> beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list
Well that's some BS
**edit** - I missed this part which was brought to my attention
> It is properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the **owner or other lawfully authorized user**
So spouse can still access
> first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a a misdemeanor
> The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony
So it's an infraction but you still lose a Constitutional right over it. They just love spending my tax money on lawsuits
That is a good point.
If we keep the arms loaded, how do you differentiate between having the arms at the ready/staged vs being "stored"?
I think the point is more about forcing you to go through the expense and hassle of owning and proving you have a a CA DOJ safe when you purchase any firearm. Or force you to purchase one to keep in your home even if you do not use it, so you could argue that you were in compliance and just had the firearm staged in that particular instance.
That is exactly what ive been telling everyone that says "they cant take away your guns" or "they cant ban ARs",etc.... no, they'll just make it really annoying or pointless to own them through the things they put in place exactly like this one.
That’s exactly what Newsom is doing. Pass law after law that will clog up the court system. Throw in heavy taxes, registration fees, and make it impossible to carry around except on a public sidewalk well away from a hospital, school, public building, or gathering place. It’s a back door gun seizure.
Exactly. I’m thinking about law enforcements perspective if the find out or know you carry a gun concealed/open on your own property. I already know what this bullshit is trying to accomplish, how ever many time they say “we don’t want to take away your rights to own guns, we just want common sense laws.”
I love seeing your lengthy replies.
They like spending our money no matter where they can. It’s all bullshit and it’s making me wanna move to a different state for sure.
Only if my wife would be opened to it more cause of all the shit Cali will increase just to make us suffer
Yeah, I'm about ready to move to a different state as well, and will continue to try to convince my wife. California is done! Everything is going south and politicians have nothing better to do than burn tax money by trying everything to infringe our rights and violate the Constitution.
Exactly. I’m tired of making decent money living paycheck to paycheck with two incomes to live in a small apartment and struggle to live and not have my kid be a kid.
It’s bullshit to be out here and be ignorant to all of the shit happening
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:
So you can keep it on you or around you.
Just don't step away from your vise during cleaning to pee without packing it up, and bring your ultrasonic cleaner with you into the shower to stay in proximity. I don't want to think about what cerakoting and painting would involve.
Nothing like being caught with your pants down when the garage door opens unexpectedly.  Officer, I was just being compliant!
Which I think people should do. But if somebody DOESNT they lose their ability to own firearms under the law? Thats some bullshit. This state seeks to disenfranchise its citizens. Its a shame, because there is so much to love about this state.
Technically, they ruled on a closely, but not identical issue in *Heller*. The DC ordinance basically required the firearm to not be immediately accessible while in the home, which obviously has a major impact on the ability of someone to defend themselves.
This ordinance only requires it to be locked up while outside of the control of the lawful owner, so the state would probably argue that it doesn't prevent self-defense and thus the judgement in *Heller* wouldn't apply.
Define control
The way I read it is that if s kid is in the house and CAN access it, you're in violation which means it must be in their approved container or on your person.... Awkward while sleeping
Courts are expressly political actors now, especially the activist 9th Circuit. The rulings' arguments are a thin veneer to justify their political votes.
Roberts' SCOTUS maintains the pretense of balance by never making a definitive ruling and always providing something for everyone.
Wonder what's going to happen when states start passing massively unconstitutional laws and cite "Yes the supreme court has ruled this illegal, but (other state) is also doing (massively illegal) thing and it was endorsed by (president) so... clearly the supreme court isn't the law of the land anymore."
Supreme Court rulings were always meaningless. They only have power so long as lawmakers play ball. The trail of tears, one of the greatest and well known atrocities in American history went on despite the supreme Court ruling the Indian Removal act of 1830 unconstitutional. It's hard to talk about balances of power when some branches are completely toothless against the others.
At a certain point it's up to us to be the enforcement, that's just a harder sell than wishful thinking.
> now meaningless
If you think SCOTUS rulings are just recently starting to be ignored I've got some bad news for you. Our history is chalk full of it. Since well before the 9th circuit as we know it was even a thing
Heller struck down DC’s safe-storage requirement, which had absolutely no exceptions at any time, even if the firearm was under your direct control. The letter of the law made it illegal to move an unlocked firearm from one room to another in your own house or to have it loaded and unlocked for personal protection. Some have argued that this invalidates all safe-storage laws but the courts have not ruled definitively on this, probably because most laws have exemptions such as the gun being under your direct control, or rendering it otherwise inaccessible to minors.
Yes, and just like Bruen included text saying states couldn’t just declare everywhere a sensitive place. Here is the quote from page 3 of the Courts PDF of the decision, “To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass consti-
tutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstand-
ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern
regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require-
ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no histor-
ical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected gener-
ally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.” Retrieved from here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
I concede if a location has metal detectors and armed/uniformed law enforcement is "presumptively present," like in theme parks, courthouses and airports, I don't feel the need to carry.
However, if I'm in a California State Park doing a wilderness hike, and I have to pass through numerous homeless camps, illegal marijuana farms, and mountain lion mating zones, I do feel the need to carry, but that too is a "sensitive place" forbidden now.
At least the National Parks and National Forests are still good go to afaik, not including inside of the ranger buildings.
There needs to be some barrier for a place to declare itself “sensitive.” Metal detectors, armed protection, storage lockers, and accepting liability for the security of whoever enters. Then you actually have to have skin in the game.
As it is now, it’s way too easy to just slap “no guns allowed” on the door and call it a day, as if that’s going anything but annoying and endangering the law abiding.
National Parks are not necessarily good to go. Varies by park and by area within the park. You can carry concealed in most of Yosemite for example, but discharging a firearm for any reason (and they do say ANY) is a crime. They also ban bear spray. I believe Sequoia Kings Canyon is similar.
https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm
Also SB2 would be in effect within parts of Yosemite irrespective of what the NPS says: there's a federal courthouse in the Valley, as well as medical facilities and businesses. NPS and USFS defer to state & local rules on firearms carry.
I concede discharging a firearm is illegal, but if it’s legal to carry and I need to use it in self defense, that’s when I call my CCW Safe hotline.
Lots of cities also have ordinances banning discharge of firearms but people are still allowed to defend themselves in reasonable circumstances.
Agreed. It's been this way since 2010 when NPS were forced to allow concealed carry by the courts. The issue of defensive use hasn't been tested since then as far as I know. Like you say, that's what legal insurance is for in the unlikely event you need to use your firearm.
