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

[TruOil]

This one is indeed very scary. Here's why: lots of responsible and upstanding gun owners have perfectly good safes. Those safes are frequently big, heavy, and expensive. They also tend to remain usable for a very long time: 1500 lbs of steel from 30 or 50 years ago is still 1500 lbs of steel todays, and the technology of combination locks hasn't changed.

So if someone has an old but perfectly good safe, and the manufacturer of that safe is out of business, or doesn't make that particular model any more, the safe is guaranteed to not be put on the list. How will old safes be grandfathered in? Does this mean that everyone has to replace their safes?

There is an exception if you have the original receipt. (As if. And as if it hasn't turned dark brown with age if you do still have it.)

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...I have to believe SCOTUS sees this and understands the implications. Where I find fault is that they are not doing anything about it when I think they can if they wanted to.

Ignoring that the link you presented in terms of where you got your information wasn't about judges and the 4 items you list is an extrapolation of malpractice as related to attorneys... The State of California has the Commission on Judicial Performance and it operates based on the CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS...

The Code of Judicial Ethics ("code") establishes standards for ethical conduct of judges on and off the bench and for candidates for judicial office.* The code consists of broad declarations called canons, with subparts, and a terminology section. Following many canons is a commentary section prepared by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance as to the purpose and meaning of the canons. The commentary does not constitute additional rules and should not be so construed. All members of the judiciary must comply with the code. Compliance is required to preserve the integrity* of the bench and to ensure the confidence of the public.

No where in that "code" will you find the word 'malpractice.' Instead, the term used is 'misconduct.' Now, that's at the State level.

The 9th Circuit has FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, NINTH CIRCUIT RULES, CIRCUIT ADVISORY, COMMITTEE NOTES, more colloquially known as "Circuit Rules." You will not find the word 'malpractice' in there either. Again, the term utilized is 'misconduct.' You will note, early on, under Court Structure and Procedures, a section which states...

The Judicial Council, established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 332, is currently composed of the Chief Judge, four circuit judges, and four district judges. The Council convenes regularly to consider and take required action upon any matter affecting the administration of its own work and that of all federal courts within the circuit, including the consideration of some complaints of judicial misconduct.

Thus, the 9th Circuit is self-policing.

In 1980, The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act was put into place and a report was published in 2006 which stated...

...The federal judiciary, like all institutions, will sometimes suffer instances of misconduct. But the design of any system for discovering (and assessing discipline for) the misconduct of federal judges must take account of a special problem. On the one hand, a system that relies for investigation upon persons or bodies other than judges risks undue interference with the Constitution's insistence upon judicial independence, threatening directly or indirectly distortion of the unbiased handling of individual cases that Article III seeks to guarantee. On the other hand, a system that relies for investigation solely upon judges themselves risks a kind of undue "guild favoritism" through inappropriate sympathy with the judge's point of view or de-emphasis of the misconduct problem.

In 1980, Congress, in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, sought to create a discipline system that would prove effective while taking proper account of these competing risks. The Act creates a complex system that, in essence, requires the chief judge of a circuit to consider each complaint and, where appropriate, to appoint a special committee of judges to investigate further and to recommend that the circuit judicial council assess discipline where warranted. In a word, the Act relies upon internal judicial branch investigation of other judges, but it simultaneously insists upon consideration by the chief circuit judge and members of the circuit judicial council, using careful procedures and applying strict statutory standards...

You will note that references to the Ninth Circuit refer to...

The Ninth Circuit has created a program to make counseling available at all times both to judges who may benefit from it and to other judges who may seek guidance as to how to deal with colleagues. Ninth Circuit judges report that the program has proved successful.

So, once again, the 9th Circuit is self-policing.

What SCOTUS has, Constitutionally, is 'appellate jurisdiction,' meaning it can review cases.

Now, note what came out last month... Ninth Circuit says California Supreme Court, not SCOTUS, gets last word on state labor law

...But the California Supreme Court, the final authority on the meaning of state law, breathed new life into PAGA in July. In a unanimous ruling, the court said that while employees were bound by their agreements to arbitrate individual claims, they could still join their coworkers and sue collectively in the name of the state.

Advocates for businesses argued that the state court's ruling conflicted with federal laws designed to promote arbitration. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed Monday in the first federal court ruling to address the issue.

