New San Jose Law: Guns Must Be Locked-Up When Owners Aren’t Home

screen-shot-2016-10-21-at-2-35-18-pm

“San Jose is moving closer to becoming the first big city in America to require gun owners to lock up their guns when they’re away from home,” abc7news.com reports. “The goal is to keep people safe if a home is broken into.” Wait. What? “Two San Jose city council members worry [that stolen] guns are used to commit other crimes.” Oh, so locking-up your guns when you’re not home keeps other people safe. Which makes it a win-win!

“We actually are doing this not only to protect our community from gun violence and guns falling into the wrong hands, but ultimately it protects the guns of the firearm owners, because they get to keep their guns,” said San Jose City Council members Ash Kalra.

Or not.

Joe Castello, the owner of Castello Guns in San Jose’s Willow Glen neighborhood, doesn’t think the plan will keep guns out of the hands of burglars.

“This won’t prevent anything. If a burglar breaks in and the gun is locked up, he’s going to get the gun no matter what. Is that going to prevent anything? Can’t,” Costello said.

Question: how do you enforce a safe storage law that only applies when a gun owners is away from base? You investigate his or her firearms storage when they’re out! By the same token, if a gun is stolen when you’re not at home, you have to prove you weren’t at home!

This cockamamie compromise is unlike most safe storage laws, which require guns to be locked-up anytime the weapon isn’t under the owner’s direct control. Still, the new ordnance is equally unconstitutional, unworkable and unenforceable.

What worries me: some intellectually challenged government zealot may try to enforce it, with lethal results.

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    How exactly are they going to enforce it? I guess when you call to report your stolen gun, the cops can demand to see your pried open safe. All this is going to do is deter people from reporting their stolen guns for fear they’ll get brought up on charges.

    1. avatar Aircooled says:

      Isn’t failure to report a stolen firearm a crime in all of California now?
      Catch 22

      1. avatar Katy says:

        I thought it was must be reported on discovery that they have been stolen.

        I’m sorry officer, I hadn’t noticed that those guns were stolen. Oh, I kept one in a little lock box, but it looks like it was taken. Oh no, why would I have chained it up? The other had a trigger lock. Yeah, I had no reason to notice they were missing until you told me.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      Me “Officer my gun was stolen when I was in the backyard”

      Officer “So you WERE home.” pause
      So every time you go out to the 7-11, You go around and pull down your 42 gun gun collection from these various display cabinets and put in a safe?” incredulously

      Me “Absolutely officer, pinky swear”

      Officer “Can i see the safe”

      Me “They stole that when they stole the collection, They really got me good.”

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      POTG seem to be looking into the dark tunnel of gun control, searching for the ever-enlarging headlight of the on-coming train of gun confiscation. And you will be run over by the hand trolley operated by a coupla little guys alternately “pumping” the manual drive.

      Overall, few guns are actually stolen from the general public. There is some cluster stolen from gun stores and maybe sporting goods stores. “Locking ’em up in the house” will lead to mandatory police inspection of gun storage methods, accompanied by a requirement to sign a binding statement at purchase, that you agree to the inspection. Then if you are ever found with a firearm in your possession (traffic stop, DGU, etc), you must prove that your guns at home are secured in the approved manner. You still have your gun, you can still use it in defense, but if you screw-up the storage, you violated the law you signed an agreement to follow (that’s how government thinking works); two crimes. There will be other curtailments that do not violate 2A, but make ownership and use so onerous that if you defend yourself with a gun, you might as well be killed in the process. The laws you think protect your use of guns were written and passed by the same type people who want to permanently disarm you (preferably accompanied by jail time). Those same people can re-write the laws in order to make YOU the real criminal. And while that is happening, the other POTG are still standing at the mouth of the tunnel, looking for the train. There will be no Molon Labe moment. Think of the anti-gun movement as being populated with nothing but Picadors.

    4. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “Where’s the pried open safe?” says Officer Friendly Fascist.

      “The burglars stole that too” you should say.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Where’s the pried open safe?” says Officer Friendly Fascist.

        “The burglars stole that too” you should say.

        “Prove you actually had a safe; holes in the floor/wall are not proof”, says Officer Friendly.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          It’s not my job to prove I didn’t commit a crime, it’s yours to prove that I did. Good luck, and you can get the fuck off of my property now.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Pwrserge,

          Unfortunately, you and I both know that our long standing legal principle that “we are innocent until the state proves us guilty” is quickly falling by the wayside.

          All it takes: the state waves their hand and utters one or both of the magic incantations “compelling government interest” or “public safety” and it is a done deal.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yuuuuup!