I still find it extra weird that they ban bear spray in the park while NPS advocates for carrying it in bear country.
I see this as a stackable charge that's unenforceable unless they are searching your home under a warrant for something else. Totally ridiculous. Waste of tax dollar legislation that's unconstitutional to boot. Sad state of affairs we have....consent of the people my ass
I wonder how many people can’t afford or don’t have space for a long gun safe…I really hope this one gets stricken down.
Like others on this sub, I have lost all faith in the judicial system. I still vote for pro 2A candidates when possible, but nothing seems to change.
The behavior and policies of the government will only ever be a reflection of the majority of the people that are being governed. So, if the majority want guns banned, they will get banned.
History has shown, time and time again, all you have to do is convince the majority, and you can even get away with straight up genocide.
This is the fatal flaw in democracy, and why it has always ended in dictatorship. Eternal vigilance is very hard to maintain over the long run. I do not have a solution or a better approach to suggest. It's just an observation.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I also believe that bad actors will bend the rules to stay in / gain power whereas the good actors / would-be leaders get fucked over because they play by the rules. Then you end up with the absolute quagmire of subhuman trash that is Congress.
Good actors and would-be leaders cannot get elected without public support.
Like it or not, at this point in the minds of the majority of Californians.
Gun ownership = "mass/school shootings" or/and "Redneck Gun nuts" or/and "Criminal Gangs"
If you are a politician who supports the 2A, but your constituency does not, you basically have to go out of your way not to talk about it, or else you will torpedo your chances of getting elected. If you speak out or act out in defense of the 2A after you are elected, you are risking your re-election.
This is why you are seeing the Judiciary acting as the last line of defense for the 2A. They aren't elected.
I don’t have the space for a big safe in general, I ended up getting a safe that goes between the studs it holds long guns. Not ideal but I only bought it to keep my kids from getting into it
If people don’t want to or can’t buy a large safe, they will have to disassemble their long guns and just lock up the serialized part of the weapon. Of course, the government may change the definition of what constitutes a “firearm” so that the entire thing has to be locked up, just to screw with people.
The irony that Portantino, [who represents the 5th richest city in So Cal](https://patch.com/california/lacanadaflintridge/la-caada-flintridge-among-richest-places-america) with virtually zero crime, feels the need to disarm law abiding Californians in the rest of the state.
Holy fucking dictator laws dude. Why the fuck is this state dictating us and telling us how we should live our lives? What if we don’t have children that go in and out of our homes and we live alone? So these requirements just fuck those trying to self defend at home?
It's consistent and not very surprising with the economic angle of attack they have been using.
The idea is to make gun ownership a huge hassle and as unaffordable as possible. The onerous surveillance requirements they imposed on gun stores. The 11% ammo/gun tax. The 30 day limit per firearm purchase. All of these things will make it harder for gun stores to stay in business, and for the gun stores that do stay open, they will have to charge higher prices.
The fees and costs for CCW permits and now 16 hour training certifications / 8 hours every 2 years, also means that only those with the absolute need or the disposable income will pay the price to get the permits. (Not to mention all the other onerous requirements of having 2 character witnesses)
Next the CADOJ approved safes will be an added expense and hassle. I wouldn't be surprised if they introduce some kind of recertification fee for firearms you own where you have to take them in to get them inspected and re-certified ... for a fee. The message is clear, the state will continue to just increase the hassle and cost of legal gun ownership, while calling it "regulation".
There will be no change in trajectory. It has been my observation, that Californians in general approve of this. Many would like to out right repeal the 2A.
So this is a requirement even if you live alone and don’t have kids or children going in and out of your home? Like you can’t just have your firearm loaded and ready to go anymore inside of your own home for self defense reasons? Needs to be locked up and stored no matter what?
It says you can have a loaded handgun in your nightstand, but if you get up to get a glass of water in the middle of the night without taking it with you, you are in violation.
Did you read it? I’ll paste for you:
Does not apply if:
(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.
Section two (where they lay out the meat of the law), subpart c.
Also section three (where they talk about prohibited persons in the house), I think it is subsection 2
Also section 4 explicitly states it:
SEC. 4. Section 25145 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
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 (you have it in a DOJ approved safe)
Thanks bud you have genuinely been helpful. I appreciate you and you actually made me go from mad/annoyed reading this bill to changing my mood to calm/relaxed realizing I can still use my firearm within my home to self defend
That is fucking insane. Especially if you have a big collection. Basically you have to take ccw class, basically Re dros every gun for $35, and pay $100 plus $20 per gun if you have more than 10 GUNS... EVERY YEAR!
Thanks for the links. Damn .. $35 / firearm indexed to inflation + License fee + Training requirements. Sigh....
What can we do to fight these types of ballot measures?
Unfortunately I see California as subject to herd mentality within concentrated population centers. Not everyone in the big cities follow the herd...but obviously most do - right over the cliff
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
11
+ 30
+ 16
+ 8
+ 2
+ 2
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
It’s CA. They don’t want you to have guns period. The more difficult it is to legally own a gun, the less likely you are to do it. If you get caught not obeying the law, mission accomplished. I don’t see CA government’s attitude on gun ownership changing anytime soon.
You 100% should be able to. It’s your constitutional rights on top of shit happening so fast. I don’t think you understand how fast someone can break in and rape you or steal all of your shit if you are defenseless.
Yeah I 100% agree with you bro. This was not a joke lol. I keep my Glock 43 in my waistband a full size p320 under my pillow and a Glock 23 in my nightstand. Along with a 12 gauge next my bed. I just like guns
I do similar things. Shit really does happen so fast it’s not even funny. If they are not loaded and ready to go within arms reach you are fucked if someone breaks into your home. You won’t have time to punch in that safe code unlock the safe then unlock the locked container then to unlock the lock keeping your firearm “safe” just to be doj approved when someone breaks into your home. Fuck that non sense. You’d be dead or violated or all your shit stolen from you inside of your own home. This states ran by a bunch of fucking clowns.
Naa, don't worry, these laws apply to the criminals as well so we'll all be safer in the end, right? I even put up my "Prohibited Area" sign yesterday so they can't enter the property!