"A state court has the authority to correct a misinterpretation of that state's law by a federal court," including the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge William Fletcher wrote in a ruling reinstating a PAGA suit against Lowe's Home Centers for allegedly underpaying workers who took sick leave. "There is nothing in Adolph (last year's California Supreme Court ruling) that is inconsistent with the federal law."...

Jason Schwartz, a lawyer for Lowe's Home Centers, declined to comment on Monday?s ruling. The company could seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In short, SCOTUS has limited means to enforce 'conduct' by the judiciary. That is largely a Legislative function, with the ultimate sanctions coming via impeachment proceedings. Remember... "Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution..."

What SCOTUS can do is review cases, issue guidance, and make statements. In that sense, as I have said, SCOTUS relies on the Executive and Legislative Branches for enforcement. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would dedicate its entire calendar to "firearms related" cases coming out of the 9th Circuit (or any other Circuit) to overturn them, simply to see states such as California doing what it is currently engaged in vis a vis Bruen.

Instead, it waits until the right case comes along and rules. Have the right cases come along in regard to what's been going on? Opinions vary. We see evidence that SCOTUS is not happy with the 9th Circuit's machinations overall in that it is the most overturned, by far... SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present).

We're also fairly convinced that Sotomayor, Kagan (who oversees the 9th Circuit), and Brown would have a tendency to agree with the 9th Circuit when it comes to "firearms" cases. I'm sure that Justices Thomas and Alito would be more than happy to lay things down for the 9th Circuit and, likely, Justice Gorsuch would be largely happy to go along. We know that Justice Coney Barrett has ideas on the 2nd Amendment most on this site seem sympathetic to; but, we don't know with certainty how she would specifically rule on a given "firearms" case... yet.

That leaves Kavanaugh and Roberts, with the former having developed a bit of a reputation for following the latter's lead. We know Roberts favors an 'incremental' approach, avoiding 'radical' decisions or decisions which 'reach' too far. Further, we know that he is well aware of the political machinations 'threatening' SCOTUS via the other branches of Government and from the public.

So, if we accept that "can't" and "won't" are a matter of perspective, what, exactly, is it you think SCOTUS can do to lay the smack down? 18 U.S.C. ? 242?

This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus...

Hasn't it been known since Heller (and before) that there is division within the Judiciary (not to mention the Legislature and Executive Branches, along with the public at large) over what the 'right' actually is? Bear in mind that even Scalia, the author of Heller, noted that many things remained to be litigated. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, where is the clear, bright line which can be pointed to in order to demonstrate that we are being 'willfully deprived' of a right which, at best, is still in the process of being definitively defined by the Judiciary?

Remember, the Judiciary is often considered 'the weakest' or 'least dangerous' branch of Government for reasons such as I just discussed.

So... What is it, specifically, that you think SCOTUS can do if it wants to by way of enforcing its decisions if the lower courts refuse to comply?

[Supersapper]

Actually, it is a 'difference of opinion' which holds things up. You have to remember that the Judiciary functions based on deference. If a lower court or lower level of government does not concur with a SCOTUS decision, some argue that they actually have the 'right' to openly defy SCOTUS ... The Right of State Governments to Defy the Supreme Court...



As has been extensively discussed on this site, the Left and the Right play the game differently. While the Right tends toward keeping things 'steady,' the Left is perfectly content to 'play by their own rules' when they consider it convenient. Both sides tend to recognize that certain lines should not be crossed. However, that speaks to consensus, which is how the Judiciary truly functions. The overarching mode of consensus is that whether one agrees with an individual decision or not, the System as a whole is functioning or functional.

That's the key to what we're now experiencing. Strong elements on the Left no longer concede that the System is working. We may see it for what it is, a reaction to their loss of control, to whatever degree, but it does not alter their perception. Worse. As we just saw with Trump v Anderson, SCOTUS Justices aren't hegemonic, even when they 'unanimously agree.' As a result, there are 'differences of opinion' which are not readily reconcilable as to whether what you or I might deem as 'open defiance' is actually something which is 'proper' practice or 'malpractice.'

It's not just a matter of agreeing with 'punishment' if they disagree with us on 'this,' but supporting defiance when we disagree with them on 'that.' Look at the differences in the posts on the site in terms of what should be done with regard to decisions we deem 'unconstitutional.' We still, largely, comply, even with decisions we disagree with. On the other hand, the Left is more prone to open displays of defiance. Yet, it has largely been recently that the Left has taken that defiance to a point where even the most neutral observers would begin to acknowledge a dysfunctionality.

