Legally speaking, anyone under 18 is a child. This is no minor point (so to speak). Gun control advocates count teenage gang-bangers—of which there are hundreds of thousands—as “children.” Especially when they’re totting-up the number of “gun violence” victims. California Dems are on the same page as these “do it for the children” anti-gun agitators; using kids as an excuse to erode Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. To that end, the legislture just-passed bill AB-231. The bill amends California’s storage laws to increase penalties for unauthorized use of unsecured firearms. The new [CAPS LOCK] sign in California gun stores will proclaim . . .
“IF YOU KEEP A LOADED FIREARM WITHIN ANY PREMISES UNDER YOUR CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OBTAINS IT AND USES IT, RESULTING IN INJURY OR DEATH, OR CARRIES IT TO A PUBLIC PLACE, YOU MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY UNLESS YOU STORED THE FIREARM IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR LOCKED THE FIREARM WITH A LOCKING DEVICE, TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.”
See that FELONY bit? That’s new. If The Man gets you for improper firearms storage leading to a shooting in California, here’s what you win:
(a) Criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine; or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
Remember: “a person under 18 years old” could be a teenage burglar.
Even more worryingly, how will California cops know whether or not your stolen gun was stored in a locked container or locked with a locking device after the weapon’s been stolen and used in a crime? Will there be an official investigation? Sure!
How intrusive will that be? I’m thinking plenty. How about the po-po forcing friends or family members to testify as to your firearms storage habits? Perhaps they might raid your house to check on your other guns, to see if there’s a pattern of felony storage violation? No-knock raid to stop you from destroying evidence of same? Yes! Yes they can! That’s even if you reported the gun stolen within seven days (another legal requirements coming down the pike).
Of course, there’s an even worse danger here: home inspections.
While the bill doesn’t authorize the police to check-up on your firearms storage, California’s firearms registration scheme (soon to include ammunition) means They know what you got. So if Golden State gun grabbers amend this bill to allow cops to have a little look around your house before a stolen gun’s used in the commission of a crime, this bill makes that proactive process a simple matter of enforcement. Just like it is in the U.K. And Germany.
Slippery slope? Roger that. And that’s just the beginning. Or a continuation. CA legislators are set to pass far more draconian disarmament legislation within days, rogering residents’ rights without remorse. Even as thousands of liberty-minded Colorado voters send a FOAD message to their pro-gun control pols, the lights are going out in California. There is no safe storage for gun rights anywhere unless they’re safe everywhere.
The smiling sheriff above is from Oregon. The fight continues.
Nice picture of a lock. That is the same lock I had on a gun case. The cop said it was a cheap lock that can be broken open with little force.
Better get better locks than that…lol
“it is a cheap lock that can be broken with little force.” Indeed. I broke a similar lock off one my of long guns when I misplaced the key. It didn’t take much. I suppose it would slow someone down.
Locks like that and, indeed, most gun ‘vaults’ and cabinets, etc, are to prevent well-intentioned people from making a bad mistake. They will NOT stop anyone with the intent to steal or use the firearm. Good kids in the house, a spouse, visitors who wander into the wrong drawer, etc, may be prevented from doing something stupid by a simple lock like that, because they’re not going to intentionally break it. Anyone willing to physically damage a lock or that gun vault that many of us think is a safe but can be opened with a flathead screwdriver and [if needed] a hammer in like 2 seconds will barely be slowed down.
Yes, but those types of locks are approved by the CA DOJ, which ahould mean that the state considers them reasonable and sufficient.
Not only that, they make us buy one of these things for every firearm we purchase–EVEN IF ONE COMES WITH THE GUN!
The only time I’ve ever had to purchase a lock for a firearm,
1)firearm did not come with a lock
2) firearm did have a lock, but not a CA DOJ approved lock (yes there is such a thing)
3) firearm did hava a CA approved lock, but the store is trying to suck every dollar out of me by charging me $10 for a lock they picked up for free
Jan, I don’t think it’s all the store’s fault. The CA state law says the lock must have been purchased in the past 30 days and have a receipt to prove that. The store is probably just doing a CYA there. Unless you can prove that it’s both CA-approved AND has been purchased within the last 30 days (and I’m not entirely sure if buying a gun that comes with a lock counts, since the law says you have to have a receipt for the lock), it won’t fly.