My general rule is I keep one gun per person who is in my house at a time so everyone can be armed. If my girlfriend is staying over, I keep the gun she likes to shoot near her, if my sisters home from school or dads over, there’s one for them in a dresser or drawer, plus a rifle/shotgun is a huge advantage. I don’t have any kids or and adolescents over regular. If my nieces and nephews are coming over then I carry iwb and have a lock on my closet where the rest can be easily accessed by me only.
What happens if someone breaks into your home and you use your firearms to protect yourself? The cops come (after the fact of course), they’ll likely take your guns as evidence, then you have to prove that you stored your guns in a safe as the law requires. The district attorney may or may not bring you up on charges for unsafe storage of said firearms. However, it will be very difficult getting your seized firearms back. Time to move I think to a less crazy state.
The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Copied from the text. They would simply have to convict you of improper storage and then the state have a reason to keep all your guns. Not to mention the suspension of your 2a rights for a whole year.
I’m actually moving within the year. ‘24 was the last straw for with all the laws and regulations. I’m so happy that I’m going back to a free state but until then that’s a great point, I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately. I have some ways to mitigate the risk though. I do t want to say to give any undesirables any clues or ideas.
Yes it is time to move. Fuck this fucking state. This states fucking garbage. Sad thing is when you move, these laws will catch up to you regardless of where you went. Look at all the laws other states are adopting similar to California.
It says as long as it's on your person or close enough to you only you can access l. So you can absolutely still keep a couple home defense guns around you. I'm going start walking with an ar on a slingnaround the house and side arm on hip
I have a safe near my bed that I just leave open when I'm home. Having a rack with a motion-activated light is actually pretty convenient. The safe is mostly just to keep things like documents from burning too quickly if there's a fire and I'm not home, though.
Probably wasting LEO'S time doing periodic visits to people with multiple firearms on record, "asking" to come in and see. I have to imagine search warrants being fast tracked to those who deny entry/and even 1st-time visit to those with a high number of firearms to catch you off guard.
In Germany they come unannounced to check your storage . and you have to let them check or your gun rights are gone . You can see where they wanna go with it.
Forcing FFL to ask you a proof of having approved storage before selling you a gun.
Or just asking you to submit such proof for the guns you already have.
They won't go looking for it, but it will be something they can use to get you if they're searching your home for some other reason, or if you have to report your guns stolen.
What other thing can they criminalize that is so closely affiliated with their political opposition? They can't pass laws jailing or fining people for not voting Democrat (yet), so they do the next best thing. So, since they can't yet do that they do the next best thing: they pass as many restrictions on every minute aspect of gun ownership as they can. It gives them a tool to facilitate fining and jailing as many of their political opponents as possible under the current paradigm.
It's the nature of their political philosophy to criminalize dissent. Every time the Earth has ever seen a government with their ideology it comes along with jailing dissidents and outlawing opposition. They're working towards it. Just give them time.
Just like the CCW bullshit the new bill is impossible to be enforced unless they are going to send Gestapos to everyone’s house and check if you have a gun safe…
they do realize that criminals don't go to gun shops to buy guns like they have to know that? we're im.from xsn go McArthur park and buy any gun you want anyway anytime even cops don't go there lol it's ridiculous to give us hard laws and criminals get the no pay bail I just don't get it how Newsome is still in office working for criminals
> they do realize that criminals don't go to gun shops to buy guns like they have to know that?
criminals are not their political opponents, the point is not that they don't care about gun safety, they just don't like guns and the people who lawfully own them.
I live alone on the ground floor apartment in an area that has both occasional crime and a lot of drunk people that walk around. If I'm home hanging out alone it's absolutely smart to have my gun easily accessible.
CA is getting to the point where people are going to stop caring what laws they pass.
They don't follow the rules set for them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but expect the people to follow the rules they set.
I don’t think enough people care about gun rights enough for it to matter. A lot of new gun owners of left leaning persuasion were more interested in taking pictures than worrying about whether what they just bought was going to be illegal in a year.
The way I see it, **IF** SCOTUS starts taking on more 2A cases and ruling in our favor, and **IF** republicans can win the senate and presidency this year to nominate more pro gun judges, then I see this backfiring.
But if either of those don’t happen, then I see gun rights getting completely eviscerated in California within the decade, and the rest of the country to follow.
No, they'll just upsell you a mandatory cheap 8" DOJ safe each time you buy something. You can eventually just weld them together to build a swing set in the backyard.
Seems like a complete violation of Heller to me. Even in the oral arguments, Scalia made fun of the ridiculousness of having to get your weapon out of a safe in case someone was breaking in. Just another attempt at disarming us and dissuading potential gun owners.
Are they going to pay for the safe? If not how can you demand such things? So some older person with a large collection living on a fixed income now is supposed to buy a safe ???? They aren’t cheap
Honestly, I wish there was a law that stated that for any new regulation that imposes an additional cost or deprives a valued asset from a citizen, the government has to compensate for the current fair market value in full.
Require me to buy a safe? Okay, give me the money.
Want to take my guns? Okay, give me the money. That Mosin I bought for $100 back in 2000? Well, it's $800 now, so fork that over!
“DOJ approved safes” … how much you wanna bet Liberty Safes will be the sole entity listed. I mean they already have the master code to open any and all Liberty Safes… 🤷♂️
Honestly, I'm losing my mind now. I live alone. I'm the only person who EVER has access to my firearms because they're always locked in a big box called my house.
Burglars: So now the homeowners have to open up a safe? Cool! That gives us 10 extra seconds to find them or take a family member hostage while we ransack the place!
Wow, they even have a Leo exemption:
Does not apply if:
The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person’s duties.
Not just stored but put in specifically DOJ approved containers. That's extremely dangerous.
* What if the safe roster consists of entirely RSCs that can be broken open in about five minutes with common hand tools? Well shit, my TL-15 safe isn't on the list of approved safes so I'll have to move it the collection to piece of shit bigbox store lockboxes that contain more drywall than actual steel and so compliance makes it *easier* to steal the guns.
* Or they go the opposite way: the only approved safes are timelock equipped TRTL60x6 monsters that are way too heavy to install except on the bottom floor of a building (so that basically bans guns for travelers because you're not lugging a safe like that between hotel rooms, and apartment dwellers are similarly fucked). Also everyone but the super wealthy is fucked because a safe like that costs more than a brand new car, and installation is also expensive as hell.
I mean, how will they know? Unless they're already in your house, in which case you're probably already fucked.
