Lock up those guns.

So a Newsom-appointee can amend the California DOJ list of approved "firearms safety devices" on a whim, and anybody who doesn't keep their firearms in the $52K Breitling Internet-of-Things "safe" is in violation and becomes a CA-prohibited person for 10 years?

The text of CA SB53 is "stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices... properly engaged so as to render that firearm inaccessible by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user." or "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.".

I recall a recent MA arrest where the police ordered somebody outside their home, then charged them with Improper Storage because in obeying they left a firearm unattended?
Or you are out duck hunting. EPO asks for your ID. You put your shotgun, loaded, on the back of the tailgate while you reach for iD. Ding! Improper storage
 
Wait, what is wrong with this exactly? I certainly wouldn't want any of mine just being available to whoever can grab them.
The definition of "within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person." is ENTIRELY subjective.

For example:

I take my rifle out of the safe to clean it. I put it on the table. I walk ten feet away to grab my cleaning kit.

Did I stay "within close enough proximity thereto" that I can "readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried" on my person? Who knows??? The antigun judges get to decide that.

Nope. It's none of the the governments f'n business what I do with my property, ESPECIALLY ON my own property.
 
Or you are out duck hunting. EPO asks for your ID. You put your shotgun, loaded, on the back of the tailgate while you reach for iD. Ding! Improper storage
Nope, still under your direct control. I’m not defending the MA storage law, but your scenario is not a violation of MA law. I’ve been in that exact situation with a MA EPO — set my shotgun down in my open hatchback so that I could hand him my LTC and hunting license. He checked my papers, handed them back to me, and I was on my way.
 
Last edited:
Just remember. If antigun states can ignore SCOTUS opinions, so can pro gun states.

This times 1000. It seems like blue states are going to continue to ignore and ignore and ignore and yet the blue states scream "rule of law" 24/7. Why have any laws. I say bring on the purge. It's about time.
 
Nope, still under your direct control. I’m not defending the MA storage law, but your scenario is not a violation of MA law. I’ve been in that exact situation with a MA EPO — set my shotgun down in my open hatchback so that I could hand him my LTC and hunting license. He checked my papers, handed them back to me, and I was on my way.
Your MA EPO was in a good mood that day. What if he wasn't???

The point is that there IS NO WRITTEN, LEGAL DEFINITION OF "UNDER YOUR DIRECT CONTROL"!

If there is, please tell me where to find it in the MGLs. If your situation was NOT considered a violation of it, then where is the dividing line? When the firearm is 15, 20, 25 feet away? When it's across the room? When it's in the next room???

They won't tell you because they don't even know themselves, Yet they get to decide based on NO established definition and then prosecute you based on their own opinion of what "under your direct control" means.

This law is totally, utterly unconstitutional and needs to be repealed. Yesterday.
 
Your MA EPO was in a good mood that day. What if he wasn't???
It wouldn’t have mattered. You are being paranoid.
The point is that there IS NO WRITTEN, LEGAL DEFINITION OF "UNDER YOUR DIRECT CONTROL"!
You are correct that there is no statutory definition of direct control. But no prosecutor is going to charge you if you put your unloaded shotgun in your trunk while you stand next to your vehicle and give your license to the EPO. And no EPO is going to arrest you for a storage violation for putting down your shotgun so that you can give him your LTC and hunting license.

I’m not defending the law — I disagree with it (and most or all of the threat of MA firearms law). But the scenario you are proposing is not going to happen.
 
Nope, still under your direct control. I’m not defending the MA storage law, but your scenario is not a violation of MA law. I’ve been in that exact situation with a MA EPO — set my shotgun down in my open hatchback so that I could hand him my LTC and hunting license. He checked my papers, handed them back to me, and I was on my way.

Just because he didn't arrest or cite you for it doesn't make it not against the law.

That's like saying, "a cop saw me drive 45mph in a school zone and didn't arrest me, therefore it's legal"
 
Take it from Connecticut - aren't they still trying to pass 'Ethan's law'? Where if you have anyone under 18 living in the home, you gotta store your guns unloaded at home, field stripped, locked up in an unfireable configuration, and lock empty magazines and ammo in a separate safe in a different room in the house?
 
Just because he didn't arrest or cite you for it doesn't make it not against the law.

That's like saying, "a cop saw me drive 45mph in a school zone and didn't arrest me, therefore it's legal"
Oh come on. You are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake.

You know that if I put an unloaded shotgun down in my trunk and I’m just a couple feet away while presenting my license to an EPO that I am within the law and that no EPO is going to arrest me for it.
 

So, revoking one’s right to purchase and possess firearms for a misdemeanor doesn’t infringe 2ndA? Just because this law will be overturned if passed doesn’t mean it won’t pass. It adds the "gun owner harassment" feature that Leftists just love.

