California gun owners could face a restrictive—and arguably unconstitutional—new firearms storage law if some anti-gun Democrats in the state assembly get their way. A measure requiring guns to be stored where they are inaccessible for self-defense purposes—the very reason many people own them—recently passed one more hurdle in the legislative process.
On Tuesday, Senate Bill 53, introduced by Democrat state Sen. Anthony Portantino was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 6-to-2 vote. The measure requires any firearm to be “stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearm safety devices.” Additionally, “The approved firearm safety device is properly engaged so that the firearm cannot be accessed by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”
While that might sound reasonable to those who know nothing about armed self-defense, storing a firearm in such a way can make it more difficult to access in times of emergency. All gun owners should be responsible gun owners, and all should be able to decide how to safely store their firearms without being trampled on by excessive government regulations.
Interestingly, the measure would also put a greater burden on firearm manufacturers. Gunmakers already provide trigger locks with new firearms sold at the retail level, but this measure adds additional requirements that will almost certainly increase the cost of guns.
The text of the measure states: “A firearm sold or transferred in this state by a licensed firearms dealer, including a private transfer through a dealer, and any firearm manufactured in this state shall include or be accompanied by a lock box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that firearm by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the firearm, or to the physical characteristics of the firearm that match those listed on the roster for use with the device.”
As we’ve pointed out before, this measure and other storage legislation ignore the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in which the court argued that storage requirements that prevent gun owners from easily accessing their firearms are unconstitutional.
In penning the majority opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions.”
The measure will next be considered in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Read the full article here