Yet, even that dysfunctionality is not 'universal.' Again, look at what was said in Trump v Anderson...



That's 4 of the 9 Justices disagreeing with how far the decision was taken. Because they could not persuade one more Justice, they essentially said that they would be waiting for another bite at the apple. Yet, if you read the posts on the case in this thread, there was considerable 'difference of opinion' presented as to whether consensus would rule the day.

Now, ask the looming question... What if they had persuaded one more Justice of the inappropriateness of how far the others had gone? Would Trump have still gotten an unanimous opinion? Even if he had, would it have been as broad-reaching?

Go back and look at Heller. The result was similar. Scalia has been much criticized for certain things which happened with regard to the decision. But, as I and many others have argued, quite a number of those had to do with garnering a 5-4 consensus which allowed things to proceed so as to 'fix' things as we went along. In effect, Scalia even openly acknowledged that in interviews; i.e., that many things still needed to be litigated.

How long did it take to get SCOTUS to actually do something with regard to Row v. Wade? 50 years? This, despite a 'general agreement' within the legal community that it was badly constructed. Was it a matter of 'being comfortable' or was it a concern over the consequences which might result which caused the 'delay?'

That's a key component in the type of action you want them to take in relation to something you disagree with, but care about. If action is taken on 'this,' what might be the 'comparable' action taken on 'that?' It's that very concern which gives us stare decisis; i.e., a certain stability. As Justice Rehnquist observed in 1986, the full phrasing is "stare decisis et non quieta movere - stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm." It's not just about precedents and their use, it's also indicative of how SCOTUS views the Judicial System.

Such is the very 'disquiet' the Left has been 'threatening' with things like stacking the court, threats of impeachment for one or more of the Justices, etc. Is it a desire for 'calm' which drives the Justices or a fear of the 'disquiet' and the effect it would have on the System or a bit of both?

Part of what I'm getting at is that you are focused on what the Judicial System allows from within. SCOTUS is also keenly aware that the Executive Branch and the Legislature also have input in terms of potential consequences meted out should they disagree with a SCOTUS action. It's part of the checks & balances Constitutionally built into our Government. It's one of the reasons that SCOTUS is reliant on the two other branches to actually enforce, for most practical purposes, their decisions.

Put another way, rest assured, SCOTUS is very mindful of the consequences of action/inaction. Look at Mitch McConnell and what happened as a result of Bork, where it took him over 30 years to exact his payback. As many have observed, judges at that level are inherently politicians and such is just as true at the SCOTUS level as it is for soldiers at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level.

Thus, "can't" and "won't" become differentiated by a matter of perspective. The difference involves what the trade off is or might be when the debt is called in or the payback comes due. Well, at least if it requires enforcement or if it 'costs' one side or both. That doesn't mean noise won't be made. It means that the Justices view it from a whole different perspective than you or I do, knowing that "this" for "that" happens and involves longer time frames than the here and now. (You might note what happened to Kavanaugh, the press surrounding Coney Barrett, the rumors about Roberts, et al. from that perspective.) They also know those on the Right tend to be far less 'militant' than those on the Left when it comes to support and protest; thus, the need for urgency in action can differ.

There's also the difference between elected judges and appointed ones. But, that too feeds from the same trough. It's simply a matter of how the "this" or "that" is exacted.

The bottom line is what SCOTUS 'can' do is limited by process, procedure, payoff, and payback. What you or I feel they 'must' do is limited by what they are aware the 'tradeoff' will or might be. What they 'will' do is premised and paced based on a different metric and chronometer than you or I use.

My issue is that regardless of whether or not there is a consensus as to the system?s function, the issue is that this is the system that?s in place. When SCOTUS rules, the idea is that this is the final appeal?there has to be or else it would go on forever and nothing would get solved. Ever. You make a good point about differences of opinion, both here in this forum and even in SCOTUS, but at the end of the day only the highest court that has ruled on it counts. That?s the idea behind appeals to a higher court, but then, if the appellate process is successful, you reach SCOTUS and they hear it. Once they do, and they rule on it, that is final. Now, as you mention in the Roe v Wade issue, remember what happened: It was SCOTUS that reversed itself. NOT a lower court. That?s why it took 50 years or so?the court?s make up had to change enough AND the court had to agree to possibly reverse itself?the fact that it wasn?t really a case that did it but a leaked document about an opinion and the public spectacle it created is beside the point?only SCOTUS could reverse itself.

