Yet, it is a mechanism which catches every governor's attention.

California is touted as having one of the largest economies in the World. Yet, as we famously are experiencing and have continually experienced, this State is still very much dependent on the U.S. economy and, more specifically, Washington, D.C. machinations to meet 'budgetary needs.' Those 'needs' include the social programs which keep Progressive elements in power. Without them or if they were severely curtailed, it is likely that a strong 'law & order' movement, reminiscent of New York & Los Angeles, Nixon, Reagan, a even Margaret Thatcher in England would emerge; among other things generally considered more on the 'Conservative' side.

Long-term, I'm not as certain what the 'answer' would be which might prove appropriate. Having the Federal Government 'occupy the field' (legally) isn't a panacea and might lead to more problems. Giving SCOTUS actual 'enforcement powers' is also an idea fraught with potential problems. A Constitutional Convention has already been extensively discussed and many of the problems associated with such an 'event' have proven to be a dampening agent. Right on down the list.

In the end, the 'best' solution is one we tend to reject due to the truly long-term nature of its character. Yet, it is the very strategy which has been used against us and brought us to where we are now on a variety of issues. With regard to the 2nd Amendment, it would involve bringing the country back to what it was prior to, say, FDR's Administration. As I have said, it's one of the reasons I, repeatedly, quote from West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)...

...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

That is the type of 'respect' for the Constitution which is required and it is the very thing which has been targeted for decades by those who have an 'alternative view' of how the country should be administered.

[Warbonnet]

These issues depend heavily on the specific locality. When I embarked upon renovations to my rear porch, the local government needed to approve the new structural elements and pre-inspect, costing thousands of dollars before any work even began. A person I know living several counties away experienced no such requirements.

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.

[AlmostHeaven]

Actually, the Executive Branch has limits as to what it can do as well. At best, it can make it 'uncomfortable' for a state so long as someone resides in the Office who is 2nd Amendment friendly. Any more than that and we would be unlikely to relish the idea.

A more immediate option would be the Legislature, which has a more prescient and existential mechanism - the power of the purse. However, as we've seen, 'immediate' is a relative term and very much depends on supposed pro-2nd Amendment politicians doing their job with regard to budgets. Yet, it is a mechanism which catches every governor's attention.

California is touted as having one of the largest economies in the World. Yet, as we famously are experiencing and have continually experienced, this State is still very much dependent on the U.S. economy and, more specifically, Washington, D.C. machinations to meet 'budgetary needs.' Those 'needs' include the social programs which keep Progressive elements in power. Without them or if they were severely curtailed, it is likely that a strong 'law & order' movement, reminiscent of New York & Los Angeles, Nixon, Reagan, a even Margaret Thatcher in England would emerge; among other things generally considered more on the 'Conservative' side.

Long-term, I'm not as certain what the 'answer' would be which might prove appropriate. Having the Federal Government 'occupy the field' (legally) isn't a panacea and might lead to more problems. Giving SCOTUS actual 'enforcement powers' is also an idea fraught with potential problems. A Constitutional Convention has already been extensively discussed and many of the problems associated with such an 'event' have proven to be a dampening agent. Right on down the list.

In the end, the 'best' solution is one we tend to reject due to the truly long-term nature of its character. Yet, it is the very strategy which has been used against us and brought us to where we are now on a variety of issues. With regard to the 2nd Amendment, it would involve bringing the country back to what it was prior to, say, FDR's Administration. As I have said, it's one of the reasons I, repeatedly, quote from West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)...



That is the type of 'respect' for the Constitution which is required and it is the very thing which has been targeted for decades by those who have an 'alternative view' of how the country should be administered.

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.