HOWEVER, you can sign an affidavit saying that you have a safe or other approved lock at home, and NOT have to buy one. Federal law says the gun has to come with a lock, but it isn’t subject to “approved” devices and there’s no 30-day clause. The store *should* give you the option to sign that affidavit and accept whatever lock is included with the gun as acceptable per Federal law.
At my gun counter, if the firearm doesnt come with a Ca. approved lock, we provide the customer with one free of charge.
@Mark N: No kidding! I have a a box full of them with just about every gun maker’s name on them you can think of, lol.
I use one lock as a loop to hold all of the other locks. They all hang like a giant janitor key ring full of keys on a closet rod in my office closet 🙂
The only actual use I’ve found for one was to lock my motorcycle helmet to my motorcycle, back when I rode one, so I didn’t have to carry it with me when I parked the bike somewhere. Maybe some folks saw the Beretta brand lock and backed away haha
They make neat spinny targets for .22LR. Lock them (or slide them) over a supported piece of horizontal pipe. They spin quite well, and will take quite a few hits before they are no longer useful for that purpose.
Those gun locks are not security devices, they are safety devices. In other words they are not intended to thwart theft, they are design to thwart function.
A better use for that thing would be around her neck.
Hundreds of thousands of “teenage gang-bangers”? I think that’s an exaggeration. I also find it very funny, because it shows terminal “old fogie-ness” and the insulated, frightened world of the person who writes it. The amount of young people who have criminal records and the amount who are actually in a gang is much, much different.
Also, what the hell is with that link? Its just colors, no actual numbers saying how many gangs and gang members are in each metropolitan area.
Did you click on the link?
nationalgangcenter.gov estimates that 35 percent of gang members are juveniles.
According to the FBI’s 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment “There are approximately 1.4 million active street, prison, and OMG gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States.”
I make that 490k juvenile gang members,
California has about 38 million residents as of 2012. The FBI estimates the rate of gang membership in CA as of 2011 at 6+ per 100K population. Call it 7. That would yield an estimate of 266,000 gang members (see their definitions to unpack that phrase). It seems reasonable to me that a third of those are under age 18, which would be approximately 88,000. If half are under 18, it would be 133,000. That’s lot’s of gang-bangers under age 18. Throw in the early-bloomer burglars unaffiliated with gangs, and CA’s got a problem. And they’re hardly alone:
Unless I’m reading it wrong, the chart says 6+ gang menbers per 1,000 people, not 100,000.
Craig – Actually, I find your comment to be very funny, because it shows terminal “old fogie-ness” and the insulated, frightened world of the person who writes it. The amount of gun owners who use their weapons criminally, and the amount of weapons actually used in crimes is much different.
Why do you think Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Compton, Memphis, N.O. Miami etc. have problems?
Craig, it’s “the NUMBER of young criminals who have arrest records.” Hundreds of thousands of them, if you’d bother to go through FBI crime statistics, available online.
It’s kinda amusing that Cali is passing criminal storage laws while at the same time freeing criminals from storage.
Right. Lock up the guns cuz we’re setting the criminals free. Something wrong with that.
Well you can’t have locked up criminals and locked up guns. You have to choose. And making you lock your guns is cheaper. For them. In the short term.
Ugh. It hurts.
Well, US in general has the single highest prison population of all the countries on the planet – both in absolute numbers and per capita. More than China (despite China having five times as many people), more than Russia, more than Iran. More, in fact, than were in Soviet gulags in Stalin’s time.
So depending on who they release, it might not be a bad thing. It’s common knowledge that prisons are swamped largely by people who got put there for smoking a joint.
The law also has a provision that the law applies only if the owner “knew or should have known” that an unauthorized person would access the weapon. Per the Legislative digest: “This bill would establish the offense of criminal storage of a firearm in the 3rd degree, when a person keeps a loaded firearm within any premises under his or her custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child. The bill would make the offense punishable as a misdemeanor.”
Yeah, “or should have known.” That’s a hell of a legal standard right there.
Are we discussing the same law here. The article states that it is a felony, your comment says it’s a misdemeanor.
Yes, there are three levels of criminal responsibility, first degree being a felony and the other two are misdemeanors. But the standard is the same, the penalty (bizarrely in my view) increases based on what the unauthorized person does with the handgun. It’s a felony if he/she goes and shoots up a school.
(a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree” if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control.
(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, or that a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm.
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or any other person.