I still have to stand with my original assertion though for one simple reason: the Bruen decision was clear enough to everyone about the 2A. The fact that lower courts and the states are looking for every way and nuance to circumvent the decision. Laughable attempts, but the states do it, the 9CA backs it, and then work to deny what Bruen clearly stated was the answer. No laws unless there is a text, history and tradition of it. I forget which case it was recently, but Judge Benitez insisted the state submit every support for their laws and IIRC, they couldn?t do it. This kind of proves my point about the lack of interpretive excuse. There was nothing that could counter THT and the fact that Bonta and California couldn?t come up with it should have ended it right there. Permanently, unless SCOTUS (and only SCOTUS) revisited it and reversed itself.

I do wish that 18 USC ss 242 could be brought to bear against these individuals, but that won?t happen.

I was always under the impression that it was prima facie illegitimate to, through the enacting of onerous, numerous and unnecessary law(s), deprive a citizen of an enumerated right.

Lastly, I used the word malpractice very specifically. There are elements of malpractice like a duty to perform, there was a breach of said duty, that the breach was the cause of some harm, and the suffering of a financial or other injury. These judges who are openly supporting what can only be malpractice of Bonta, are guilty of such malpractice themselves. I took my information from this:

https://www.findlaw.com/hirealawyer/choosing-the-right-lawyer/legal-malpractice.html

1. The judges have a duty to the people to interpret the law, not circumvent it.
2. The judges have breached that duty by ignoring higher court rulings on the very subject and using methods specifically forbidden (2 step test vs THT).
3. This breach permitted laws to stand that were the reason people have suffered loss.
4. The people of the affected district courts have suffered injuries of both financial and legal types.

If my 6 functional brain cells see this, I have to believe SCOTUS sees this and understands the implications. Where I find fault is that they are not doing anything about it when I think they can if they wanted to.

[cz74]

What a brain dead law that actually makes guns less secure.

That is exactly their intention with this! Just one case of home burglary and Bonta will glow at the press conference "see? you really need our approved safes"

[boltstop]

I would have to think that the ?DOJ list of approved storage devices? will include safes already in existence. Even as radical as these people are I can?t believe that they would insist that everyone has to buy a new safe. By doing, so it only hurts their agenda on everything else they are trying to push through since it?s just not reasonable or enforceable. But, then again, this is California?

As several people have noted, there are probably tens of thousands of safes installed in responsible law abiding gun owners homes that more than meet the safe storage requirement but are not on the roster. Many simply because they were made decades ago or the model is not made any more or it was a special order etc.

Those owners will now be instant criminals.

I suppose they could buy something that is a lot less secure like the StackOn "safes" that you could get into with a can opener but are on the roster.

What a brain dead law that actually makes guns less secure.

[Rickybillegas]

"(2) It is properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user."

I'm wondering what this means.

I'm wondering if you can get away with trigger locks to comply with this stupid law for the guns you don't need to have 'ready to go'.

[WithinReason]

I searched the CA DOJ list, and I could not find any concealment shelves/mantles with RFID locks. Does anyone know how these items would be handled?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

While I agree with the premise, I do not agree that SCOTUS falls under it.

They can read a legal brief and a decision as easily (perhaps even more easily) than many of us can. They see it. They know what's going on. There is no way at all that I can believe, regardless of whether or not I am right or wrong, that SCOTUS can't do anything to stop a lower court from this out and out defiance. Please note...this is not just me being disagreeable and neither is it just my opinion. This is a lower court openly defying a higher court's ruling. To keep with your theme, they are absolutely comfortable in their failure to either act, or find some way to act.

You, me and anyone else that cares to have an opinion know that this is not just a difference of opinion. It's not a lower court interpreting something differently due to some ambiguity. This is open defiance. This has got to be some sort of legal malpractice. If a lawyer defies a judge, he can be held in contempt, fined or jailed depending on what it is. Why can't a higher court police a lower court the same way?

