2023-24 session AB53 Firearms Storage

[cali_jazz]

I posted this in the other thread but the code is written pretty broadly and I actually think it being next to you while sleeping would be legal for the most part

the new Section 25145 added to the Penal Code says:

(3) “Readily controlled” by a person or another lawful authorized user means either of the following:
(A) The person or other lawful authorized user is carrying the firearm on their person.
(B) The person or other lawful authorized user is within close enough proximity to the firearm to readily prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to the firearm.

I think B is the concern. You're sleeping with the gun loaded on the nightstand. Your kid comes in and picks up the gun and ND's.
Can you readily control a firearm if you are unconscious?

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I think B is the concern. You're sleeping with the gun loaded on the nightstand. Your kid comes in and picks up the gun and ND's.
Can you readily control a firearm if you are unconscious?

Well sure, if you have kids running around you should have it locked up anyway

 

[Dvrjon]

I think B is the concern. You're sleeping with the gun loaded on the nightstand. Your kid comes in and picks up the gun and ND's.
Can you readily control a firearm if you are unconscious?

Would that be a ND?

 

[OlderThanDirt]

Be careful what you ask for!

No probable cause. I won’t be losing any sleep over this.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

Exaxtly. To be fair the law doesn't mention sleeping directly, it talks about being "readily controlled or on your person"
Since a first and second offence are citations, you'll have to weigh the costs ve risks.
This one clearly violates Heller and Bruen, hopefully a challenge is imminent.

What I want to know is how are they going to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn’t have it locked up before you used it on said intruder? That just seems ripe to be fought by someone they try to cite, because without seeing/knowing it wasn’t locked up beforehand, they have no basis to issue a citation. I can’t wait to get the hell out of this state once and for all.

 

[cali_jazz]

What I want to know is how are they going to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn’t have it locked up before you used it on said intruder? That just seems ripe to be fought by someone they try to cite, because without seeing/knowing it wasn’t locked up beforehand, they have no basis to issue a citation. I can’t wait to get the hell out of this state once and for all.

I can imagine a few scenarios, maybe not intruders but more like a child or teen gets a hold of your gun while you are sleeping and has an ND or your teenage son takes it to show his friends and something awful happens or a suicide by a family member. An investigation happens to determine how they got the gun including how / where it was stored. I believe the primary objective of the law is safety for kids and family followed by prohibited persons, and avoiding theft.

 

[bbp00]

I think B is the concern. You're sleeping with the gun loaded on the nightstand. Your kid comes in and picks up the gun and ND's.
Can you readily control a firearm if you are unconscious?

It's the matter of being responsible parent. Responsible parents know what to do. That applies to everything not only to firearms. Depending on the children's age, in average home there can be thousands of objects that are harmful to children. Responsible parents secure and educate. It worked well since dawn of man.
Nanny state laws never turned bad parent into good one.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

It's the matter of being responsible parent. Responsible parents know what to do. That applies to everything not only to firearms. Depending on the children's age, in average home there can be thousands of objects that are harmful to children. Responsible parents secure and educate. It worked well since dawn of man.
Nanny state laws never turned bad parent into good one.

TL;DR I’ll opine that having an actual home defense plan(s) would make this law benign for most “responsible” gun owners.

The problem is that there’s different interpretations of “responsible” (parenting or otherwise), let alone around firearms.

I’ve heard/hear plenty of “my kids know not to touch my firearms” but I don’t often hear why/how beyond “I just told them not to touch”. How might they respond or act if a friend gets access to a firearm that they shouldn’t have?

I get everyone’s situation and resources are different but even in the worst case scenario, my home defense plan(s) give me plenty of time to get my primary weapon [from its safe storage device], collect my family and get them to safety and setup to defend before (if) having to fire a single shot. But no shots fired is the best way to keep my family safe so that’s what I’m optimizing for.

A LOT would have to go wrong before having to defend because I invest heavily in detect, distract, deter phases. So I’m able to keep my firearms secured yet quickly accessible without compromise.

I get folks are sensitive about regulations - especially in California - but standing on its own this law is benign for myself and actually beneficial for some folks I know personally.

 

[ef9boy88]

I keep seeing the "I can just imagine your child gets ahold of it" scenario, and unfortunately that is exactly what legislators are playing on. That said if this is the case and it's all about safety there should be NO EXEMPTIONS.

 

[ef9boy88]

I get folks are sensitive about regulations - especially in California - but standing on its own this law is benign for myself and actually beneficial for some folks I know personally.

The downside to that part is that those folks likely want run out and buy a safe. There are already laws in place for what happens if your child gets a hold your gun whether or not anything tragic happens.
However with this if your gun is stolen somehow there is now a way to charge you with a crime as well.

 

[Dvrjon]

The downside to that part is that those folks likely want run out and buy a safe. There are already laws in place for what happens if your child gets a hold your gun whether or not anything tragic happens.
However with this if your gun is stolen somehow there is now a way to charge you with a crime as well.

What specific section of the code would be used for the charge? It appears that all prohibitions include a requirement that the firearm be "securely stored under
Section 25145:

(b) A firearm is “securely stored” if it is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or a secure gun safe.
(2) “Certified firearm safety device” means any firearm safety device or gun safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s roster of tested and approved firearm safety devices certified for sale pursuant to Section 23655.

Cable locks are included in those devices. If any gun was "stolen somehow" the law-abiding citizen would report the theft to the police, as required under law. Being a law-abiding citizen, if the firearm wasnʻt in a safe or lock box, it would have been securely stored by use of a cable lock.