        4. avatar Ad Astra says:

          “Heres a copy of the receipt for top dollar CA DOJ approved Harbor Freight gun safe right here Barney.”

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If it isn’t on video, on YouTube, it didn’t happen; you lose”, chortles Officer Friendly.

      2. avatar NineShooter says:

        There seems to be no requirement for a safe, and as the photos show, those dinky little lock-boxes that most people will end up using come complete with carry handles to make the thief’s job even easier.

        If I lived in one of these areas, I’d take a photo of my secure storage box/locker/safe, and store the photo off-site so I could produce it as evidence after any robbery. If and when they find your gun, it won’t be contained in the secure storage device any longer, so I assume the burden of proof will fall on the gun owner to show that it was, in fact, locked-up (or at least that you had the means on hand to do so).

        What next, a law to make sure that no gun owner possesses the tools needed to break into his/her own gun storage box? All pry-bars and metal-cutting tools must be stored at least 200 yards from any gun storage device? Where will this madness end?

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Another flat-out win for “gun rights”. The gains just keep rolling in.

    Not only are you allowed only those “gun rights” the government allows, you may have your RTKBA in precisely the manner the government prescribes. Gun owners are the suspects, the criminals-in-waiting. Thieves, burglars, and home-invaders are not to be molested, but the homeowner is responsible for the acts of thieves that allow guns to be circulated through the criminal society. If you make it easy and attractive for criminals to criminal, you should be punished to the fullest.

    Get it? Got it? Good.

  3. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Yes. Because I, like many others I know, leave guns lying all over the house. In fact, there is one on top of the dining table right now and two on top of the refrigerator and I think I see one poking out from under the couch cushions. Good thing I wasn’t robbed while I was out buying more guns from the internet gun show.

    1. avatar Holding My Nose says:

      In Jacksonville there have been many cases of guns stolen from cars that were not even locked. So your sarchasm actually has a factual basis.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        Many. Like three or four? Five maybe? And that is supposed to make it OK to put safe-storage laws in place? The many have to suffer because of the sins of the few?

      2. avatar NineShooter says:

        Locking most vehicles is only going to keep semi-honest people honest. A car is nothing more than a glass box, when it comes to security. What, you don’t have any rocks in your state? Or easily-concealable spring-loaded center-punches?

      3. avatar Kevin says:

        Yes the guns were left in the car because the stupid government makes you take the off (where they’re truly safe) to enter any of their “gun free zones” lest you be a criminal too

    2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      You don’t let your daughter leave the house without a male accompanying her, right? I mean, if she were to get raped it would be your fault, because you didn’t lock her up. It’s definitely not the criminals’ fault they are criminals. It’s (institutional racism)(global climate disruption)(society.)

  4. Makes sense just so long as every member of the household could be considered an “owner”. Hell my firearms are locked up (except for the 1 or 2 that are always with me) even when I am at home.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    If you think this San Jose law on firearm storage is bad, check out the legislation that some douche bag just proposed in Michigan: not only does the proposed law require locking most semi-auto (and even many pump-action) rifles in a safe, the law also requires registration and SUBJECTS THE OWNER TO YEARLY INSPECTIONS BY THE STATE POLICE TO VERIFY THAT HE/SHE IS KEEPING THAT RIFLE IN A SAFE!!!

    I guess Democrats were serious when they said they wanted Australian style laws.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/House/htm/2016-HIB-5996.htm

    1. avatar The Hot Sheet says:

      So in order to enjoy my 2-A Rights , I’m expected to waive my 4th Amendment Rights ? Both of which Pre Exist our crooked marxist politicians. What will they do when inspection is refused ?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You will be arrested. You will be jailed. You are guilty of violating the law, without question. Your trial will be swift, and punishment severe (your jury of peers absolutely hate guns).

  6. avatar MikeB says:

    The next step is to regulate the type of safe used. The goal is to price out the undesirables. It’s Socialism 101.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Poll tax…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Not even the same. You have an unstated/unwritten constitutional right to vote (legally or illegally), but you do not have a right to have a death-dealing gun (despite what the constitution states).

        1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          Now, your sarcasm there was almost too subtle. I was about to jump your s*t until I saw your handle…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yeah, there is always a risk.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I remember a TV show from 5 or so years ago where a [former] professional burglar would arrange to break into someone’s home. He had their permission beforehand, they just never knew when it was going to happen. After the break in he would show the video of what a burglary actually looked like and give back all the stuff he had taken. In one show I believe he actually drove the stuff away in the guy’s Porsche.

