Will SB 363 be challenged in the courts?

[Shotgun Man]

SB 363:
This bill provides that any person who owns or
possesses any firearm and resides with an individual who he/she
knows is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or
purchasing a firearm be required to secure the firearm within a
locked container, as defined, and store the firearm in a manner
that the individual may not gain access to the firearm.

This bill requires one to forfeit one's 2A rights simply because one's spouse is a prohibited person. This can't be constitutionally permissable.

[incognito925]

Can you help enlighten me as to what is wrong with this new law? Seems reasonable to me.

[Shotgun Man]

Sure. Here's a hypothetical:

My wife gets mad at me for some arbitrary reason and slaps me in the face. I get angry, and in a moment of bad judgment, I call the police. She gets convicted of a domestic battery and as a result is prohibited for life from possessing a firearm.

We decide not to get divorced in the interests of the children and reconcile.

Now, I no longer have the right enuciated in Heller to have ready access to a firearm in my home for self-defense.

Does that sound reasonable?

[covingtonhouse]

Can you help enlighten me as to what is wrong with this new law? Seems reasonable to me.

I smell something trolly...

[MA5177]

Sure. Here's a hypothetical:

My wife gets mad at me for some arbitrary reason and slaps me in the face. I get angry, and in a moment of bad judgment, I call the police. She gets convicted of a domestic battery and as a result is prohibited for life from possessing a firearm.

We decide not to get divorced in the interests of the children and reconcile.

Now, I no longer have the right enuciated in Heller to have ready access to a firearm in my home for self-defense.

Does that sound reasonable?

Does to me, what if next time she were to shoot you?

[incognito925]

Does to me, what if next time she were to shoot you?

Or your children out of spite?

[Corbin Dallas]

Does to me, what if next time she were to shoot you?

Both you and incognito925 should turn in all your weapons if you think SB363 is reasonable.

Try playing devils advocate sometime. It works wonders with critical thinking.

[incognito925]

Both you and incognito925 should turn in all your weapons if you think SB363 is reasonable.

Try playing devils advocate sometime. It works wonders with critical thinking.

Just need some enlightenment. That's all... :-)

[swdiosdado]

Laws should not be made based on what if's. Facts only

[racerx944]

Just need some enlightenment. That's all... :-)

You want to play what ifs?

What if someone can possibly shoot another person with a gun when they are angry?

According to your logic, then all guns should be inaccessible to everyone leading to a complete gun ban.

Is this what you are trying to say?

[SVT-40]

This bill requires one to forfeit one's 2A rights simply because one's spouse is a prohibited person. This can't be constitutionally permissible.

Sure. Here's a hypothetical:

My wife gets mad at me for some arbitrary reason and slaps me in the face. I get angry, and in a moment of bad judgment, I call the police. She gets convicted of a domestic battery and as a result is prohibited for life from possessing a firearm.

We decide not to get divorced in the interests of the children and reconcile.

Now, I no longer have the right enuciated in Heller to have ready access to a firearm in my home for self-defense.

Does that sound reasonable?

I believe your definition of "ready access" is flawed...

Having a lock which takes a few seconds to open does not constitute a violation of Heller.....

"Ready access" does not equal "Immediate access".....

[paladin4415]

biometric gun vault. You can access a weapon for self defense in seconds. They are a couple hundred bucks, but if you choose to live with someone who has impulse and/or anger control issues and keep lethal force close at hand, its a small cost.

Are you absolutely sure your "biometric gun vault" meets the requirements of SB363? Would you like to be the test case?
Not judging, just asking?

[Shotgun Man]

I believe your definition of "ready access" is flawed...

Having a lock which takes a few seconds to open does not constitute a violation of Heller.....

"Ready access" does not equal "Immediate access".....

Is it any wonder we have such idiotic gun laws in this state when even members of CA gun board favor such ludicrous legislation.

Btw, Heller held that DC's requirement of a trigger lock in the home was unconstitutional. I don't see the difference between a trigger lock and a safe, biometric or not.

[teg33]

I'm sure it will be challenged in the court

[russ69]

I'm sure it will be challenged in the court

It will be challenged that's for sure but I have no idea what the legal argument would be. In the example given, one person is prohibited and the other has to make an accommodation. The prohibited person doesn't have the right to own or possess a firearm and the other person is not denied his right to own a firearm. I just can't see the legal argument.