Actually, it is a 'difference of opinion' which holds things up. You have to remember that the Judiciary functions based on deference. If a lower court or lower level of government does not concur with a SCOTUS decision, some argue that they actually have the 'right' to openly defy SCOTUS ... The Right of State Governments to Defy the Supreme Court...

...In sum, from 1791 until 2010, a firmly settled constitutional consensus established that the Second Amendment does not impose any constraints on the power of state and local governments to enact sensible gun control regulations to protect the lives of their citizens. I believe that, with the passage of time, that consensus will once again prevail, and the Court's decisions in McDonald and Bruen will be exposed for what they are: illegitimate attempts by the Court's conservative Justices to impose their will on blue states. In the words of James Madison, McDonald and Bruen constitute a "manifest usurpation" of the power of state governments to protect the safety of their citizens. Accordingly, relying on Madison as legal authority, state governments should defy the Supreme Court and carry out their ethical duty to save lives by enacting and enforcing laws designed to reduce gun violence.

As has been extensively discussed on this site, the Left and the Right play the game differently. While the Right tends toward keeping things 'steady,' the Left is perfectly content to 'play by their own rules' when they consider it convenient. Both sides tend to recognize that certain lines should not be crossed. However, that speaks to consensus, which is how the Judiciary truly functions. The overarching mode of consensus is that whether one agrees with an individual decision or not, the System as a whole is functioning or functional.

That's the key to what we're now experiencing. Strong elements on the Left no longer concede that the System is working. We may see it for what it is, a reaction to their loss of control, to whatever degree, but it does not alter their perception. Worse. As we just saw with Trump v Anderson, SCOTUS Justices aren't hegemonic, even when they 'unanimously agree.' As a result, there are 'differences of opinion' which are not readily reconcilable as to whether what you or I might deem as 'open defiance' is actually something which is 'proper' practice or 'malpractice.'

It's not just a matter of agreeing with 'punishment' if they disagree with us on 'this,' but supporting defiance when we disagree with them on 'that.' Look at the differences in the posts on the site in terms of what should be done with regard to decisions we deem 'unconstitutional.' We still, largely, comply, even with decisions we disagree with. On the other hand, the Left is more prone to open displays of defiance. Yet, it has largely been recently that the Left has taken that defiance to a point where even the most neutral observers would begin to acknowledge a dysfunctionality.

Yet, even that dysfunctionality is not 'universal.' Again, look at what was said in Trump v Anderson...

...The majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home...

Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

That's 4 of the 9 Justices disagreeing with how far the decision was taken. Because they could not persuade one more Justice, they essentially said that they would be waiting for another bite at the apple. Yet, if you read the posts on the case in this thread, there was considerable 'difference of opinion' presented as to whether consensus would rule the day.

Now, ask the looming question... What if they had persuaded one more Justice of the inappropriateness of how far the others had gone? Would Trump have still gotten an unanimous opinion? Even if he had, would it have been as broad-reaching?

Go back and look at Heller. The result was similar. Scalia has been much criticized for certain things which happened with regard to the decision. But, as I and many others have argued, quite a number of those had to do with garnering a 5-4 consensus which allowed things to proceed so as to 'fix' things as we went along. In effect, Scalia even openly acknowledged that in interviews; i.e., that many things still needed to be litigated.

How long did it take to get SCOTUS to actually do something with regard to Row v. Wade? 50 years? This, despite a 'general agreement' within the legal community that it was badly constructed. Was it a matter of 'being comfortable' or was it a concern over the consequences which might result which caused the 'delay?'

That's a key component in the type of action you want them to take in relation to something you disagree with, but care about. If action is taken on 'this,' what might be the 'comparable' action taken on 'that?' It's that very concern which gives us stare decisis; i.e., a certain stability. As Justice Rehnquist observed in 1986, the full phrasing is "stare decisis et non quieta movere - stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm." It's not just about precedents and their use, it's also indicative of how SCOTUS views the Judicial System.

Such is the very 'disquiet' the Left has been 'threatening' with things like stacking the court, threats of impeachment for one or more of the Justices, etc. Is it a desire for 'calm' which drives the Justices or a fear of the 'disquiet' and the effect it would have on the System or a bit of both?