      Point here being that in one house he found a gun safe in the master bedroom. I believe it was attached to both the floor and the wall with screws. It took him about 15 seconds to pry the thing loose and throw it in with is stash. When they were displaying the loot the safe had been pried open and contained several AR-15 rifles and some pistols, which the burglar said he could sell with no problem through a fence he knew. The owner of the house was a cop, as I recall.

      I have a pistol safe. I cannot think of any way to fasten it down that would even slow down a burglar with time to find it and determine it was obviously something worth taking with him. Unless you’ve got a Liberty or similar safe weighing hundreds of pounds I think locking them up only gives the thief a convenient carrying case.

      It may protect them from curious youngsters, however.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I remember a TV show from 5 or so years ago where a [former] professional burglar would arrange to break into someone’s home.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Thief_(2005_TV_series)

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        I remember that show. Initially, it was where he would break-in (with permission) when the owners weren’t home, taking them by surprise when they got back. The show was later changed to where they would take the owners and have them watch live where he would break in, I am guessing because the other method got too lawsuit-risky.

        I think I remember the episode you are referring to though. I also remember a hilarious episode with a couple and a pet dog, which the man said he had gotten to be a guard dog. So the thief breaks in, and while breaking in, the dog is barking away. Then he breaks in, and immediately starts talking all friendly to the dog, which goes right up and is like, “Wow, he isn’t a bad guy at all, he’s a very friendly guy!” So he’s busy robbing the home while the dog is plenty happy-go-lucky, then when he gets into his truck, he invites the dog into the vehicle with him. The dog happily goes with him, hopping next to him in the passenger seat 😀

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        No one in government cares about thieves taking your guns. In fact, that is good because it proves the narrative that gun owners are irresponsible, and their guns wind up in criminal hands. No, the entire “secure at home” is for the children.

      4. avatar Roymond says:

        As a handyman I ran into lots of people who complained, “But I fastened it with screws!” My rule was simple: if it’s only fastened with screws, it isn’t fastened.

        The most common object of this complaint was the deadbolt receiver on a door. Those kits come with screws to fasten it, the idea being that the metal won’t tear while mere wood would. But if you fasten it with screws, then you’re just relocating the point(s) at which the wood will tear. When I fixed the damage and reinstalled their dead bolt receiver, it no longer had screws but 6″+ bolts that went through the door frame and then through the stud required by a door. Any space between the lumber the bolts passed through got filled with blocks epoxied to the lumber, so the bolts were going through a solid mass that wouldn’t twist. And if they wanted my really secure job, I put cross-bracing between that stud and the next one, all fastened together with wood glue, heavy-duty hurricane-grade metal brackets, and wood screws long enough to just peak out the far side of the wood they went in and “greased” with epoxy as they went in. Yeah, by the time that was done, it would be easier to break the door itself than tear out the deadbolt (something I had further solutions for).

        So a safe that’s merely screwed down isn’t fastened. You want your safe hooked to the floor? Run bolts from inside the safe all the way through the floor into a block at least 4″ thick and epoxied to the underside of the floor — that, I’d consider fastened.

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    My guns ARE locked when I’m not at home. I lock my front door.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      This will be the legal rebuttal to this law. Where is it legal or required to have a security onion around firearms? Your front yard is considered a public space but behind the locked door falls under castle doctrine.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I do believe that every jurisdiction that has “safe storage” regulation dictates just what constitutes safe storage. Have read nothing that would lead anyone to think a locked house is the approved method (if such were the case, all the pro-gun organizations would have broadcast the information). Thus, while comfortable ignoring the regulations, any problem that leads to investigating “safe storage” at your residence will lead to criminal prosecution and conviction if you use the argument that a locked house is “safe storage” under the castle doctrine. Yes, the likelihood there will ever be an investigation of your “safe storage”, the impact would be near catastrophic. That is, until it becomes a federal matter, wherein everyone with a CCW or purchase registration is subject to mandatory annual inspection (those who bought before such regulation will be subject to it, retroactively should a shooting event take place at the home…or maybe anywhere, as part of the investigation).

  8. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    “What worries me: some intellectually challenged government zealot may try to enforce it, with lethal results.”

    For some, that kind of thinking may fall into what Colion Noir referred to as “I wish a muth******** would” syndrome.

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

    Well. Legislators seem to not think much about the after affects or their laws and never seize upon their unintended consequences. A law like this really just punishes the law abiding for what criminals do. Instead of placing all the blame where the blame is due, it is placed on gun owners as being enablers for the actions of criminals. It’s the gun owners fault, because he didn’t lock them up good enough. The victim becomes the object of blame.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      That is pretty much the entire purpose of gun control laws. Now what?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Need I keep repeating this with the election so close to hand? This is election year theater. The Progressives have decided that being pro-gun control is the winning strategy this time and they are willing to support and/or pass all sorts of stupid laws even when they know they are illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable just to make points with low-information liberal voters.