For the second degree crime, subsection (3) reads as follows:
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself or herself or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.
“TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.”
Um… don’t they mean “to temporarily keep it from functioning?” Who the heck wrote that sign?
The wording in the bill doesn’t say that.
I prefer my guns to function continuously and on demand. A temporarily functioning firearm could get you killed.
Also known as a 1911.
I couldn’t help myself…
A high-school graduate!
Craig, you obviously do not live in Los Angeles Metro, New York City, Chicago or St. Louis. New Orleans not so much as they all moved to Houston after Katrina.
More foolishness – how hard do they think it will be for a kid willing and able to steal your firearm to find a bolt cutter and remove the lock? Or drill out a trigger lock? And how will you be able to prove that’s what they did? Will a receipt saying you bought such a lock suffice? I doubt it.
I remember a cable TV show a few years ago where a (former) professional burgler would break into people’s houses (with permission) and be video taped showing exactly what burglars do. In one show he found a gun safe bolted to the wall in the bedroom and within a minute had rocked it free and carried it down to his truck. Once the booty was stacked for taping he showed how easy it was to open that safe and that it contained several pistols and long guns, including either an M16 or AR15, I forget which.
So would you have to prove that they ripped your gun safe out of the wall in order to stay out of jail? I think I would rather rip my own gun safe out of the wall and get the hell out of California.
No, why would I want to live in any of those places?
Good point. Why would anyone WANT to live there? I do feel bad for those people who do not seem to have a choice.
St. Louis is actually a pretty pleasant place to live (low housing cost, cultural amenities, etc.) if you avoid the inner city, which is easy enough to do if you’re not trolling for hard drugs or hookers. The actual CITY of St. Louis is a really small part of the urban area, and only a few concentrated neighborhoods are truly scary. Missouri is a gun friendly state with some beautiful countryside within a short drive of St. Louis.
Step 1: Buy trigger/cable lock in quantities sufficient to match the # of guns you have. Keep receipts.
Step 2: Use lock at least once to create the appropriate wear marks on the firearm.
Step 3: Launch all useless locks into the nearest ocean.
Step 4: “I swear officer, the guns were all locked.”
It was called IT TAKES A THIEF (not the Robert Wagner series of about 20 years earlier), and it was hilarious at times. I remember once the thief stole a bunch of goods, loaded it in the family’s RV, and drove away wearing a white mink coat he’d stolen from the lady of the house.
Especially gratifying was that most of these “heists” took place in New Jersey.
He even robbed places where the family was actually in the home when he did it.
California: Creating a market for “pre-jimmed gun safes”.
“Of course I had it locked up officer, but look! They busted it open!”
Is it just me or does it seem that this type of law flies in the face of the Hiller decision which basically stated that requiring self-defense weapons to be inoperable in the home is a violation of the second amendment?
It kind of runs the ragged edge. The law says you have to keep unauthorized persons from getting access, which you can accomplish by carrying your firearm with you. Further, this is really already the law in California with respect to minors getting access to your firearms and hurting themselves or others–it just expands the law and increases the penalties when a child or prohibited person does gain access. So far, I don’t think the current law is terribly enforced–it is a hard thing to charge and convict a grieving parent who has lost his/her own child when the child gained access to a firearm. or example, there was a young CHP officer who kept his duty Glock on a shelf in the closet of his bedroom, thinking that the shelf was too high for his five year old twins to get to. He was, tragically, wrong, and one killed his brother. The officer was not charged. I’ve read other similar cases. There was one up here where Grandpa got up from his easy chair to answer the door when his family arrived early for a visit, leaving his Glock on the floor beside the chair. Three year old grandson put a .40 through his forehead, suffering debilitating brain damage. Grandpa was not charged.
You make some good points. The only problem is with what do you do with a self-defense handgun when you go down for some sleep. The child should also be asleep and not reasonably able to access the handgun, right? If it is in the nightstand. In a retention holster.
Reason number 1,437,982 why I never go to that shit hole.
Does your locked house count as a “locked container?” Because if I have no minors in my home and choose to keep a gun unlocked somewhere, inside of my locked and secure home, and a minor breaks into the house to burgle it and happens to acquire the gun…. Where does the reasonable standard begin and end here?
No it does not.
I would think that if you have no minors in your home and you keep your house locked then it would qualify as “knows or reasonably should know that a child is [UN]likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian”
You and Jeremy make logical sense, therefore you are wrong.