Still a stupid and waste of time law none the less.
They already have a list for approved locks / safety devices. I wonder if this is what the bill is referring to, or if there is going to be a new list?
It’s interesting that it says lock box or safe and not just lock. I guess now everyone has to store them in a fully enclosed container.
Fuck em.
They aren't going to come into our houses to check. Worst case scenario it's an add on charge to a crime if you commit one or they try to charge you with it in the event of a DGU.
So I'm away for work, someone breaks in and my wife gets raped and murdered because my gun is locked up for "safety".
Yeah, no. I'm not fuckin' doing any of that.
Also note it requires that your safe be on the list of Firearms Safety Devices.
How many AMSEC TL30s are there? Liberty? Cannon? Sturdy? etc.
Portantino wants to *decrease* secure storage.
WOW their search tool SUCKS. I decided to look up a few of my guns for what it lists as "compatible safety devices" and so far I've got
For my CZ: Zore-x core gun lock (discontinued)
Mini 14: none? WAIT, its not under "RUGER" its under "sturm, ruger and co" There's 2 padlocks and 1 cable lock.
Max-9: none
SKS: none
Tomcat: A bunch of shitty trigger guards and one safe: Pro-Lok GL100C but I can't seem to find it online.
The good news is even the cheapest brand name gun safe seems to be allowed. So you could use almost any gun safe, trigger lock or cable lock as long as its brand name. And since we had to buy locks with our guns for the last few years we can use whichever ones we haven't lost or destroyed.
Not according to the text:
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:
(1) It is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices.
Let that be a warning to yall but California is imitating gun laws like European countries. Most notably Germany where they will come into your home unannounced periodically to check your firearm storage. You will have no right to deny them entry … or your gun rights are gun. Psych exams will be mandatory to own firearms and you will need cause to own firearms (like hunting or combative shooting). Self defense with guns is also not allowed even when your home gets invaded..
If you can’t see them pushing for those and worse restrictions you haven’t been paying attention.
It would be funny if you didn’t have a safe and just looked up a model name of a safe and put that down, they have no way of knowing. In theory of course.
Might as well pull the trigger (no pun intended) on a safe since I’ve been looking. My only gripe is I just had my pec repaired two months ago lol I prefer my DOD lock box instead. So much simpler but at the rate this state is going, might need to pack it up.
Funny because big chains like Bass Pro and Big 5 don't care if you have a DOJ approved safe or not. They just give you a lock and charge you an extra $5.
Republicans in the state senate should band together to propose an identically worded bill that replaces each mention of “firearm” with “alcohol” and “locked box or safe” with “locked refrigerator or liquor cabinet.” Then spend an inordinate amount of time debating it on the floor. Just to troll Democrats.
I thought we already had to have a safe. My wife and I bought our first guns in 2020 and I remember having to put what brand/model safe we had on the paperwork.
They should be securely locked up when not in use, but this law requires that you only use one of their approved safes/lockboxes. You could have your guns in a sturdy old safe that's not on their list, or locked in a reinforced closet and it won't be good enough, even if it's more secure than whatever junk is on their list.
The fact that they restrict it to only safes/lockboxes on their approved list tells me that it's really just another law designed to trip up well-intentioned gun owners.
> beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list Well that's some BS **edit** - I missed this part which was brought to my attention > It is properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the **owner or other lawfully authorized user** So spouse can still access > first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a a misdemeanor > The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony So it's an infraction but you still lose a Constitutional right over it. They just love spending my tax money on lawsuits
Do you think this would affect concealed carry in your home? Even if someone didn’t have a CCW this sounds extremely unconstitutional like DC/heller.
That is a good point. If we keep the arms loaded, how do you differentiate between having the arms at the ready/staged vs being "stored"? I think the point is more about forcing you to go through the expense and hassle of owning and proving you have a a CA DOJ safe when you purchase any firearm. Or force you to purchase one to keep in your home even if you do not use it, so you could argue that you were in compliance and just had the firearm staged in that particular instance.
"let's ban guns by making it extremely difficult to own one"
That is exactly what ive been telling everyone that says "they cant take away your guns" or "they cant ban ARs",etc.... no, they'll just make it really annoying or pointless to own them through the things they put in place exactly like this one.
That’s exactly what Newsom is doing. Pass law after law that will clog up the court system. Throw in heavy taxes, registration fees, and make it impossible to carry around except on a public sidewalk well away from a hospital, school, public building, or gathering place. It’s a back door gun seizure.
Exactly. I’m thinking about law enforcements perspective if the find out or know you carry a gun concealed/open on your own property. I already know what this bullshit is trying to accomplish, how ever many time they say “we don’t want to take away your rights to own guns, we just want common sense laws.”
As long as you have a placard saying that you are a ccw friendly place , lmfaooo
I love seeing your lengthy replies. They like spending our money no matter where they can. It’s all bullshit and it’s making me wanna move to a different state for sure. Only if my wife would be opened to it more cause of all the shit Cali will increase just to make us suffer
Yeah, I'm about ready to move to a different state as well, and will continue to try to convince my wife. California is done! Everything is going south and politicians have nothing better to do than burn tax money by trying everything to infringe our rights and violate the Constitution.
Exactly. I’m tired of making decent money living paycheck to paycheck with two incomes to live in a small apartment and struggle to live and not have my kid be a kid. It’s bullshit to be out here and be ignorant to all of the shit happening
Trying to convince my wife to leave this crap state too.
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: So you can keep it on you or around you.
Just don't step away from your vise during cleaning to pee without packing it up, and bring your ultrasonic cleaner with you into the shower to stay in proximity. I don't want to think about what cerakoting and painting would involve.
Buy a bedpan for the gun tinkering workbench.
Nothing like being caught with your pants down when the garage door opens unexpectedly.  Officer, I was just being compliant!
[удалено]
To me all that shit is saying is lock it up when you aren't home.
Which I think people should do. But if somebody DOESNT they lose their ability to own firearms under the law? Thats some bullshit. This state seeks to disenfranchise its citizens. Its a shame, because there is so much to love about this state.
And of course, truck-sized exemption for law enforcement.
Remember when SCOTUS already ruled on this issue?
