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

[Rickybillegas]

Does this include a "unless the firearm is on your person or under your control" clause, or is Portantino going for gold medal stupid?

[Rickybillegas]

Looked up the bill and answered my own question.
It does have an exception clause.

"(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person."

So this clause makes the enforcement even that more laughable.
Even if they somehow got access to your residence, how are they to catch you not in proximity to your firearm? I suppose it's conceivable, but not in the real world. It's a ridiculous law meant to score political points for Sir Portantino.

[CGUser09]

Can't you just identify yourself as a CADOJ approved safe? With that reasoning, the only safe space to store your firearm is on your person at all times...

...I jest

[eho0925]

So why are cops exempt from safe gun storage?

Gotta appease your armed-politiburo

[Rickybillegas]

[QUOTE=32spoke;28318804]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


They lie through their teeth. They know full well SB2 and some of their other
legislation does not meet the 'BRUEN standard' as they call it.
They know full well without doubt.
But most media outlets will not call them out, and much of the general public
is not informed enough or care enough to matter.

Newsom, Bonta and Portantino get up to the microphone and spout their
canned speech and insist that their laws meet the BRUEN standard, when they know full well it doesn't.

If they would be honest enough (Like Gabby) and just say they hate guns in civilian hands, hate the second amendment and disagree with BRUEN then would stop being hypocrites and we could respect them more.

[Rickybillegas]

The more I read through this bill, I'm thinking this is kind of a useless nothing burger that actually does less than what they want.

What I mean is that California already has a safe storage law and requires guns to be locked up except those 'within your immediate control'.
Current law I do not believe specifies what type of locking device or trigger lock to use.

The difference in this law is that the lock devices must now be state approved and with added penalties. Ok, fine (not fine but for arguments sake) but a many here point out, many old fashioned safes are far better than state approved lock boxes.

If a burglar breaks into your house, they will know what a lockbox is, or a trigger lock just take it to their lair and break it open at their leisure.

So, you've gained nothing.

This is virtue signaling at it's finest (or worst, depending on your perspective).

Maybe it's the added penalties that they really want.

[DolphinFan]

In Bruen, the SCOTUS, made it clear, first step is to determine if the activity is protected under the 2A. In the first step we look to the Text/History/Tradition of laws between the ratification of the 2A 1790 - ratification of the 14A.
Since we know there is no law during this period for any law today to be analogous to it is PROTECTED, by the 2A.
If it is protected by the 2A, there is no Second ?Public Safety?, step.
And again, my private property is not public and therefore outside of the public safety arena. The sanctity of the home and the 4th Amendment is well understood.

[SpudmanWP]

Slight correction, in the 1st Step only where the Text of the 2nd Amendment is considered.
The History & Tradition comes in during the 2nd Step where the Government has to prove that their law has a historical analog. They are free to argue "public safely" during the 2nd step, but it still has to have a historical analog.

[BAJ475]

In Bruen, the SCOTUS, made it clear, first step is to determine if the activity is protected under the 2A. In the first step we look to the Text/History/Tradition of laws between the ratification of the 2A 1790 - ratification of the 14A.

IMHO you are misreading Bruen. Under Bruen, the first step is to determine if the activity falls within the text of the 2A, i.e., does the activity involve the keeping or bearing arms, which is broadly construed. If so, any restriction on the activity is presumptively unconstitutional. Then, and only then, do we look to the country's history and tradition at the time the 2A was ratified to see if the presumption of unconstitutionality can be rebutted by a showing that there were similar laws applying similar restrictions for the same societal concerns. If there were no such laws, the presumption is not rebutted and the restriction is unconstitutional. Laws between the ratification of the 2A and the ratification of the 14A are only relevant if they are consistent with the laws in existence at the time of the ratification of the 2A, because they would then reinforce what was the understanding at the time the 2A was ratified. In other words, the same understanding still existed. If they are inconsistent, they are irrelevant to show what the understanding was at the time the 2A was ratified because views can change over time.

[OlderThanDirt]

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.

This is a long, irrelevant story that has nothing to do with standing up for your second amendment rights. There is a huge difference between building a completely illegal structure in plain sight, along with the expected government reaction, to refusing entry by any governmental authority that wants to verify firearm safe storage within your residence.

[AlmostHeaven]

Regardless of its enforceability under typical circumstances, this bill, if enacted into law, would add another pitfall for exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

An individual engages a home invader, and the area becomes a crime scene with police investigators present. Law enforcement notices that the homeowner does not possess any state-approved firearms safety devices.

Burglars break into an unoccupied residence. Neighbors notice and call emergency services. Police arrive and apprehend the suspects, but officers see that the house contains guns not lawfully stored.

[MountainLion]

This is a long, irrelevant story

It is relevant to the suggestion of marcusrn above that an attempt to inspect his gun storage would turn into a "hot war". And as my story suggests, starting a "hot war" against a government employee is likely to (a) end badly, and (b) not achieve the desired effect if preventing the government from doing its thing.

But if you want to "refuse entry" using violence or the threat of violence, go ahead, make my day.

[AlmostHeaven]

It is relevant to the suggestion of marcusrn above that an attempt to inspect his gun storage would turn into a "hot war". And as my story suggests, starting a "hot war" against a government employee is likely to (a) end badly, and (b) not achieve the desired effect if preventing the government from doing its thing.

But if you want to "refuse entry" using violence or the threat of violence, go ahead, make my day.

Indeed. Refuse entry, and politely request a warrant. If law enforcement produces a genuine signed search warrant, then comply or experience arrest. Use violence to resist a lawful search, and face certain death.

Life is not a video game.

[BAJ475]

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.

I fully agree that the government needs limits. But, why would I want to hire a home inspector when a public employee is available to me at no additional cost? Is it some how a ding if stated by a public employee but not a ding if stated by a home inspector in my employee?

[Kevin James]

Wow. This is infuriating, but very glad I saw this, as you know this is going to pass. ANY gun related legislature in CA will pass since their goal is to disarm everyone.

As coincidence would have it, I just purchased a brand new gun safe from Liberty Safes in December (yes I am aware of the drama surrounding Liberty, but frankly I'm not concerned about it for several reasons that have nothing to do with the point of this thread). I really only purchased it to comply with stronger "safe storage" laws that I had a feeling were coming, although I did not know about this specific bill. I will also say I have no children or prohibited people in my house, and there is no reason for them to ever be in my house. I'm a buy once, cry once kind of guy so I spent a good amount at roughly $3,500 and got their USA Series 50 gun safe thinking that I will never need to upgrade from this as it offers more than enough room for what I have with a good amount of additional room for growth in my collection and to safely store some important documents. I now see that while Liberty has several safes on this stupid roster, the one I bought is not.

Luckily for me, it was in stock so not a special order, and it has not been delivered yet as I needed to do some work to clear the space it would go into. I guess I will be calling Liberty today to discuss canceling my order and getting a refund. No sense in spending that kind of coin on a safe when said safe would not be in compliance with this stupid law which I am certain will pass and Newscum will sign.

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