Law requires guns be locked up at home

[JohnRich 4]

News:

San Francisco slapped with gun lawsuit

The City is being sued by gun owners and gun-advocacy groups because of a local law that says firearms have to be locked up or kept disabled.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court Friday afternoon, challenges a local restriction that forces handgun owners to either store their guns in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks. Mayor Newsom 's spokesman Nathan Ballard said locking up one’s guns is a matter of common sense. “If even one life can be saved by this sensible law, it’s worth it,” he said.

National Rifle Association attorney Chuck Michel said the locking restriction interferes with citizens’ rights to immediately defend their families. Plaintiffs include a group of San Francisco gun owners, retired police officers and the NRA. “These are all people who recognize the right to self-defense is a fundamental civil right that needs to be protected as well,” Michel said.

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/San-Francisco-slapped-with-gun-lawsuit-45374737.html

[rhaig 0]

all they need to do is make a law that says if a minor gets your gun while you're not there and hurts themselves or someone else, you've committed an offense.

I'd bet they already have such a law actually. They just want more.

This from the same city that a few years ago voted for a ban on guns inside the city limits. That was struck down by the courts though.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/10/state/n050438D28.DTL&type=politics

--
Rob

[wildcard451 0]

Quote

all they need to do is make a law that says if a minor gets your gun while you're not there and hurts themselves or someone else, you've committed an offense.

I'd bet they already have such a law actually. They just want more.

This from the same city that a few years ago voted for a ban on guns inside the city limits. That was struck down by the courts though.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/10/state/n050438D28.DTL&type=politics

Soooo, I have a handgun in my house, for personal defense, and some punk 17 year old kid breaks in, takes my handgun, and hurts himself or someone else....

You want me to be liable?

/stupid

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

“If even one life can be saved by this sensible law, it’s worth it,”

So, using that argument. The if government should be able to tell you where to keep your gun, it should be able to tell you where to park your dick. Hey, as long as one life is saved--let's give up all of our freedoms and rights.

Quote

Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner......Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lefty 0]

Or, let's reduce all speed limits to 5 mph. Hey, if even one life can be saved from that measure, it's worth it. The logic of these people...

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kelpdiver 2]

you missed the rest, John. In particular, 'fragmentable' bullets are not saleable in the city, despite the fact that they would be safer in a city full of high density apartments with thin walls.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Yeah I saw that too. Wack. Hollow points are probably not as affective against bullet proof vests either, so you think they would instead try to ban solid FMJ's.


The law about a kid getting ahold of your gun is already in place, exactly how you have worded it. I do believe it has some leeway though, if a 17yo kid breaks in your house with a lock picking kit, and uses a disc grinder to remove your safety lock, brings his own ammo, and then shoots himself, that is something that nobody can protect against. (Without being home all the time or a security system)

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . if a 17yo kid breaks in your house with a lock picking kit, and uses a disc grinder to remove your safety lock, brings his own ammo, and then shoots himself, that is something that nobody can protect against. (Without being home all the time or a security system)

Has that ever happened?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

all they need to do is make a law that says if a minor gets your gun while you're not there and hurts themselves or someone else, you've committed an offense.

I'd like to see some consistency. Cars are far more dangerous than gun (40K annual fatalities vs. 11,000 murders with firearms and under 1000 fatal accidents). Swimming pools are a hundred times as dangerous to small children (500 children under age five die versus 40 in gun accidents, although we only have 5 million households with pools and 43 million with guns). Household cleaning supplies are more dangerous.

If I'm not liable when a punk kid steals my car and broadsides a school bus, I shouldn't be liable in the unlikely event he takes my gun and tries a columbine.

If I'm not criminally negligent when my own kid eats poison, I shouldn't be liable when he shoots himself. Or I should be liable when he dies due to negligence regardless of what was involved.

[Darius11 12]

Locking away your gun is a mistake many people make If it makes the gun inaccessible in a reasonable amount of time. If you have a gun for personal defense you need to be able to get to it. If you are going to get a gun then you should not bullshit your self about having to use it.

For Exp. I really have two points of entry at my house both would require a glass to brake or the door to be kicked in. Either way from the initial sound to the person being able to be in my bedroom would not take more then 10 sec. So I need to be able to get to my gun in 5. I can get to it in 1.



I think if that becomes a law the state or fed could face serious liability issues and they should they make it illegal for a person to be able to protect himself or his/her loved ones.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[quade 4]

Drew, I think the difference is the main purpose of the device.

The main purpose of a car is to travel from point A and to point B.
The intent of the device is not to kill (although it does on a fairly frequent basis if in the wrong hands).