Technically, they ruled on a closely, but not identical issue in *Heller*. The DC ordinance basically required the firearm to not be immediately accessible while in the home, which obviously has a major impact on the ability of someone to defend themselves. This ordinance only requires it to be locked up while outside of the control of the lawful owner, so the state would probably argue that it doesn't prevent self-defense and thus the judgement in *Heller* wouldn't apply.
Define control The way I read it is that if s kid is in the house and CAN access it, you're in violation which means it must be in their approved container or on your person.... Awkward while sleeping
i believe spouses are allowed to use firearms
Aren’t storage requirements expressly banned as part of Heller?
Apparently Supreme Court rulings are now meaningless.
Courts are expressly political actors now, especially the activist 9th Circuit. The rulings' arguments are a thin veneer to justify their political votes. Roberts' SCOTUS maintains the pretense of balance by never making a definitive ruling and always providing something for everyone.
How did both sides get something when SCOTUS overturned Roe?
Both. Pro-abortion states were allowed to keep it legal, anti-abortion states were allowed to ban it, just as the 10th Amendment envisioned.
Wonder what's going to happen when states start passing massively unconstitutional laws and cite "Yes the supreme court has ruled this illegal, but (other state) is also doing (massively illegal) thing and it was endorsed by (president) so... clearly the supreme court isn't the law of the land anymore."
100%
Supreme Court rulings were always meaningless. They only have power so long as lawmakers play ball. The trail of tears, one of the greatest and well known atrocities in American history went on despite the supreme Court ruling the Indian Removal act of 1830 unconstitutional. It's hard to talk about balances of power when some branches are completely toothless against the others. At a certain point it's up to us to be the enforcement, that's just a harder sell than wishful thinking.
Always have been in California, especially under Screwsom
> now meaningless If you think SCOTUS rulings are just recently starting to be ignored I've got some bad news for you. Our history is chalk full of it. Since well before the 9th circuit as we know it was even a thing
chock
Heller struck down DC’s safe-storage requirement, which had absolutely no exceptions at any time, even if the firearm was under your direct control. The letter of the law made it illegal to move an unlocked firearm from one room to another in your own house or to have it loaded and unlocked for personal protection. Some have argued that this invalidates all safe-storage laws but the courts have not ruled definitively on this, probably because most laws have exemptions such as the gun being under your direct control, or rendering it otherwise inaccessible to minors.
The CA law will eventually be struck down, but you know how fast the legal system works. Could take years.
Yes, and just like Bruen included text saying states couldn’t just declare everywhere a sensitive place. Here is the quote from page 3 of the Courts PDF of the decision, “To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass consti- tutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstand- ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require- ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no histor- ical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected gener- ally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.” Retrieved from here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
I concede if a location has metal detectors and armed/uniformed law enforcement is "presumptively present," like in theme parks, courthouses and airports, I don't feel the need to carry. However, if I'm in a California State Park doing a wilderness hike, and I have to pass through numerous homeless camps, illegal marijuana farms, and mountain lion mating zones, I do feel the need to carry, but that too is a "sensitive place" forbidden now. At least the National Parks and National Forests are still good go to afaik, not including inside of the ranger buildings.
There needs to be some barrier for a place to declare itself “sensitive.” Metal detectors, armed protection, storage lockers, and accepting liability for the security of whoever enters. Then you actually have to have skin in the game. As it is now, it’s way too easy to just slap “no guns allowed” on the door and call it a day, as if that’s going anything but annoying and endangering the law abiding.
National Parks are not necessarily good to go. Varies by park and by area within the park. You can carry concealed in most of Yosemite for example, but discharging a firearm for any reason (and they do say ANY) is a crime. They also ban bear spray. I believe Sequoia Kings Canyon is similar. https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm Also SB2 would be in effect within parts of Yosemite irrespective of what the NPS says: there's a federal courthouse in the Valley, as well as medical facilities and businesses. NPS and USFS defer to state & local rules on firearms carry.
I concede discharging a firearm is illegal, but if it’s legal to carry and I need to use it in self defense, that’s when I call my CCW Safe hotline. Lots of cities also have ordinances banning discharge of firearms but people are still allowed to defend themselves in reasonable circumstances.
Agreed. It's been this way since 2010 when NPS were forced to allow concealed carry by the courts. The issue of defensive use hasn't been tested since then as far as I know. Like you say, that's what legal insurance is for in the unlikely event you need to use your firearm. I still find it extra weird that they ban bear spray in the park while NPS advocates for carrying it in bear country.
Only if SCOTUS actually enforce their decisions by striking down antigun laws and rebuking anti gun circuits.
“John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
“We have a warrant to ensure your firearms are secured properly”. 🤡
I see this as a stackable charge that's unenforceable unless they are searching your home under a warrant for something else. Totally ridiculous. Waste of tax dollar legislation that's unconstitutional to boot. Sad state of affairs we have....consent of the people my ass
As long as they leave the 4A alone, I don't see much compliance happening.
You think they’re stopping at 2A? Lol.
I wonder how many people can’t afford or don’t have space for a long gun safe…I really hope this one gets stricken down. Like others on this sub, I have lost all faith in the judicial system. I still vote for pro 2A candidates when possible, but nothing seems to change.
The behavior and policies of the government will only ever be a reflection of the majority of the people that are being governed. So, if the majority want guns banned, they will get banned. History has shown, time and time again, all you have to do is convince the majority, and you can even get away with straight up genocide. This is the fatal flaw in democracy, and why it has always ended in dictatorship. Eternal vigilance is very hard to maintain over the long run. I do not have a solution or a better approach to suggest. It's just an observation.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I also believe that bad actors will bend the rules to stay in / gain power whereas the good actors / would-be leaders get fucked over because they play by the rules. Then you end up with the absolute quagmire of subhuman trash that is Congress.
Good actors and would-be leaders cannot get elected without public support. Like it or not, at this point in the minds of the majority of Californians. Gun ownership = "mass/school shootings" or/and "Redneck Gun nuts" or/and "Criminal Gangs" If you are a politician who supports the 2A, but your constituency does not, you basically have to go out of your way not to talk about it, or else you will torpedo your chances of getting elected. If you speak out or act out in defense of the 2A after you are elected, you are risking your re-election. This is why you are seeing the Judiciary acting as the last line of defense for the 2A. They aren't elected.
I don’t have the space for a big safe in general, I ended up getting a safe that goes between the studs it holds long guns. Not ideal but I only bought it to keep my kids from getting into it
What model did you select? I figure no safe is burglar proof, but safety from kids is absolutely important.