 

[bazooka]

I think B is the concern. You're sleeping with the gun loaded on the nightstand. Your kid comes in and picks up the gun and ND's.
Can you readily control a firearm if you are unconscious?

The definition only mentions proximity, not mental state. Similarly, if you are carrying the firearm on your person, it doesn't specify that you have to be awake.

 

[ef9boy88]

What specific section of the code would be used for the charge? It appears that all prohibitions include a requirement that the firearm be "securely stored under
Section 25145:

Cable locks are included in those devices. If any gun was "stolen somehow" the law-abiding citizen would report the theft to the police, as required under law. Being a law-abiding citizen, if the firearm wasnʻt in a safe or lock box, it would have been securely stored by use of a cable lock.

They can still try to claim that it was stolen because it was not in properly stored.
Then move into the roster of approved safes. There are safes that last month were perfectly acceptable that are now not on that list.

 

[9Cal_OC]

As mentioned before, this bill goes against Heller v. DC and given the “penalties”, it’s more of a “feel good” law in the books that I’m sure most Californians will ignore.

 

[KingRansom]

No one should need an assembly bill to tell you buy a safe when you have a decent gun collection.

Agreed, and in the same turn nobody should tell you that you can't sleep with an unlocked firearm on your nightstand or in your house somewhere for protection. It's actually one of the most asinine laws to date.

 

[9Cal_OC]

And properly stored required a lock. How will they prove it wasn’t locked with a cable lock? The thief probably took it. Prove they didn’t. (And if the theif was was caught,

Exactly!

 

[Dvrjon]

You didn’t provide the code citation under which an individual could be charged,

They can still try to claim that it was stolen because it was not in properly stored.

“Trying to claim” is not a cause of action. They have to prove the elements of the crime. And properly stored required a lock. How will they prove it wasn’t locked with a cable lock? The thief probably took it. Prove they didn’t. (And if the thief was caught, they’re a thief. No one will believe them.)

Then move into the roster of approved safes. There are safes that last month were perfectly acceptable that are now not on that list.

Serious question…Did you even read the bill/statute?

25145.​

(a) Beginning on January 1, 2026, a person shall ensure that any firearm the person possesses in a residence is securely stored whenever the firearm is not being carried or readily controlled by the person or another lawful authorized user.
[…]
(d)(2) A person shall not be penalized for violating this section if they secure their firearm using a firearm safety device or gun safe that they reasonably believed to meet the requirements of this section, including a firearm safety device that was certified at the time the individual purchased the device or a safe that met the standards for gun safes adopted pursuant to Section 23650 at the time the individual purchased the safe.

 

[ef9boy88]

You didn’t provide the code citation under which an individual could be charged,

“Trying to claim” is not a cause of action. They have to prove the elements of the crime. And properly stored required a lock. How will they prove it wasn’t locked with a cable lock? The thief probably took it. Prove they didn’t. (And if the thief was caught, they’re a thief. No one will believe them.)

Serious question…Did you even read the bill/statute?

Not completely, experience with CA gunlaws has colored my opinion that CA is pretty much out to get us or set up conditions that cause us to run afoul of federal laws containing ambiguity.

 

[Dvrjon]

Not completely, experience with CA gunlaws has colored my opinion that CA is pretty much out to get us or set up conditions that cause us to run afoul of federal laws containing ambiguity.

I appreciate the honest answer. At the same time, it really is important to try to understand this stuff before claiming it’ll do something it expressly won’t. That helps to keep the focus on the real problems.

Best.

 

[Joker67]

There was a case a few years back in Greenbrae where a 90 year old was the victim of a home invasion by a meth addict. He was a retired Deputy and after the criminal was scouring his house for valuables he asked to go the bathroom. He had a .357 revolver stashed under his sink . He came out and was promptly shot in the face by the criminal. He then emptied his revolver at the perp. After putting 3 rounds into the guy, the criminal took his gun , put it to his head and pulled the trigger with no bullets left. Click...

Had he not had a now "illegally stored gun" he would be dead.

The criminal sued him for being shot and the case was thrown out.

Marin Homeowner Sued By Alleged Burglar Who Shot Him In Face

A homeowner who police say survived being shot in the jaw during a burglary has received startling news: The burglary suspect sued him for returning fire.

www.cbsnews.com

Former Novato Man Gets Hefty Prison Sentence For Attempted Murder of Elderly Man

Samuel Cutrufelli, 31, will serve 86 years, 4 months in prison for the January shooting, burglary.

patch.com

Do you think today , in woke Marin, they would have charged the former deputy with improper storage of a firearm?

As an aside, I read a lot on this site that is fundamentally baseless, particularly from the " I would never" crowd. There is a lot of "you can't" and "no one does" and " you would get arrested for" that is baloney. The reality is, wisely, people in the know refrain from posting the truth because sites like this are scoured by anti gun "activists", organizations and the DOJ. That's as much as I'll say.

I was at Guns Fishing in Vacaville a few years back and there was the most milquetoast , spaghetti armed guy shooting rented pistol after rented pistol. He was shooting from his hip with one hand , catching brass in a net with the other. Terribly. He was from UC Davis, trying to show that ranges expose people to dangerous levels of lead in the hopes that this research would shut down shooting facilities. He was a stereotype of a condescending social justice warrior. It was eye opening. That's who we are up against.