“Safely storing your firearm is commonsense public safety policy and should not be partisan. Safe storage is proven to reduce firearm injuries and I’m pleased to be tightening California’s existing law,” stated Senator Portantino. “SB 53 does not infringe upon an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the home. Rather, it ensures that a firearm is stored in a manner that will prevent unintentional firearm injuries and protect Californians in the home and deter violence in public. It will unequivocally save lives.”
…SB 53 prohibits a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence unless the firearm is stored in a DOJ-approved locked box or safe. Under this bill, a violation results in an infraction for the first offense and a misdemeanor for a second and subsequent offense and subjects the violator to a one-year ban on the purchase and possession of a firearm."
If it passes, the DoJ will then never approve any approve any lock boxes or safes. Then they will raid gun owners to "check storage compliance."
 
Take it from Connecticut - aren't they still trying to pass 'Ethan's law'? Where if you have anyone under 18 living in the home, you gotta store your guns unloaded at home, field stripped, locked up in an unfireable configuration, and lock empty magazines and ammo in a separate safe in a different room in the house?
Already covered CT in post #8. Some history.
Prior to 6/6/23 in CT it was already 18 or younger:
Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of firearms. No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control if such person knows or reasonably should know that (1) a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor, (2) a resident of the premises is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law, (3) a resident of the premises is subject to a risk protection order issued pursuant to section 29-38c, or (4) a resident of the premises poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to another person, unless such person (A) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (B) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person. For the purposes of this section, “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years.
The Ethan's Law group was pushing for tightening down CT's storage law since 2018 after the death of Ethan Song. For those who haven't read the state's report on it, see this link. Most don't know the actual details of what happened or that the gun owner had a gun lock on an unloaded gun that was in his closet. That anti gun group were successful at getting the statute tweaked in 2019 and then again in 2021. They got their wish last year in HB6667 (PA 23-53) with a major rewrite of the statute. Current law now reads:
No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person.
They revamped the Sec. 53a-217a. Criminally negligent storage of a firearm: Class D felony statute at the same time last year. Current that statute now reads:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when such person violates the provisions of section 29-37i, as amended by this act, and another person obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of such person or any other person.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the person obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person and, if such firearm is stolen, such firearm is reported stolen pursuant to the provisions of section 53-202g, as amended by this act.

(c) Criminally negligent storage of a firearm is a class D felony.

It is arguably in violation of Heller. That group is now pushing to bring such storage laws to the entire nation.
 
Last edited:
lol mass is so gay that a simple conversation about storage laws can turn into an out yourself thread.

you ma**h***s have no idea how submissive you come off as when you're bent over with your ass in the air sucking on that leather boot
 
lol mass is so gay that a simple conversation about storage laws can turn into an out yourself thread.

you ma**h***s have no idea how submissive you come off as when you're bent over with your ass in the air sucking on that leather boot
That's some real imagery you're projecting there bud.
 
Oh come on. You are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake.

You know that if I put an unloaded shotgun down in my trunk and I’m just a couple feet away while presenting my license to an EPO that I am within the law and that no EPO is going to arrest me for it.
What does “under your direct control” mean then?
 
Oh come on. You are just being pedantic and arguing for arguments sake.

No, I'm not.

You know that if I put an unloaded shotgun down in my trunk and I’m just a couple feet away while presenting my license to an EPO that I am within the law and that no EPO is going to arrest me for it.

You're conflating "within the law" and "not going to arrest me for it"

The second part might be true. But not the first part.


Mass hunting regs said:

Hunting prohibitions​

...
• Loaded shotgun or rifle in or on any motor vehicle, recreational vehicle (including snowmobiles), aircraft or motor boat, except as stated in the Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations.

You might get away with it, but it's absolutely illegal, and a stick-up-his-butt F&G warden absolutely can charge you with it.
 
That's some real imagery you're projecting there bud.

funny how you're triggered even though I didn't address you. almost like you know your position is morally bankrupt.

its not projecting when you literally advocate for anti constitutional bullshit in this very thread.
 
Nope, still under your direct control. I’m not defending the MA storage law, but your scenario is not a violation of MA law. I’ve been in that exact situation with a MA EPO — set my shotgun down in my open hatchback so that I could hand him my LTC and hunting license. He checked confirmed my papers were in order my papers, handed them back to me, and I was on my way.
FIFY
 
funny how you're triggered even though I didn't address you. almost like you know your position is morally bankrupt.

its not projecting when you literally advocate for anti constitutional bullshit in this very thread.
Literally all I said was that I keep my gear locked up when I'm not using it. But go on.
 
No, I'm not.



You're conflating "within the law" and "not going to arrest me for it"

The second part might be true. But not the first part.




You might get away with it, but it's absolutely illegal, and a stick-up-his-butt F&G warden absolutely can charge you with it.
Ummm
He said unloaded. That segment refers to loaded.

What am I missing?
 
Back
Top Bottom