  10. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Do you need anymore indicators/actions to start bringing violence upon these tyrants?

  11. avatar MLee says:

    Short of having a real safe bolted down to the floor, and I don’t mean with screws, I mean bolted down so it takes an act of god, an acetylene torch or significant tools, to take it, crooks are going to get them. My guns are locked up so they are not easily accessible, but they could be had if they wanted them.
    Stupid laws by stupid people do nothing.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Let me tell you the story of an “anti-pollution” option that is more deadly than the pollution. Some major cities have been declared in gross violation of EPA air quality standards caused solely and completely by automobile exhaust emissions. The options given the cities (states) were $100/day fines for every registered vehicle, or buying gasoline infused with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Localities adopting the chemical would be given a permanent waiver for emissions violations. The additional benefits were wide spread respiratory problems, known carcinogen that leaches through the skin (rubber gloves needed to use fueling stations), toxicity that made reservoirs forever unusable (see California). Everyone involved (except the public) was aware the “cure” was far worse than the problem, that MTBE provided no benefits at all, that the entire thing was a hoax. But, nod-nod, wink-wink, it is the way the game is played.

      And there is the entire syndrome of government regulation.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      What an absurd argument. A thief ‘can’ get your car but you still lock your doors and don’t leave your keys in the ignition at the curb, right? Any thief can break your house’s window so do you leave your doors all unlocked? Of course not, because thieves work with opportunity. Sure, some thieves can bring torches and tools that can break into the best safe… but they are a very small percentage. Most thieves will break a window and grab what they can. Guess what, they aren’t going to magically grow a safe-cutting torch out of their hand when they see your safe.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        I know personally of an incident of, in all places, Amish country in Ohio. Not exactly a hotbed of crime. The burglars dragged a heavy (500+ pounds at least) safe down a narrow stairway. Took the whole thing. I saw the drag marks on the stairs. They don’t need to bring cutting torches, just some muscle.

        1. avatar NineShooter says:

          Even to get immediate access, no torch or cutting tools are usually needed. Most “Residential Security Containers” (the general UL listing for many gun safes) cannot even stand a serious attack by prying for more than a few minutes without giving-up their contents.

          Run an online video search for “gun safe pry open” and watch the videos that turn up. Once you do, you’ll never consider the portable lock-boxes, sheet-metal-style lockers and discount gun safes for anything other than keeping your own toddler/’tween/low-motivation-teen separate from your guns.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “…for anything other than keeping your own toddler/’tween/low-motivation-teen separate from your guns.”

          Well, the truth is, for most people, that’s what they’re really concerned about. That, and fire. My safe is heavy and thick, but that’s mostly because of the fire protection I insisted on. I live in a multi-family dwelling, and I’m far more concerned about the people I don’t know burning the building down than I am about a robbery. Fire and sticky-fingered maintenance guys are my two largest concerns.

        3. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          Exactly. I live in a small apartment in a nice neighborhood (camouflage.) I have a sturdy cabinet inside a closet, screwed down on 3 sides and concealed behind a stack of boxes and blankets. Would slow a burglar down by 5 minutes, but when we go on vacation and ask the neighbors to watch the cats, it’s secure enough.

  12. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Perhaps If a few of those people die under mysterious circumstances they might rethink such unconstitutional nonsense.

    1. avatar ButtHurtz says:

      I’d make it obvious why they died. Got to discourage the other wannabe tyrants.

  13. avatar Freeheel says:

    Many, many more crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol and or drugs. So they going to make everyone lock up there liquor and Rx drugs when they go out? Sure, it’s about everyone’s safety…

  14. avatar DaveW says:

    There are so many guns already in the hands of gang bangers and other criminals in San Jose, Oakland, Vallejo, etc., (not to mention Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, etc.), that there is practically no reason to steal guns anymore. However, guns are the currency of the drug trade. By the way, Gov Brown left that area to run on a law and order platform. Things have not gotten better; they have only gotten worse. So much for “Moonbeam” and his drug induced 1960s dreams of utopia. And, the most prolific authors of gun control bills are from the same metro areas of the state where guns are a problem even after all the gun control bills have been rammed through. The ones authoring the control bills include one Dem who the FBI nailed for gun running (but was allowed to plead to a lesser charge), and another who was charged with political corruption. That’s your progressive Dems for ya. The people who brought you big deficits, the governor’s toy train, etc. They don’t care that your home gets burglarized. What they fear is an armed public finally having had enough of being ripped off by these people and their lies.