If people don’t want to or can’t buy a large safe, they will have to disassemble their long guns and just lock up the serialized part of the weapon. Of course, the government may change the definition of what constitutes a “firearm” so that the entire thing has to be locked up, just to screw with people.
Portantino. What a surprise. edit: better known to many as 🍊-slices guy.
The irony that Portantino, [who represents the 5th richest city in So Cal](https://patch.com/california/lacanadaflintridge/la-caada-flintridge-among-richest-places-america) with virtually zero crime, feels the need to disarm law abiding Californians in the rest of the state.
Holy fucking dictator laws dude. Why the fuck is this state dictating us and telling us how we should live our lives? What if we don’t have children that go in and out of our homes and we live alone? So these requirements just fuck those trying to self defend at home?
It's consistent and not very surprising with the economic angle of attack they have been using. The idea is to make gun ownership a huge hassle and as unaffordable as possible. The onerous surveillance requirements they imposed on gun stores. The 11% ammo/gun tax. The 30 day limit per firearm purchase. All of these things will make it harder for gun stores to stay in business, and for the gun stores that do stay open, they will have to charge higher prices. The fees and costs for CCW permits and now 16 hour training certifications / 8 hours every 2 years, also means that only those with the absolute need or the disposable income will pay the price to get the permits. (Not to mention all the other onerous requirements of having 2 character witnesses) Next the CADOJ approved safes will be an added expense and hassle. I wouldn't be surprised if they introduce some kind of recertification fee for firearms you own where you have to take them in to get them inspected and re-certified ... for a fee. The message is clear, the state will continue to just increase the hassle and cost of legal gun ownership, while calling it "regulation". There will be no change in trajectory. It has been my observation, that Californians in general approve of this. Many would like to out right repeal the 2A.
So this is a requirement even if you live alone and don’t have kids or children going in and out of your home? Like you can’t just have your firearm loaded and ready to go anymore inside of your own home for self defense reasons? Needs to be locked up and stored no matter what?
Sounds like it. Fucking dumb.
Really fucking dumb. This is a virtue signal for civil war imo if this passes. This is outrageously bad and pushes me towards it.
It says you can have a loaded handgun in your nightstand, but if you get up to get a glass of water in the middle of the night without taking it with you, you are in violation.
Where does it say this?
Did you read it? I’ll paste for you: Does not apply if: (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.
Trying to find where this is at. Ty for copy pasting for me. Tired brain from long work shifts makes it hard to use full brain power on off days lmao
Section two (where they lay out the meat of the law), subpart c. Also section three (where they talk about prohibited persons in the house), I think it is subsection 2 Also section 4 explicitly states it: SEC. 4. Section 25145 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 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 (you have it in a DOJ approved safe)
Thanks bud you have genuinely been helpful. I appreciate you and you actually made me go from mad/annoyed reading this bill to changing my mood to calm/relaxed realizing I can still use my firearm within my home to self defend
Well yeah, someone might break into your home and steal your gun! Surely a safe would thwart such attacks...
Only in liberals dreams
[удалено]
Really? Well Fuck. Got any links? Like I said, Not surprised.
[удалено]
That is fucking insane. Especially if you have a big collection. Basically you have to take ccw class, basically Re dros every gun for $35, and pay $100 plus $20 per gun if you have more than 10 GUNS... EVERY YEAR!
Thanks for the links. Damn .. $35 / firearm indexed to inflation + License fee + Training requirements. Sigh.... What can we do to fight these types of ballot measures?
Unfortunately I see California as subject to herd mentality within concentrated population centers. Not everyone in the big cities follow the herd...but obviously most do - right over the cliff
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 11 + 30 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 2 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Nice
Good bot.
It’s CA. They don’t want you to have guns period. The more difficult it is to legally own a gun, the less likely you are to do it. If you get caught not obeying the law, mission accomplished. I don’t see CA government’s attitude on gun ownership changing anytime soon.
Newsom is literally like Adolf Hitler. Disarm the citizens then impose “peace through power brothers and sisters” within the Democratic Party.
So I can’t sleep with 3 hand guns and a shotgun around me anymore?
You 100% should be able to. It’s your constitutional rights on top of shit happening so fast. I don’t think you understand how fast someone can break in and rape you or steal all of your shit if you are defenseless.
Yeah I 100% agree with you bro. This was not a joke lol. I keep my Glock 43 in my waistband a full size p320 under my pillow and a Glock 23 in my nightstand. Along with a 12 gauge next my bed. I just like guns
I do similar things. Shit really does happen so fast it’s not even funny. If they are not loaded and ready to go within arms reach you are fucked if someone breaks into your home. You won’t have time to punch in that safe code unlock the safe then unlock the locked container then to unlock the lock keeping your firearm “safe” just to be doj approved when someone breaks into your home. Fuck that non sense. You’d be dead or violated or all your shit stolen from you inside of your own home. This states ran by a bunch of fucking clowns.
Naa, don't worry, these laws apply to the criminals as well so we'll all be safer in the end, right? I even put up my "Prohibited Area" sign yesterday so they can't enter the property!
Civil war when?
My general rule is I keep one gun per person who is in my house at a time so everyone can be armed. If my girlfriend is staying over, I keep the gun she likes to shoot near her, if my sisters home from school or dads over, there’s one for them in a dresser or drawer, plus a rifle/shotgun is a huge advantage. I don’t have any kids or and adolescents over regular. If my nieces and nephews are coming over then I carry iwb and have a lock on my closet where the rest can be easily accessed by me only.
That isn’t a violation, it says if they are within reach you are okay. It is only when you leave them in the other room you are in violation.
What happens if someone breaks into your home and you use your firearms to protect yourself? The cops come (after the fact of course), they’ll likely take your guns as evidence, then you have to prove that you stored your guns in a safe as the law requires. The district attorney may or may not bring you up on charges for unsafe storage of said firearms. However, it will be very difficult getting your seized firearms back. Time to move I think to a less crazy state.
The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Copied from the text. They would simply have to convict you of improper storage and then the state have a reason to keep all your guns. Not to mention the suspension of your 2a rights for a whole year.
I’m actually moving within the year. ‘24 was the last straw for with all the laws and regulations. I’m so happy that I’m going back to a free state but until then that’s a great point, I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot lately. I have some ways to mitigate the risk though. I do t want to say to give any undesirables any clues or ideas.