The problem is “reasonably” and “California” is a logical paradox.
You are not responsible if someone breaks into your home. If you read the bill, the person gaining access must be someone you know, or should know, would have access to the gun. A person breaking into your house does not meet this requirement.
Bill updates courtesy of Tim Donnelly and Sam Paredes from GOC
SB 299 (DeSaulnier) Theft or Loss reporting within 7 days. Passed 41-32
SB 683 (Block) Long gun safety certificate. Passed 44-30
SB 475 (Leno) Gun Shows at the Cow Palace Passed 42-29
AB 538 (Pan) California gun registry Passed 50-23
SB 363 (Wright) Secured storage Passed 62-8
AB 500 DOJ is now allowed more time to delay delivery of a firearm Passed 20-14
AB 169 (Dickinson) If you own an older hand gun you can no longer sell it or will it to your children. Passed 21-14
These are still pending:
SB 53 (De Leon) — to require a background check for all ammunition purchases and licenses for all sellers This was sent back to committee.
SB 374 (Steinberg) — to ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and retroactively requires an ownership record for all guns
SB 396 (Hancock) — to outlaw ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
SB 567 (Jackson) — to update California’s definition of an illegal shotgun to include a shotgun with a revolving cylinder and a rifled bore
SB 755 (Wolk) — to expand list of convicts who can’t legally own guns to include of multiple drug or alcohol convictions, carrying ammunition onto school grounds, active participation in street gangs, and others
AB 711 (Rendon) — to ban use of lead ammunition by California hunters
Actually 169 is still pending, as the Senate amended it before passing it today. To be reconsidered in the Assembly tomorrow.
Thanks for that update. I won’t hold my breath, it will more than likely pass, like it had previously.
California’s descent into cesspooldom continues apace… and I like it….
Gun Specific bills
Bill updates courtesy of Tim Donnelly and Sam Paredes from GOC
These have passed and are on their way to Gov Brown.
SB 299 – Theft or Loss reporting within 7 days. Passed 41-32
SB 683 – Long gun safety certificate. Passed 44-30
SB 475 – Gun Shows at the Cow Palace or any state owned property Passed 42-29
AB 538 – California gun registry illegal based on FOPA Passed 50-23
SB 363 – Secured storage, we already have a law Passed 62-8
AB 500 – DOJ is now allowed more time to delay delivery of a firearm Passed 20-14
AB 169 – If you own an older hand gun you can no longer sell it or will it to your children. Passed 21-14
These are still pending:
SB 53 — to require a background check for all ammunition purchases and licenses for all sellers
This was sent back to committee as of this morning.
SB 374 — to ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and retroactively requires an ownership record for all guns
SB 396 — to outlaw ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
SB 567 — to update California’s definition of an illegal shotgun to include a shotgun with a revolving cylinder and a rifled bore
SB 755 — to expand list of convicts who can’t legally own guns to include of multiple drug or alcohol convictions, carrying ammunition onto school grounds, active participation in street gangs, and others.
The California Supreme Court has ruled this unconstitutional.
AB 711 — to ban use of lead ammunition by California hunters
Cant decide whether that deputy is hot or Im still sleep deprived. A pic of her with some handcuffs might help the decision.
about 6 beers will solve that . . .
Not just you. A bit past her best years but still plenty attractive. She looks like she just told some dude that he was a bad, bad boy.
At a glance, yes. Insufficient info to answer for certain.
I think it’s the “I’m going to spank you, you naughty boy” look on her face. I approve.
You guys are tripping.
I’ve warned you before — you need to open your windows when you uncork the Hoppe’s. The fumes. They get in your mind. They make you see things.
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day.
I think Ralph, that I might just pop open a bottle of #9 Solvent with her. Not that I would have a chance, theres no way Im bad enough for her. Unless… what is the largest size #9 comes in?
Florida’s statute makes it a misdemeanor under Florida 790.174 and defines a minor as under 16 years of age.
Florida, Texas and Cali were 3 of about 14 states with negligent storage laws regarding children.
Yup, in Texas we require that children be stored in a cool dry place out of sight and hearing.
This law does not apply to “teenage burglars” because you have no reason to believe that the person will be in your home. It applies to guests, children, children’s friends and other people in your home on regular basis, but not people who have forcibly entered your home. This is covered by the “known or should have known” and the “likely to have access” clauses.