Part of what I'm getting at is that you are focused on what the Judicial System allows from within. SCOTUS is also keenly aware that the Executive Branch and the Legislature also have input in terms of potential consequences meted out should they disagree with a SCOTUS action. It's part of the checks & balances Constitutionally built into our Government. It's one of the reasons that SCOTUS is reliant on the two other branches to actually enforce, for most practical purposes, their decisions.

Put another way, rest assured, SCOTUS is very mindful of the consequences of action/inaction. Look at Mitch McConnell and what happened as a result of Bork, where it took him over 30 years to exact his payback. As many have observed, judges at that level are inherently politicians and such is just as true at the SCOTUS level as it is for soldiers at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level.

Thus, "can't" and "won't" become differentiated by a matter of perspective. The difference involves what the trade off is or might be when the debt is called in or the payback comes due. Well, at least if it requires enforcement or if it 'costs' one side or both. That doesn't mean noise won't be made. It means that the Justices view it from a whole different perspective than you or I do, knowing that "this" for "that" happens and involves longer time frames than the here and now. (You might note what happened to Kavanaugh, the press surrounding Coney Barrett, the rumors about Roberts, et al. from that perspective.) They also know those on the Right tend to be far less 'militant' than those on the Left when it comes to support and protest; thus, the need for urgency in action can differ.

There's also the difference between elected judges and appointed ones. But, that too feeds from the same trough. It's simply a matter of how the "this" or "that" is exacted.

The bottom line is what SCOTUS 'can' do is limited by process, procedure, payoff, and payback. What you or I feel they 'must' do is limited by what they are aware the 'tradeoff' will or might be. What they 'will' do is premised and paced based on a different metric and chronometer than you or I use.

[Supersapper]

But, your two paragraphs highlight the problem.

Being 'comfortable' with some situation is different than not knowing what or not having the ability to actually DO something about the situation.

It's just like finding more comfort in not acting or not acting in the way someone wants is not synonymous with being comfortable.

While I agree with the premise, I do not agree that SCOTUS falls under it.

They can read a legal brief and a decision as easily (perhaps even more easily) than many of us can. They see it. They know what's going on. There is no way at all that I can believe, regardless of whether or not I am right or wrong, that SCOTUS can't do anything to stop a lower court from this out and out defiance. Please note...this is not just me being disagreeable and neither is it just my opinion. This is a lower court openly defying a higher court's ruling. To keep with your theme, they are absolutely comfortable in their failure to either act, or find some way to act.

You, me and anyone else that cares to have an opinion know that this is not just a difference of opinion. It's not a lower court interpreting something differently due to some ambiguity. This is open defiance. This has got to be some sort of legal malpractice. If a lawyer defies a judge, he can be held in contempt, fined or jailed depending on what it is. Why can't a higher court police a lower court the same way?

[AlmostHeaven]

The question is, will you have time to 'lock your guns' up other than the one on or near your person before that happens.

Although, that issue might be the least of your problems (after break in or self defense incident).

However, I'm wondering if one of the underlying intents of violation of this law is to deny or revoke a CCW. Certainly, law enforcement agencies can use this violation to deny or revoke a permit.

I think this all part of Portantino, et -all post Bruen temper tantrum.

At this point, I would characterize the situation as a full-spectrum civilian disarmament agenda. "Temper tantrum" trivializes the extent of the tyranny.

And if they find your guns in an unapproved container (even if that container weighs 2 tons and has a door an inch thick) they will prosecute you.

In the meantime, the criminal who broke into your house and/or assaulted you will get a slap on the wrist and would possibly be able to use you storing your guns "illegally" in his defense.

Thus Portantino's dumb law actually discourages reporting a crime.

The mandatory insurance reporting bill further increases this effect.

My guess is there will be no need to drop by and check, no cops or feds at the door, etc. They simply do not have the staffing for that. They will simply legislate compliance, same as for SB 1160.

For instance if you don't prove you have the approved containers/safe, or don't annually register your guns maybe you will be prohibited (locked out) from any future purchases, like buying ammo, or additional guns, essentially anything that requires a dros.

This may be a stretch, but down the road perhaps you will not be able to file state income taxes, or register your car since they can link it into any/all existing California data bases.

If your name goes in "the System" as Non-Compliant, god help you with getting it cleared.

What they really want is no guns in California all while creating an additional revenue stream to help pay for the ever mounting deficit. The ones that remain, they want to know all about them and you for future legislation to come. These new bills will greatly help in doing that by getting folks to sell off guns or move out of state with them.