The main purpose of a gun is to put a hole in something.
The intent of the device includes "stopping" intruders (aka putting holes in them until they are no longer a threat). Guns can also be used incorrectly and accidently kill as well (no question), but it's the intent of the use of the device that really is at question here.

A gun used PURELY for hunting, it shouldn't be a problem for the owner if it's locked up.
A gun used PURELY for target shooting, it shouldn't be a problem for the owner if it's locked up.

So what's really in question are weapons being used for self defense at home. If that's the intention, then you have to admit their purpose is to put holes in intruders. That is, in fact, their only purpose at that point; to be extremely dangerous to the intruders.

So, I think that's the fundamental difference between cars, swimming pools and guns and why there might be different laws. The devices serve different purposes and pose different levels of intrinsic danger and therefore require different level to ensure safety of those that might innocently or otherwise come in contact with them.

BTW, at least in California, you also have to ensure kids just don't wander into your backyard and use your swimming pool either. Fencing and latches above a certain height.

Cars, I think most of them come with locks as standard equipment.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[LongWayToFall 0]

No I am just giving a for instance. There is no possible way to lock up a firearm that proper tools cannot defeat.
I couldn't find the exact wording of the law, but it is called child access prevention (CAP) and goes like this:

California - State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child under 18 years old and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone or the gun is taken to school.

So it depends on what "easily" is, and if you should have expected a child to be there. If your house is a daycare, don't leave guns laying out, kinda simple. But in a home where children seldom go, and in a room where they should never be, its up to you to take the risk I guess. Better to leave only unloaded long guns out, that way they can't sneak them into a school as easily, and unless they hurt self/others (no ammo) you should be ok. Still no good to have a kid with your strap though.

[quade 4]

Quote

No I am just giving a for instance. There is no possible way to lock up a firearm that proper tools cannot defeat.

The same can be (and is) said about trying to secure anything including nukes.

The question becomes what is a reasonable amount of security considering the consequences.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Good post, quade.

Quote

So what's really in question are weapons being used for self defense at home. If that's the intention, then you have to admit their purpose is to put holes in intruders. That is, in fact, their only purpose at that point; to be extremely dangerous to the intruders.

And given that's the intention of a self-defense firearm, then it's folly for the state to tell people that they have to lock up those guns. In effect, they're saying that you don't have the right to be prepared to defend yourself from intruders - that you just have to submit your family to bad guys, with no means to stop them from doing whatever they want. It sends a message to bad guys, that it's open-season hunting on the good citizenry. That's bad public policy, and it goes against fundamental rights of nature. Do you agree?

[quade 4]

Quote

And given that's the intention of a self-defense firearm, then it's folly for the state to tell people that they have to lock up those guns. In effect, they're saying that you don't have the right to be prepared to defend yourself from intruders - that you just have to submit your family to bad guys, with no means to stop them from doing whatever they want. It sends a message to bad guys, that it's open-season hunting on the good citizenry. That's bad public policy, and it goes against fundamental rights of nature. Do you agree?

Aren't there gun safes specifically designed for this? Quick access yet secure.

I'm not sure this is "the best" but it certainly looks as if it fits all the requirements.
http://www.gunvault.com/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

all they need to do is make a law that says if a minor gets your gun while you're not there and hurts themselves or someone else, you've committed an offense.

I'd bet they already have such a law actually. They just want more.

This from the same city that a few years ago voted for a ban on guns inside the city limits. That was struck down by the courts though.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/10/state/n050438D28.DTL&type=politics

Soooo, I have a handgun in my house, for personal defense, and some punk 17 year old kid breaks in, takes my handgun, and hurts himself or someone else....

You want me to be liable?

/stupid

This is what I was referring to.

sec 46.13 of texas penal code

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.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/46.13.00.html

I didn't completely describe the situation, but you took it to an extreme. Don't be so quick with your /stupid

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Aren't there gun safes specifically designed for this? Quick access yet secure.

I'm not sure this is "the best" but it certainly looks as if it fits all the requirements.
http://www.gunvault.com/

It's *an* answer for when you need a defensive weapon close by but don't have the capability to actually have it *on* you (the best option).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And given that's the intention of a self-defense firearm, then it's folly for the state to tell people that they have to lock up those guns. In effect, they're saying that you don't have the right to be prepared to defend yourself from intruders - that you just have to submit your family to bad guys, with no means to stop them from doing whatever they want. It sends a message to bad guys, that it's open-season hunting on the good citizenry. That's bad public policy, and it goes against fundamental rights of nature. Do you agree?

Aren't there gun safes specifically designed for this? Quick access yet secure.