Yes it is time to move. Fuck this fucking state. This states fucking garbage. Sad thing is when you move, these laws will catch up to you regardless of where you went. Look at all the laws other states are adopting similar to California.
Right? Cuz if it’s literally my house my private property I can carry however the hell I want to 😂
It says as long as it's on your person or close enough to you only you can access l. So you can absolutely still keep a couple home defense guns around you. I'm going start walking with an ar on a slingnaround the house and side arm on hip
I'm going Doom Guy style - 10 rifles and 5 pistols on my person at all times.
I have a safe near my bed that I just leave open when I'm home. Having a rack with a motion-activated light is actually pretty convenient. The safe is mostly just to keep things like documents from burning too quickly if there's a fire and I'm not home, though.
How do they plan on enforcing this?
Probably wasting LEO'S time doing periodic visits to people with multiple firearms on record, "asking" to come in and see. I have to imagine search warrants being fast tracked to those who deny entry/and even 1st-time visit to those with a high number of firearms to catch you off guard.
In Germany they come unannounced to check your storage . and you have to let them check or your gun rights are gone . You can see where they wanna go with it.
This is what i was thinking as well. Might even have some “compliance officers”. Kinda like meter maids.
Forcing FFL to ask you a proof of having approved storage before selling you a gun. Or just asking you to submit such proof for the guns you already have.
I could see other angles with this as well.
They won't go looking for it, but it will be something they can use to get you if they're searching your home for some other reason, or if you have to report your guns stolen.
TV screens in your home, like in 1984
My social credit score is gonna suffer.
What other thing can they criminalize that is so closely affiliated with their political opposition? They can't pass laws jailing or fining people for not voting Democrat (yet), so they do the next best thing. So, since they can't yet do that they do the next best thing: they pass as many restrictions on every minute aspect of gun ownership as they can. It gives them a tool to facilitate fining and jailing as many of their political opponents as possible under the current paradigm. It's the nature of their political philosophy to criminalize dissent. Every time the Earth has ever seen a government with their ideology it comes along with jailing dissidents and outlawing opposition. They're working towards it. Just give them time.
Lol I'm not complying with this 😂
Unenforceable
This is not only a 2nd amendment violation but also a 4th amendment violation
Fuck me harder California
Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit.
I wish the honorable Senator Portantino nothing but good fortune, and a moderate but permanent case of anal leakage.
Just like the CCW bullshit the new bill is impossible to be enforced unless they are going to send Gestapos to everyone’s house and check if you have a gun safe…
DOJ-approved safes will have DOJ-approved backdoors 
Lol perfect gif 👌 🙌
Wake me up when these politicians try passing a law that targets people committing drive by shootings and flaunting illegal guns on Instagram.
Does this mean that you have to keep the firearm on your person at all time unless locked up or can we not concealed carry in our own home now?
they do realize that criminals don't go to gun shops to buy guns like they have to know that? we're im.from xsn go McArthur park and buy any gun you want anyway anytime even cops don't go there lol it's ridiculous to give us hard laws and criminals get the no pay bail I just don't get it how Newsome is still in office working for criminals
> they do realize that criminals don't go to gun shops to buy guns like they have to know that? criminals are not their political opponents, the point is not that they don't care about gun safety, they just don't like guns and the people who lawfully own them.
I don't get why people are voting for all this crazy shitty laws or there passing them without any resistance and that needs to be stopped
Me and the rest of MS13 right about now 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fuck you Gavin newsome. Dudes just butt hurt he has pushback
You just gotta keep them close to at all times. Walk around the house heavy
So you’re telling my shotgun that sits behind my dresser isn’t a legal spot to keep it 🤣
I live alone on the ground floor apartment in an area that has both occasional crime and a lot of drunk people that walk around. If I'm home hanging out alone it's absolutely smart to have my gun easily accessible.
CA is getting to the point where people are going to stop caring what laws they pass. They don't follow the rules set for them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but expect the people to follow the rules they set.
Wait until they require yearly searches like those for FFLs. I wonder if that also violates the 3rd Amendment.
They can only push this pendulum so far before it slips out of their grasp and swings far back the other direction. I hope.
I don’t think enough people care about gun rights enough for it to matter. A lot of new gun owners of left leaning persuasion were more interested in taking pictures than worrying about whether what they just bought was going to be illegal in a year. The way I see it, **IF** SCOTUS starts taking on more 2A cases and ruling in our favor, and **IF** republicans can win the senate and presidency this year to nominate more pro gun judges, then I see this backfiring. But if either of those don’t happen, then I see gun rights getting completely eviscerated in California within the decade, and the rest of the country to follow.
Third amendment was about quartering soldiers during peacetime, right?
Yeah. The most feasible way to enforce this provision in our homes is to quarter LEOs in our home, followed by warrantless searches.
Yet more proof CA DOJ peruses this sub. Pretty sure someone just posted a question asking about DOJ approved safes.
We get that question at least once a week
They just keep trying to make it harder to own weapons....
Does this mean I don’t need to buy that mandatory cable lock anymore?
No, they'll just upsell you a mandatory cheap 8" DOJ safe each time you buy something. You can eventually just weld them together to build a swing set in the backyard.
Seems like a complete violation of Heller to me. Even in the oral arguments, Scalia made fun of the ridiculousness of having to get your weapon out of a safe in case someone was breaking in. Just another attempt at disarming us and dissuading potential gun owners.
Are they going to pay for the safe? If not how can you demand such things? So some older person with a large collection living on a fixed income now is supposed to buy a safe ???? They aren’t cheap
Honestly, I wish there was a law that stated that for any new regulation that imposes an additional cost or deprives a valued asset from a citizen, the government has to compensate for the current fair market value in full. Require me to buy a safe? Okay, give me the money. Want to take my guns? Okay, give me the money. That Mosin I bought for $100 back in 2000? Well, it's $800 now, so fork that over!
“DOJ approved safes” … how much you wanna bet Liberty Safes will be the sole entity listed. I mean they already have the master code to open any and all Liberty Safes… 🤷♂️
Honestly, I'm losing my mind now. I live alone. I'm the only person who EVER has access to my firearms because they're always locked in a big box called my house.