    1. avatar Charlie Mike says:

      $150 for a pot metal gun box. Someone’s doing a little pre-law price gouging.

      And where’d they dig up that crotchety old stereotypical gun shop owner? Talk about talking in circles while talking.

      I just had my house officially declared a gun box so now the lock on my front door is all I need.

  15. avatar Omer Baker says:

    Wouldn’t the locked doors and windows on the home make anything inside locked up? So as long as you don’t forget you should be fine. And hasn’t this legislature ever heard the saying that locks only keep out honest people?

  16. avatar PavePusher says:

    California needs to cease their fucktarded Fascism.

  17. avatar RCC says:

    Despite popular myths firearm numbers are going up in Australia and rule are nothing like Europe
    In my part of Australia guns are in a safe or lockable timber cabinet if you are not using or cleaning firearm.

    The police can inspect with prior notification, usually two or three days. Friend who works at gun shop has sold more than a few safes to people who only bought it after inspectors gave notice. If you can’t move things in two days your not trying.

    Personally I have never been checked yet in the 20 years since the rules came in.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      A booming business in Brown Bess and similar in Oz?

    2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      United States of America has a Fourth Amendment. Comes from having the Brits toss the place whenever they felt like they needed something to steal. You Aussies were all convicts, they knew you didn’t have anything anyway.

  18. avatar Roymond says:

    Requiring safe storage of arms not in use is constitutional under the Article I Sec 8 authority over the militia. But since the police are not the militia, there are no constitutional grounds for inspections by the police; any inspection would have to be by officers of the local militia, elected by that militia and not chosen by the state.

    But requiring that safe storage at the sole expense of the owner of the arms constitutes an unfunded mandate. So to make the law constitutional, it would have to provide at the very least a tax credit for the cost of such secure storage as the owner of arms chooses (which would include locking down in place of collection displays), I’d say up to $5k.

    So while the idea is constitutional at core, the implementation is a total fail.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We can’t let the law stand in the way of doing the right thing.”
      – B. Obama

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Consider this: Police are the organized militia. They do not answer to the federal government, they cannot be “federalized”. Local police are the village organized militia, subject to the mayor (or citizen’s council – city council), who can be directed by the governor to call-out the unorganized militia and the organized militia to protect the citizens. Cities and municipalities can direct the operation of “the militia” so as to be ready to defend the locality, or join with other militias to defend the state. Thus, the governor can promulgate regulations for the safe and efficient maintenance of “the militia”, including how arms are handled by the members of the militia.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        But the police aren’t militia at all. In the terms of the concepts in the Second Amendment, they’re actually a private standing army belonging to the local politicians.

        If they were the “organized militia”, any one who was capable of doing the job would have to be given a uniform and badge, and their officers would be elected by all the local militia, meaning all the citizens. The requirements for joining that militia would have to be made public so anyone who so chose could learn the skills.

      2. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

        Then the city could tell the cops to keep their guns locked up. I’m not a cop, though, so the city can’t prevent me from open carrying an AK-47 with bayonet fixed.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Wouldn’t bet on it. No one has ever used the regulation of militia authority as a means of “gun control”. Concealed/open carry has yet to be ruled on as to which (or both) are permitted by the second amendment. Heller only dealt with “in the home” possession, and included notation that 2A did not permit bearing arms “anywhere, at any time”. Heller stated that government could not refuse to allow you to buy or own a firearm (“may issue”).

          So, extrapolating the “unorganized militia” theory, the “citizens commission” could regulate that any bearing/carrying when not engaged in specific militia matters (or maybe hunting) is not permitted.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          Some citizens commission couldn’t make such a regulation, because the first clause is not a governing clause, though it may serve as a defining clause, i.e. defining in what manner the people may keep and bear their arms so long as it does not infringe on them doing so. Securing one’s arms is a proper behavior of the militia, and so may be required; at no time is NOT bearing arms a proper function of the militia, and thus may not be mandated — though a good argument could be made that since bearing arms is a proper function of the militia a law that mandated that all members of the militia do so at all times would pass constitutional muster.

          But the thing is that both by law and precedent, no one can mandate anything for the militia without funding it, so if a law requiring safe storage were to be passed, it would have to come with a tax credit (not a deduction!) for the cost of the items for that storage. Indeed, were we not paying out a quarter of a trillion a year in interest on the national debt, I would be delighted to see that money spent for that very thing! (And I’d set the maximum for that tax credit at $5k — we want our militia to have GOOD secure storage.)