And to bolster the point, this is a very clearly established understanding (read DOJ guidelines). If I live by myself, and/or with only adults and a kid breaks in and takes a gun, then there is no crime.
I suppose I have been following other bills more closely. I was under the impression that the original bill would have actually mandated locked up storage, as opposed to merely making one liable for the consequences of a minor getting the gun with no security against it.
While I don’t agree with the law in the specifics, the general gist of the current law, that doesn’t actually mandate any storage, safe or precaution, but holds one responsible for the consequences of deciding not to lock em up, is actually quite reasonable. Making in a felony, or basing the offense of what the youth does after obtaining the gun….that is iffy.
So, by logical thought process, if a Fast & Furious gun makes it into the hands of anyone under 18 then every single person in California is a felon….
Californians pay federal taxes > federal taxes fund the ATF > ATF sends firearms to *ahem* questionable individuals > questionable individuals commit crimes
Therefore ALL Californians (and everyone else that pays taxes) are liable for crimes committed with Fast & Furious firearms……
Quick, arrest Moon Beam!
Actually, that might just work. The Ninth Circuit has been threatening to hold him in contempt for failing to empty the overcrowded prisons fast enough, and if he is held incommunicado (habeus corpus suspended) for the next month or so) then maybe all of these bills will fail for lack of a signature before the session expires!
When I saw the title of the article, I thought it was about “storing criminals.” I thought Cali was finally going to pass some good legislation.
“Remember: “a person under 18 years old” could be a teenage burglar.”
That’s ridiculous. How about my well secured container is my house secured by locks on the front and back door. Am I also responsible for the intoxication of a minor if this teenage burglar breaks into my liquor cabinet and gets drunk? Thank goodness I live in Texas and not Cali.
Thank goodness this is just TTAG BS and not the actual law as it exists or is proposed. It really annoys me when TTAG makes BS up. The laws are bad enough without making up stuff that doesn’t exist
Oh and at least in CA we have lower liquor taxes and far less restrictions on it (I remember being confused wandering around a Safeway in Wyoming looking for liquor, whereas in CA not only is there a liquor section, it is treated like any other product, absynthe even go a display by the register, next to chips….) California has streaks of libertarian in it. Guns are an unfortunate exception
This is rich. This bill was originally far worse (imposing civil liabilities, insurance, etc)
As it stands it creates a new offense. Criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree. The act which is made an offense is, get this, ALREADY A CRIME IN TEXAS.
So thank God you are in Texas, where you already have this law, eh? cf. Texas Penal Code, Title 10, chapter 46, Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2) “Readily dischargeable firearm” means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.
(3) “Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child’s access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person.
(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is committed if:
(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the firearm; and
(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the death of or serious injury to the child.
(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign that contains the following warning in block letters not less than one inch in height:
“IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM.”
Note that, with the exception of agriculture, the same exceptions exist in the CA code (self defense and unlawful entry) except rather than affirmative defenses they are simply given as “this does not apply”
So if this bill is signed…we add a crime that is already a crime in Texas. How do you feel about your Texan law now?
NEXT ON STORAGE YARD COPS, THESE IGNORANT WANNABE’S ARE TRYING TO BEND THE WALLS OF THEIR UNIT TO INCREASE AVAILABLE SPACE AT NO COST, FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN STORAGE COPS INTERVENE!
“… TO KEEP IT FROM TEMPORARILY FUNCTIONING.”
These bad boys write bad laws badly, which is bad.
Okay, let us leave aside the misreporting from TTAG on this law.
If AB 231 becomes law (it hasn’t yet) the following happens
Mostly minor changes. But the important changes are
1. Added language to some sections stating: or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself or herself or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.
Thus extending the reponsibility to prohibited persons and not just minors (similar language added to other sections
2. This is entirely new: (c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree” if the person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.
That is the real change and problem. I am fine with liability for the consequences of my choices, not with the dictation of those choices
Note the bill is tied with other bills, one of which was VETOED under another name by Brown before. So there is hope he will veto the same bills he has vetoed in the past…
CA was a gun rights lost battleground a long damn time ago.
You all let the D moonbats take charge gaining all the political power.
Move to a free state or quit your crying.
Spoken like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class….
When transplants overrun your state, maybe your adittude will change.
*cough* Looking at you, Colorado *cough*
Know enough that your side lost in CA, went down without too much of a fight.