I'm not sure this is "the best" but it certainly looks as if it fits all the requirements.
http://www.gunvault.com/

Those are suitable for some circumstances. But there's no reason that an adult can't carry his gun from room to room where they are sitting or sleeping if that's what they want. Gun safes don't move, not even the small ones. They are probably the appropriate choice for parents, who may be willing to give up some immediate access in exchange for the restricted access to the children.

The 2006 lock up rule is essentially like the law against firing a gun in city limits. Window dressing, but also an extra charge to file against someone when desired. I live alone - I'm not locking them up.

[quade 4]

Quote

Those are suitable for some circumstances. But there's no reason that an adult can't carry his gun from room to room where they are sitting or sleeping if that's what they want.

Do you, JR or anybody else have a link to the actual law itself?

I assumed the law was about guns left in an unattended dwelling.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

glass to brake or

break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break, break,

sorry Darius, I'm better now

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

I predict the plaintiffs have a pretty fair chance of getting the law struck down.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

have a link to the actual law itself?

SEC. 4512. HANDGUNS LOCATED IN A RESIDENCE TO BE KEPT IN A LOCKED CONTAINER OR DISABLED WITH A TRIGGER LOCK.
(a) Prohibition. No person shall keep a handgun within a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice.
(b) Definitions.
(1) "Residence." As used in this Section, "residence" is any structure intended or used for human habitation including but not limited to houses, condominiums, rooms, in law units, motels, hotels, SRO's, time-shares, recreational and other vehicles where human habitation occurs.
(2) "Locked container." As used in this Section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock or similar locking device.
(3) "Handgun." As used in this Section, "handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm that is capable of being concealed upon the person, designed to be used as a weapon, capable of expelling a projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion, and has a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(4) "Trigger lock." As used in this Section, a "trigger lock" means a trigger lock that is listed in the California Department of Justice's list of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that handgun by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the handgun or to the physical characteristics of the handgun that match those listed on the roster for use with the device under Penal Code Section 12088(d).
(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.
(2) The handgun is under the control of a person who is a peace officer under Penal Code Section 830.

Source: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco

The indentation is messed-up from the cut and paste. Go to the source reference, and search for "Sec. 4512" if you want to see the original.

This law even applies to motel rooms in the city. So if you're a visitor with a gun, you've got to lock your gun up in the motel room too. That makes it kind of tough to carry your gun safe around with you in your suitcase.

Oddly enough, there's an exception to this law if you carry the gun around on your person inside your home. Then it doesn't have to be locked. So when the police come to check on your gun storage compliance, be sure to tuck it into your waistband when you answer the door. And I suppose you can protect yourself at night by sleeping with your gun tucked into your pajamas.

Quade: Note there's nothing that says this only applies when you are away from home. It applies all the time, even when you're at home in direct control of the gun. Your assumption of some common-sense background for this law doesn't exist. That should be a lesson to you - don't expect common-sense in gun-control laws. So, are you ready to voice your opinion on this law now?

[quade 4]

Quote

(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.

I think this is a law based on good intentions, but poorly written. This is another one of those occasions where I believe the NRA could have given guidance to create a "good" law as opposed to a poorly written one.

Clearly the intent is as I had originally thought; to keep weapons secured when left unattended. The poor wording is in the "exception" part of the law that exempts guns that are "carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18."

I've maintained for awhile now that the NRA should help write laws that make sense rather than just oppose all laws. I think this is a perfect example of a lack of understanding by the lawmakers that could have been helped by good NRA comments during the creation of it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I've maintained for awhile now that the NRA should help write laws that make sense rather than just oppose all laws.

What makes you think that they don't?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(1) The handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18.

I think this is a law based on good intentions, but poorly written. This is another one of those occasions where I believe the NRA could have given guidance to create a "good" law as opposed to a poorly written one.

Clearly the intent is as I had originally thought; to keep weapons secured when left unattended. The poor wording is in the "exception" part of the law that exempts guns that are "carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18."

I've maintained for awhile now that the NRA should help write laws that make sense rather than just oppose all laws. I think this is a perfect example of a lack of understanding by the lawmakers that could have been helped by good NRA comments during the creation of it.

Sorry, you're talking out your ass on this one.

This law was put in during the litigation by the NRA to strike down the complete BAN on handguns. So 1) no, the City was not going to take advice from the NRA, 2) it was not at all about keeping weapons secured when the house is empty - this was about getting something else put through in the face of the impending strike down. They're weren't remotely the first with this nonsense legislation either.

If you think that reasonable conversation has anything to do with gun control laws in the Bay Area, you're wasting our time. They knew the ban was illegal going into the vote, but promoted it anyway.

And again the City will fight it, lose, and have to pay the NRA's bills.