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

[AlmostHeaven]

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

[squeeze]

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

[AlmostHeaven]

This is I believe a serious educational shortfall that needs to be addressed. As unfortunate as it is, in this case LE has been turned into a gang of state-sponsored pirates carrying out unconstitutional orders that the citizen has a hard time rationalizing or defending against. Strategies to prevent this from occurring need to be disseminated to the public, much the way the old campaign against drugs taught kids to ?Just Say No?. Some may take offense to this, but the politicians and the appellate industry have created this situation. It is up to us to thwart such enforcement.

I certainly agree that more people need to understand the importance of not treating law enforcement as having their best interests at heart. However, relying on the public education system, which exists as the other side of the authoritarianism coin, cannot possibly work. Homeschooling exists, but the vast majority of people send their children to government schools.

I think the most practical route would be distributing material about refusing police searches and interviews through various Second Amendment community channels.

[splithoof]

Most people are stupid and answer the door and let LE talk them into a search.

This is I believe a serious educational shortfall that needs to be addressed. As unfortunate as it is, in this case LE has been turned into a gang of state-sponsored pirates carrying out unconstitutional orders that the citizen has a hard time rationalizing or defending against. Strategies to prevent this from occurring need to be disseminated to the public, much the way the old campaign against drugs taught kids to ?Just Say No?. Some may take offense to this, but the politicians and the appellate industry have created this situation. It is up to us to thwart such enforcement.

[chris]

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?

Believe it they will be that lame.

[Rickybillegas]

You don't get it or at least you keep inexplicably obsessing over the exceptions to the new and old law.

The new law eliminates the predicate regarding children or prohibited persons. Nothing else changes. But the change is a substantial one, one you seem to ignore. You keep fixating on the exceptions to the old (and new) law such as having the gun within your immediate custody or control. But you ignore the material change.

I agree that for 99% of people, this new law means little; we will store our guns how we see fit in our own homes irrespective of unconstitutional laws. However, this law continues to erode our rights and is not the same as the old law as you intimated earlier thereby prompting me to to ask that you cite the law that's says the same thing (which it doesnt).

Agreed. Any law that infringes on our rights is a big problem whether it affects you or not.

[OlderThanDirt]

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.

Nobody said anything about resorting to violence. Unless an obvious violent crime is in progress, LE simply cannot enter your home to inspect your firearm storage. Getting a warrant is also problematic given the lack of any probable cause that a crime has occurred. Most people are stupid and answer the door and let LE talk them into a search. Just look to the inability of the DOJ to get a warrant for APPS searches.

[JustDynamicsLLC]

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

EC. 2. Section 25105 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b)The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(b) The firearm is stored in compliance with Section 25145.
(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.

You don't get it or at least you keep inexplicably obsessing over the exceptions to the new and old law.

The new law eliminates the predicate regarding children or prohibited persons. Nothing else changes. But the change is a substantial one, one you seem to ignore. You keep fixating on the exceptions to the old (and new) law such as having the gun within your immediate custody or control. But you ignore the material change.

I agree that for 99% of people, this new law means little; we will store our guns how we see fit in our own homes irrespective of unconstitutional laws. However, this law continues to erode our rights and is not the same as the old law as you intimated earlier thereby prompting me to to ask that you cite the law that's says the same thing (which it doesnt).

[AlmostHeaven]

Only that with this new law you can still carry a loaded weapon in your own home. The above poster seemed to deny this.

"The proposed law requires everyone to secure their guns in a DOJ approved lock box....PERIOD. So, whether you have kids or not,have a felon in your house or not, etc., you are required to lock your guns"

This seems to be a point of confusion, and even media articles are reporting otherwise.

Ok, I understand now.

[splithoof]

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?

I have never seen, let alone heard a list of approved storage devices; but then again I do not give a flying fcuk about anything the DOJ says. They can go sniff gorilla ***.
?Not reasonable? is a phrase that absolutely never enters the minds of these child raping legislators; they can, will, and have passed all sorts of crap straight from the Twilight Zone.

[joepamjohn]

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…

[Rickybillegas]

Yes, the law is more restrictive.

It does not distinguish between having kids or prohibited persons. I get that.

[Rickybillegas]

The proposed new law imposes stricter safe storage requirements compared to the status quo. What point are you making?

Only that with this new law you can still carry a loaded weapon in your own home. The above poster seemed to deny this.

"The proposed law requires everyone to secure their guns in a DOJ approved lock box....PERIOD. So, whether you have kids or not,have a felon in your house or not, etc., you are required to lock your guns"

This seems to be a point of confusion, and even media articles are reporting otherwise.

[AlmostHeaven]

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

EC. 2. Section 25105 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b)The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(b) The firearm is stored in compliance with Section 25145.
(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.

The proposed new law imposes stricter safe storage requirements compared to the status quo. What point are you making?

[Rickybillegas]

You must be joking. You're clearly aware of the current law,but you seem to have failed to read it. This new proposed bill is a hugely different law. The current law punishes a gun owner who leaves a firearm unsecured where a minor or prohibited person can access it, AND the child or the prohibited person accesses the gun AND removes the gun from the premises.

In essence, you can leave your guns out/unsecured if you want but if a child or felon accesses one and removes it from the home, then you're punished

The proposed law requires everyone to secure their guns in a DOJ approved lock box....PERIOD. So, whether you have kids or not,have a felon in your house or not, etc., you are required to lock your guns.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Figure it out man.

The new proposed law (SB53) goes much farther than current law. I wrote a letter on behalf of an organization of which I am on the board opposing this bill, based on Heller and the woke claim that people of color will be more affected by this law because of more police contacts and also capable of disparate/uneven enforcement. Something tells me the public safety committee may he more persuaded by the woke argument than the fact that the Heller decision renders this law patently unconstitutional.

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

EC. 2. Section 25105 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b)The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(b) The firearm is stored in compliance with Section 25145.
(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.