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We have two subjects here. This string was about using the constitutional power of the central government to establish regulations for maintaining militias. The central government set standards, and the local militias developed implementing regulations. At the time, the tenuous concept of “unfunded mandate” did not exist (it is a recent subterfuge, not universally accepted or applied). Setting aside funding for the moment, there was no restriction on the states as to what they could mandate/direct/require of the militia regarding armament. Local codes could, indeed, limit where the militia could carry weapons (remember, the constitution did not apply to the states at the beginning…it was strictly an obstruction to central government encroachment on the states). Today, it would be interesting to see how states and cities would regulate the militia (well, I guess maybe we already know). In the end, my comment was to point out that there exists an entire mechanism for controlling RTKBA that has not been employed (militia regulation). The avenues for controlling firearms are legion. Do not presume the government as a whole, or the agents and employees are brain-dead drones. These people are devious, deceitful, cunning and zealous in the desire to control the lives of everyone.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    ““This won’t prevent anything. If a burglar breaks in and the gun is locked up, he’s going to get the gun no matter what. Is that going to prevent anything? Can’t,” Costello said.”

    Um… no. Our friend Costello doesn’t seem to have much of an imagination. Plenty of things will prevent that. A good safe will prevent most burglars from getting what is inside. Yes, there is some thief out there that will come with all the tools needed to break into any safe… but he is the rare one, and by that logic you might as well never lock any doors, right? No, not right. This sort of argument is just absurd once you think about it for a second. The fact that there may be some set of circumstances that defeat a measure does not mean the measure is useless. I wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle even though if I’m going 150mph and hit a brick wall I’m still going to explode. I have worn a ballistic vest even though it wouldn’t stop a headshot or even a bullet with enough armor-piercing ability.

    I’m not saying there needs to be a law enforcing this but I find the argument displayed above to be inane.

    “Question: how do you enforce a safe storage law that only applies when a gun owners is away from base? You investigate his or her firearms storage when they’re out!”

    No. You enforce it when someone keeps having guns “stolen” from their home only to go out and buy more guns so they can be “stolen” too. You don’t do home inspections (unconstitutional) but when someone has guns that keep magically ending up in criminals’ hands, you investigate that. I recognize there is a problem with this idea because it could decrease the reporting of guns as being stolen- fair enough. But boy, with all the guns getting into the hands of the wrong people (and then used against good people) I just can’t get too exercised about people being pushed to stop leaving guns out for bad guys to scoop up easily.

    If everyone locked their doors (and cars!) when they weren’t around we’d be better off too.

    1. avatar John in CT says:

      And how much do you want to force someone to spend to exercise his/her/zer constitutional rights? There’s no way to secure a safe in an apartment, since making it irremovable requires putting studs into concrete. So, only homeowners are allowed to have guns?

      Gunvault/sentrysafe/etc have awful locks, and those that are worth mentioning are large enough to be difficult to remove and start in the $1000 range. The people who most need to defend themselves are the ones who are least likely to have that much disposable income at any given time.

      Should the second amendment be limited to some particular income bracket? How about voting? Should we bring back poll taxes?

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        “his/her/zer”

        Seriously? Grammatically it’s perfectly acceptable (and correct) to use “their” here. The pronoun explosion is ridiculous. “Their” has been and continues to be the appropriate possessive pronoun for someone of indeterminate or unknown gender.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Of course, that’s just my opinion, and as a relatively socially-aware cisgendered white male, I realize my opinion is purt’near meaningless.

        2. avatar Charlie Mike says:

          Re: “Zer”
          Although still relatively obscure, this has become my favorite contender. It follows the formats of existing pronouns while staying more gender-neutral than any but Spivak – you could call it gender-balanced. “Ne” is n+(he or she), “nem” is n+her+him, “nir” is n+him+her. Because it has a different form for each declension, it doesn’t lean towards following male or female patterns – patterns made very obvious when you read works about obviously male characters with female-patterned pronoun forms. The letter “n” itself can stand for “neutral” – a property we are searching for. A reader may be uncertain how to pronounce “ne” at first glance, but pronunciation of the other forms is relatively obvious. One problem when reading aloud is that the “n” sometimes blends with words ending in “n” or “m,” but it didn’t occur as often and wasn’t as problematic as “zir” with words ending in an “s” or “z” sound (see entry #4).

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I think you just proved my point. Not sure if your intention was the opposite, and it may very well have been.

          His/her/their, or neener-neener. Your choice, I guess.

  20. avatar anonymoose says:

    So I guess by that logic the law should require everyone to put padlocked chastity belts on their kids so they don’t get raped?