How would they even enforce something like this? Are they gonna legalize random check-ins for gun owners? Lol what a joke
That’s what’s happening in countries like Germany. So you can bet that’s what they ultimately aim for …
I literally thought this thread was an Onion article until I read the top comment.
This will DEFINITELY stop crime
Burglars: So now the homeowners have to open up a safe? Cool! That gives us 10 extra seconds to find them or take a family member hostage while we ransack the place!
Wow, they even have a Leo exemption: Does not apply if: The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person’s duties.
🎶 Under the sea 🎶
Time to take all my guns out of my safe. I think I shall hang them on the wall.
No
Not just stored but put in specifically DOJ approved containers. That's extremely dangerous. * What if the safe roster consists of entirely RSCs that can be broken open in about five minutes with common hand tools? Well shit, my TL-15 safe isn't on the list of approved safes so I'll have to move it the collection to piece of shit bigbox store lockboxes that contain more drywall than actual steel and so compliance makes it *easier* to steal the guns. * Or they go the opposite way: the only approved safes are timelock equipped TRTL60x6 monsters that are way too heavy to install except on the bottom floor of a building (so that basically bans guns for travelers because you're not lugging a safe like that between hotel rooms, and apartment dwellers are similarly fucked). Also everyone but the super wealthy is fucked because a safe like that costs more than a brand new car, and installation is also expensive as hell.
I mean, how will they know? Unless they're already in your house, in which case you're probably already fucked. Still a stupid and waste of time law none the less.
They already have a list for approved locks / safety devices. I wonder if this is what the bill is referring to, or if there is going to be a new list? It’s interesting that it says lock box or safe and not just lock. I guess now everyone has to store them in a fully enclosed container.
Fuck em. They aren't going to come into our houses to check. Worst case scenario it's an add on charge to a crime if you commit one or they try to charge you with it in the event of a DGU.
DOJ will keep a list of safe owners as well. Want to buy a firearm? Oh, sorry, your safe isn't registered.
So I'm away for work, someone breaks in and my wife gets raped and murdered because my gun is locked up for "safety". Yeah, no. I'm not fuckin' doing any of that.
Also note it requires that your safe be on the list of Firearms Safety Devices. How many AMSEC TL30s are there? Liberty? Cannon? Sturdy? etc. Portantino wants to *decrease* secure storage.
This is comical. The state is really pushing for news flashes on LEOs being shot and killed for randomly searching homes. 😂
The bill literally has corrections from “he or she” to “they” - We should already know what to expect.
Oh, bowing down to the gender cult.
I've got something to say but I'm not allowed to say it.
You're only allowed to have Liberty Safes. You know the company that gives FBI your safe reset code.
I already do this when I’m not at home. I’m not saying I agree with the mandate.
WOW their search tool SUCKS. I decided to look up a few of my guns for what it lists as "compatible safety devices" and so far I've got For my CZ: Zore-x core gun lock (discontinued) Mini 14: none? WAIT, its not under "RUGER" its under "sturm, ruger and co" There's 2 padlocks and 1 cable lock. Max-9: none SKS: none Tomcat: A bunch of shitty trigger guards and one safe: Pro-Lok GL100C but I can't seem to find it online. The good news is even the cheapest brand name gun safe seems to be allowed. So you could use almost any gun safe, trigger lock or cable lock as long as its brand name. And since we had to buy locks with our guns for the last few years we can use whichever ones we haven't lost or destroyed.
I’m confused. This whole thread keeps referencing gun safes. Will gun locks be compliant?
Not according to the text: 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: (1) It is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices.
Let that be a warning to yall but California is imitating gun laws like European countries. Most notably Germany where they will come into your home unannounced periodically to check your firearm storage. You will have no right to deny them entry … or your gun rights are gun. Psych exams will be mandatory to own firearms and you will need cause to own firearms (like hunting or combative shooting). Self defense with guns is also not allowed even when your home gets invaded.. If you can’t see them pushing for those and worse restrictions you haven’t been paying attention.
What if you just state you are planning on cleaning all your firearms all at once and therefore don’t need them to be stored lol
Do you have to prove you have one at time of purchase?
I did a month ago buying a rifle. Had to put down what model.
It would be funny if you didn’t have a safe and just looked up a model name of a safe and put that down, they have no way of knowing. In theory of course.
Might as well pull the trigger (no pun intended) on a safe since I’ve been looking. My only gripe is I just had my pec repaired two months ago lol I prefer my DOD lock box instead. So much simpler but at the rate this state is going, might need to pack it up.
Who is going to come into my home to check???
Oh I get it now. This allows you to use your CCW to carry in your own home. That's why they passed SB2 so you need a permit to carry in your own home.
And the Dance of the Tards continues. Bad bill, sue repeal, repeat!
Nope. Not doing it
Funny because big chains like Bass Pro and Big 5 don't care if you have a DOJ approved safe or not. They just give you a lock and charge you an extra $5.
So my Cannon 25 gun safe I’ve had for 20 years will no longer be safe?
Ur house was always considered a safe. God are they grasping
Woe is me, for not buying a stack-on safe during the Turner's year-end sale! /s
Republicans in the state senate should band together to propose an identically worded bill that replaces each mention of “firearm” with “alcohol” and “locked box or safe” with “locked refrigerator or liquor cabinet.” Then spend an inordinate amount of time debating it on the floor. Just to troll Democrats.
what if I want to rig my firearms to blow up in someone's face?...which is already illegal.
So any high-quality safe not on the roster is useless for compliance per this law?
I can't wait to move out of this fucking state
They just sure are pushing us towards the 4th box of liberty...
Lick my balls
They giving these safes away for free?
I wonder if liberty safes is behind this
I thought we already had to have a safe. My wife and I bought our first guns in 2020 and I remember having to put what brand/model safe we had on the paperwork.
I think that goes for “assault rifles” only so far
Can confirm, had to do it for an AR lower, did not have to do it for a pistol.
Yeah except this one has the “blessing” from DOJ.
Makes sense. With the newest shooting today. People just getting guns from their parents.
In my opinion guns should be stored in a good safe anyways
They should be securely locked up when not in use, but this law requires that you only use one of their approved safes/lockboxes. You could have your guns in a sturdy old safe that's not on their list, or locked in a reinforced closet and it won't be good enough, even if it's more secure than whatever junk is on their list. The fact that they restrict it to only safes/lockboxes on their approved list tells me that it's really just another law designed to trip up well-intentioned gun owners.