You don’t like your dumb states laws…then move your ass away from there. Otherwise enjoy living in CA and constantly eating shit.
Note, if you find this law (as it stands amended- the worst aspects were gutted out- ) to be intolerable, it might help to not move to a state that has this law already in place.
Those would be Texas, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland and Hawaii.
That is right. Texas. I am finding this amusing as I have many Texan friends who are quite quite to bash CA in favor of TX….
Texas talks a good game, but actually has some work to do on gun rights still. However, it’s absolutely absurd to claim that California is anything other than abysmal on gun rights and getting worse all the time. Texas, for all its flaws, is miles above California in gun friendliness, which is just an objective fact of reality no one who hoped to retain the barest scrap of credibility could deny.
AB 711, banning lead ammo for hunting, passes.
If this becomes law, there is a suspicion that the next step will be to ban use of lead or lead jacketed ammo in outdoor shooting ranges. If lead bullets really are polluting the environment (as the proponents of this bill claim) then it only makes sense to ban all lead based ammos used outdoors, right?
Oh by the way, smug ugly LE bitch in the picture.
Because she’s LE, because she’s holding a lock, or just because you’re being a jerk?
All of the above and I agree with him.
I’m going with door number 3, Mr. Florida. 🙂
See my comment on how useless that device is below…..
Let me guess “You’d do her”.
She’s holding what looks to be her long lost chastity lock so your chances are good.
I’m currently not in a position to be choosy. 🙂
Well, too choosy.
Easy fix- HOME CARRY
Even easier. If not carrying it, have it unloaded. The crime only applies to a loaded firearm, not on the person nor in close proximity such as to be useable as if one the person. Simply unloading it when you leave it would suffice.
I gotta pair of bolt cutters that will cut through THAT POS security device.
P.S. I’m sure that any gang-banger can buy such too…..
You say that like you think you’re a unique snowflake or something. You’re not. You don’t even need bolt cutters. I’ve seen them defeated by some vigorous twisting and yanking. Giggity.
In a good heavy rifle I think you could defeat most cable locks with the bolt itself. Good for the gun? No way! Defeat the lock? If you think the bolt of my old K98 would give before the cable did you don’t understand metallurgy.
I am laughing my ass off. At the same time they are letting criminals out one side of the prison hand over fist, they are passing laws that they have no law enforcement officers to investigate, no court room space to litigate, no District Attorneys to prosecute, no judges on the bench and making penalties they have no prison space to carry out.
It is rapidly becoming the location of choice for criminals.
The legislature is like a bunch of lunatics in a raft going over a very tall waterfall paddling furiously with sawed off oars.
just keep pileing it on California ,it makes it easier to get your asses sued when NRA,GOA AND 2ND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION takes your ass to federal court like they did ILLINOIS, who tried the same INFRINGMENTS of 2nd amendment RIGHTS and lost in court.NOW everything these BOZOS put in place has been deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL and repealed,Just like it will be in STUPID California.SO guys just keep passing those Illegal Infringment of Constitutinal RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.See what happens,the more the merrier.We need LOTS of eveidence to shoot down your Personal agendas.
If you can’t vote them OUT of office I would move from that COMMIE state and leave those pot-head, fags and liberals to govern themselves!
WOW. You made a distinction between “pot-heads, fags and liberals”! God truly gave you the gift of discernment.
All you morons who voted libtard (democrat) got what you got. Why complain now? Never vote libtard (democrat) again.
What if a person commits a crime with your gun that was improperly stored and they are over 18?
Its all just a tripwire to criminalize and remove Californians self-defense and voting rights. The catch phrase is that any storage device has to be California DOJ approved. You could have the best jewelers gun safe in the world used as your gun safe, but if it isn’t CA DOJ approved and someone gets in and they shoot someone, you’re a class I felon. Gun locks like gun safes, come and go off the CA DOJ list through expiration dates. You had better make sure your gun lock manufacturer gets re-approved by CA-DOJ (and that means a hefty application fee) or they got ya! Even if you intended to follow the law they got ya. And that is what they really want in CA, and other gun grabbers as well, to create a sub-class of citizens who have lost their rights or those who are willing to submit and hand in whatever property the Progressives want to make contraband.
The legislature is like a bunch of lunatics in a raft going over a very tall waterfall paddling furiously with sawed off oars.