    1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      Don’t be ridiculous. Statements like that just give the Left ammunition to call all POTG crazy.

      The solution to child rape is simple.Castrate all white males.

  21. avatar Bob says:

    If I were a thief, I wouldn’t break into the safe, take the contents, then leave the safe. I would take the safe, then get into it sometime later, like in my house not yours.

    Then the cops demand to see the safe that the owner should have been storing the stolen gun inside. Can’t show you the safe, because the thief stole it too.

    This law is completely unenforceable, unless the cops search houses when the owners are gone. Therefore, it is also unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Then the cops demand to see the safe that the owner should have been storing the stolen gun inside. Can’t show you the safe, because the thief stole it too.”

      Here’s how that plays out:
      You are a gun owner
      Your guns were in a government-approved safe
      Your guns and safe are both stolen
      You are a gun owner
      Your guns were stolen
      You cannot prove you had your guns secured in an approved safe
      You are a criminal

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Having worked to help some felons straighten out their lives, I know that just taking the safe is pretty much SOP. Until scrap yard owners were required to report such things when taken as scrap, the safe was easy to dispose of afterwards, too.

  22. avatar Kyle says:

    The problem with these kind of laws as well is the financial burden that they put on the owner. I am on a strict budget right now as a college student working part time. I just bought my first gun, a Mossberg 500. To have to buy a safe to store it in would cost me additional hundreds of dollars.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      If you are so financially burdened you cannot afford a safe, you are irresponsible because you do not have a safe. But….being financially burdened, you are a prime candidate to receive all sorts of government dependency benefits. As a government dependent, you are too financially irresponsible to be trusted with guns. Your one gun should be confiscated because you are too irresponsible to properly secure your gun when you are away from home, collecting dependency benefits.

  23. avatar John in CT says:

    ““This won’t prevent anything. If a burglar breaks in and the gun is locked up, he’s going to get the gun no matter what. Is that going to prevent anything? Can’t,” Costello said.”

    Yup.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erGOJxQIf5c

    Opsec and home security are much better bets than putting putting up a big box with “HAS GUNS INSIDE” somewhere.

  24. avatar Soylent Green says:

    Why would Cali criminals steal guns, a couple at a time, when they could just buy them from corrupt Cali legislators (Leland Yee) by the shipping container?

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Tuesday is Solent Green day.

  25. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Remember,… none of these laws have anything to do with safety, preventing crime, preventing actual harm….
    what these laws are about is creating an environment toxic to gun ownership without actually banning them.
    It’s all part of the game plan:
    1. decreasing gun ownership
    2. increasing the number of people that don’t value guns
    3. increasing the number of people that will be ok with bans and restrictions
    4. increasing bans and restrictions until we are disarmed

    They win by incrementalism, if we let them.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Absolutely.

  26. avatar Steve says:

    I don’the feel that my guns are anyone else’s. Including family. My gun is with me or in a safe that only I can access. End of story. If someone in my family wants to use a gun for self protection they can train and understand proper ‘care and feeding ‘ and when ready, acquire their preferred firearm, which in theory could be via access to a ‘common’ always at home firearm. I am not for regulating this. I also feel that a firearm owner that leaves a loaded gun where an underage individual can grab it, purse included, is negligent. IMO.

  27. avatar DerryM says:

    This is just political theatrics. The “Progressive” strategy in California is to steadily make owning and keeping guns in the private residence ever more complicated, onerous and risky to the individual. When they say, “No one is coming to take your guns…”, they omit the second half of the equation, “…because we are going to just Legislate your gun rights away, then we’ll seize them when you screw-up or die.”

    Gun Owners in California are merely the “lab rats” for the ongoing experimentation with how to expand the infringements on RKBA to extinction. No, this ploy by the City of San Jose won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but if it results in tripping-up one lawful gun owner and seizing his/her guns…

    Gun Laws in California are already complicated and confusing. Of the eleven million gun owners in CA, it is astounding how many you can meet who have no idea of the laws they need to obey.

    Many CA DOJ “Approved” storage devices amount to little more than sheet metal boxes with a cheap lock that can be defeated by a cordless drill or Dremel Tool in minutes. With the ammunition law already passed by the Legislature going into effect next year, obtaining ammunition will become more difficult, even if Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63 is defeated on November 8. Nothing more useless than a firearm you cannot get ammunition for.