California speeds ahead at a frightening speed towards implementing a Communist China-style technocratic authoritarian system. I read that Senator Scott Wiener has introduced legislation to mandate active location-tracking speed governors on new vehicles. In the future, every gun owned, every bullet purchased, every dollar spent, every mile traveled, and every online post made will feed into a central database on every resident.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Until SCOTUS grows a backbone with the lower courts and figures out some way...any way...to reign in the runaway courts and their rulings, then obviously, SCOTUS is comfortable with it.

To paraphrase an old quote, "Act or don't act. There is no middle ground". SCOTUS, if it wants to resolve the problems, needs to figure out how to police up it's own judicial system. I don't care how, but no one else seems to be able or willing to do it, so if nothing else, SCOTUS needs to publish, publicly, that a law declared unconstitutional is by fiat, null and void. And therefore unenforceable. Period. And that not based on someone losing and costly appeals. SCOTUS needs to act in favor of the law, not politics. If a law is unconstitutional, then it needs to be declared so WITHOUT the need for someone to lose their life so they can act.

But, your two paragraphs highlight the problem.

Being 'comfortable' with some situation is different than not knowing what or not having the ability to actually DO something about the situation.

It's just like finding more comfort in not acting or not acting in the way someone wants is not synonymous with being comfortable.

[joepamjohn]

Who is going to check whether or not I am in compliance?

My guess is there will be no need to drop by and check, no cops or feds at the door, etc. They simply do not have the staffing for that. They will simply legislate compliance, same as for SB 1160.

For instance if you don't prove you have the approved containers/safe, or don't annually register your guns maybe you will be prohibited (locked out) from any future purchases, like buying ammo, or additional guns, essentially anything that requires a dros.

This may be a stretch, but down the road perhaps you will not be able to file state income taxes, or register your car since they can link it into any/all existing California data bases.

If your name goes in "the System" as Non-Compliant, god help you with getting it cleared.

What they really want is no guns in California all while creating an additional revenue stream to help pay for the ever mounting deficit. The ones that remain, they want to know all about them and you for future legislation to come. These new bills will greatly help in doing that by getting folks to sell off guns or move out of state with them.

[Supersapper]

....

In short, there's a whole can of worms that this would open up or, at least, that it should open up. In a period where SCOTUS is overtly re-examining 'deference' and where SCOTUS is making it plain that 'interest balancing' isn't the 'standard' anymore when it comes to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, I'm not certain the lower courts or the Left is going to be comfortable with simply doing their usual shuffle and I'm even less certain that SCOTUS, with its current membership, would be comfortable leaving it at that. Then again... who knows?

Until SCOTUS grows a backbone with the lower courts and figures out some way...any way...to reign in the runaway courts and their rulings, then obviously, SCOTUS is comfortable with it.

To paraphrase an old quote, "Act or don't act. There is no middle ground". SCOTUS, if it wants to resolve the problems, needs to figure out how to police up it's own judicial system. I don't care how, but no one else seems to be able or willing to do it, so if nothing else, SCOTUS needs to publish, publicly, that a law declared unconstitutional is by fiat, null and void. And therefore unenforceable. Period. And that not based on someone losing and costly appeals. SCOTUS needs to act in favor of the law, not politics. If a law is unconstitutional, then it needs to be declared so WITHOUT the need for someone to lose their life so they can act.

[boltstop]

The police might conduct a search of the scene after a home defense incident or reported break-in.

And if they find your guns in an unapproved container (even if that container weighs 2 tons and has a door an inch thick) they will prosecute you.

In the meantime, the criminal who broke into your house and/or assaulted you will get a slap on the wrist and would possibly be able to use you storing your guns "illegally" in his defense.

Thus Portantino's dumb law actually discourages reporting a crime.

[Rickybillegas]

The police might conduct a search of the scene after a home defense incident or reported break-in.

The question is, will you have time to 'lock your guns' up other than the one on or near your person before that happens.

Although, that issue might be the least of your problems (after break in or self defense incident).

However, I'm wondering if one of the underlying intents of violation of this law is to deny or revoke a CCW. Certainly, law enforcement agencies can use this violation to deny or revoke a permit.

I think this all part of Portantino, et -all post Bruen temper tantrum.