    The Progressives running California know they have a firm grip on power here and will try whatever they can think of to infringe gun owner’s RKBA because they have the luxury of time and means to advance their Civilian Disarmament agenda with no effective opposition. The learning you in RKBA friendly States should take is that the Progressives aren’t going for the death blow, but for a thousand tiny cuts that will bleed your rights to death slowly, but surely.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Now “you” are getting it. No Molon Labe. Just creeping corrosion. No 3rd revolution. Just creeping corrosion.

      If we cannot win at the ballot box and the courtroom, we get what we deserve; winner takes all.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Yes. We need to keep repeating this message over and over,again, until more Americans “get it”.

  28. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

    When I leave my home, I lock the doors. Therefore, my guns are locked up.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      That’s not enough. You need suspenders to hold your belt up.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Minimum of two pair of suspenders.
        – Safety regulation 22, Department of Redundancy Department

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Not if the government says “Not”. And whatnot.

  29. avatar Adub says:

    I’ll put my guns in my dirty laundry hamper. Nobody would dare look in there.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Only works if you put your underwear, skidmarks up, on top of the pile.

  30. avatar gman says:

    Sorry to see so many leftists losing so much sleep dreaming this 1984ish sh*t up. ‘It’s not about gun control, it’s about CONTROL’…..just saying.

  31. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    1. MY God! It sounds like some of the TTAG readership is already acting like Hillary “AOL” Klinton won the election ! A Few have already folded, turning themselves in and surrendering to their “friendly local paramilitarizied police department ” as political dissidents…! Will someone call ” Amnesty International for the gun owners…!”

    2. As it appears some Liberal Progressive types are readers here as well…..

    3. Some of the “Armchair Civil Rights lawyers ” are back at it again… Helping the Anti-Freedom Movement “reason our Bill of Rights away…!”

    4. Like I said….There needs to be a Nationwide amendment that makes it a “Capital Crime” for any Politicians/Police/ Government agencies, etc…To make any kind of infringement upon the Bill of Rights, or on Liberties of the citizens…!

    5. Jail time for any fruit loop Libtard that tries to ram this type BS down the throats of the citizenry!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “4. Like I said….There needs to be a Nationwide amendment that makes it a “Capital Crime”….”

      And the amendment would be enforced by just who do you have in mind? The current authorities, officials and courts? More illegaler doesn’t cut it. The entire system would have to be scrapped, replaced, and run only buy the “righteous”. The “unrighteous” would mightily object to being overthrown. First you change the culture, then you change the law (presuming one is of a mind to avoid an armed revolution….which almost the entire populace is).

  32. avatar Icabod says:

    They did not provide evidence of a problem. Much less how the law will solve the problem.
    Exactly and specifically how many guns were stolen from homes? How many of theses guns were proven to be used in crimes? How will this law prevent the problem?
    But then that would meet the agenda.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Ok, let’s see, here.

      Predictions of gun thefts and child injury or death is sufficient justification for any regulatory measure. Proof of validity of concept: every child who ever shot someone with “a gun they found, every burglar who took an unsecured gun would have been prevented.

      For the children, regardless of age.

  33. avatar jwm says:

    The only reason I have ever had for locking up my guns is to keep my kids and grandkids away from them.

    I seem to recall that CA already has a state wide safe storage law. Including a state approved list of safes. Is that still a thing?

    1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      I own a CA approved “safe.” If I ever lose the key, it will take 5 minutes to get in – and that’s because I’ll need to put my shoes on to go out and get my prybar.

      No, I do not live in CA.

  34. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    I lock my house and the master bedroom when I’m away. Some firearms are in the safe and a couple are more accessible. They’re all locked as far as I’m concerned.

  35. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Does this apply to law enforcement?

  36. avatar JJ says:

    Note that it’s called San Jose, not Sane Jose. California is crazy.

  37. avatar Cam says:

    If you have to lock it up, doesn’t that mean that you have to buy a safe. How is this not the same as a pole tax and unconstitutional?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You have an unwritten human, natural and civil right to vote. You do not have a written, human, natural and civil right to have a gun because, well, gun. Your voting right shall not be infringed. Your “gun right” is, well, whatever we say it is, or is not. Mostly not. Therefore, it can be taxed. Some crummy piece of paper written 240 years ago does not have validity or effect today; we are a modern society, not a bunch of near illiterate bumpkins on the outskirts of civilization.

  38. avatar Cam says:

    Doesn’t this require you to spend money to buy a safe? So is this not the same as a poll tax and unconstitutional?

  39. avatar adverse4 says:

    I have two firearms, I never leave them home alone.

  40. avatar Lance says:

    Called communist bullshit from CA assholes in the government that don’t know their own head from their ass.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I’m pretty sure eloquence like that “saved the day” during arguments in Heller.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email