With the deadline looming to pass bills out of their respective chambers this legislative session, anti-gun lawmakers in the California House and Senate approved three anti-gun measures that would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens while not affecting violent criminals.
Assembly 2917 was approved by the Assembly and now heads to the state Senate for consideration. The measure expands upon California’s existing Gun Violence Protective Order to allow the court to also consider “threats” directed towards a group or location when deciding whether to issue the order.
The measure also specifies: “While evidence of recent acquisitions is a factor the court may consider, the court may still issue a gun violence restraining order to temporarily prevent legal access to firearms even if the respondent does not own firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons at the time that the court is considering issuing a gun violence restraining order.”
Two Senate measures—Senate Bill 53 and Senate Bill 1253—were approved by that body and will now go to the Assembly for consideration.
SB 53 specifically prohibits firearm possession in the home unless the firearms are stored in a Department of Justice-approved locked box or safe that renders them inaccessible to anyone other than the owner. According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, this measure “ignores the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, which argued that storage requirements that prevent gun owners from easily accessing their firearms are unconstitutional.”
A legislative summary of the measure states: “The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. 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.”
SB 1253 would have prohibited anyone in California from possessing a firearm without a valid Firearm Safety Card. The measure was watered down somewhat in the amendment process and as passed requires anyone bringing a gun into the state to obtain an FSC within 120 days. Violation of the law would be punishable as a misdemeanor.
… maybe next session they’ll pass a bill allowing revocation of your drivers license if you live within five miles of a liquor store as preemptively disallowing a future dwi, revocation of voting rights if your neighbors suspect you of being a closet republican, confiscation of your garden hoses if you use them to wash hypodermic needles or human feces off of a public sidewalk,
the possibilities at this point are endless – a weaponized thought police is here.
LOL, lose your rights for an infraction? Fuck right off with that.
The Orwellian nightmare is rapidly becoming a reality in California. When will the populace wake up and vote those bozos out?
LOL,,Hey Beavis, He said vote.
Nnnyah hunhhunhhunh
“Nnn Populace”
Not likely. The electoral districts are probably more gerrymandered than Chicago.
Parasites have been outbreeding decent folks for decades in California. Things will only get worse…..it’s a lost cause.
We cannot, the bulk of anti-gun nuts live in urban coastal areas. While the rest of the state is conversative and pro-2A, Bay Area and LA have more people to vote for an Anti-2A agenda.
We cannot breakaway because the rural resources and taxes prop up the slackers in the urban areas.
Only 3? Slackers
Another court case thanks to dumbfuks who echo the democRat Party concocted buzzwords gun-violence and those supposedly on point Defending the 2A who allow such ignorant sht to take roots. Violence is Violence.
Violents dont smell as nice as rose’s DebbieW and pansies never start wars.
Flower Power.
where we all just sit around cleaning toe jam out of our toes waiting on the Symbionese Liberation Army to save us.
And Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland’s Thompson gun and bought it.
Roses( war of the roses)
Parables intrigued me.
Roses are Red Violents are Blue your support for TRUMP 2024 is way past due.
I liked Jan and Dean better then I did the Beachboys.
Speaking of music, I was out earlier with an ass aulty type gunm with a little larger claberer then 5sixfor5 and I got the rythm down just right and it sounded like a helicopter with the props canted going into a stiff headwind. Whooop whooop whoop whooop whooop whoop.
Even though it was an ass aulty type weapon it didnt seem to me it wanted to jump up and kill nobody, nope I think I heard it say, “Hey, girls just want to have fun, oh girls just fun to have.” — and then I ran out of bullets.
,,,oh this is/was about California .
Yeah California dreaming turned into a nightmare.
I wish they all were cali,,,,,
Back in the U.S.
back in the U.S.
Back in the USSR
…. and joe joe joe joe joe joe’s
always on my my my my my mi-i-ind ; back in the ussr,
don’t know how lucky you are….
Jan and Dean?
Try some Dick Dale, he’s wicked:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mKpsuGMeqHI&pp=ygUJRGljayBkYWxl
That song is the bomb!
This bill is even worse than I thought. It used to be that a firearm had to be accompanied by an “approved safety device,” which for practical purposes meant a cable lock. As of 1/1/2026, the statute will now provide:
This bill would instead require, beginning on January 1, 2026, the firearm to include or be accompanied by a lock box or safe, except as specified.
The exception is that you have a secure lock box or safe, but to fall within that exception the purchaser must have the original receipt:
(c) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if all of the following apply:
(1) The purchaser or transferee purchases an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm.
(2) The purchaser or transferee presents the approved safety device to the firearms dealer when picking up the firearm.
(3) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt to the firearms dealer, which shows the date of purchase, the name, and the model number of the safety device.
(4) The firearms dealer verifies that the requirements in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, have been satisfied.
In addition, all firearms must be kept securely stored unless on your person:
(c) As used in Sections 25105, 25135, 25145, 25205, 27882, and 27883, a firearm is “securely stored” only if both of following conditions apply to that firearm:
(1) The firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearm safety devices.
(2) The approved firearm safety device is properly engaged so that the firearm cannot be accessed by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized use
Another obnoxious change: former law did not require that firearms be kept locked up if one did not have a reasonable expectation of a minor (other than a thief) who could gain access to the firearm. But no more. This new bill requires all firearms to be kept locked up regardless. The only exception is if you have actual possession or “within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.”
I have had my safe long enough that I do not have the original receipt. So I have to purchase an “approved lock box” or another safe if I decide to buy any more firearms after 1-1-26. Also, any recipient of my firearms after my death, or as a gift, who lives in California, must also have a secure lock box or safe.
The only saving grace is that this bill does not apply to ammunition, or else you’d have to use that handgun to fight your way to your safe to get a reload.
The effectiveness, or constitutionality of any law is irrelevant, for as long as a court case takes to “overturn” such law.
Apparently, there is an old Chinese proverb, “May you live in interesting times”.
Seems we do.
Interesting is one word that describes i guess. I could think of a few more.
“Interesting is one word that describes i guess. I could think of a few more.”
Hhhhmmmm. That’s interesting.
Sounds like they are proceeding with the thought the democrats will turn the Supreme Court into their slave.
When will one of these Bills actually address crime?
Well now theres an interesting question. Really i think its mainly just about them hating the 2a. Crime is separate in their minds.
Crime is not criminal anymore……opposition to crime IS Criminal Now.
It is a stopgap measure for irresponsible gunowners who leave their firearms out for children or people who should not have access to firearms. The firearm (tool) is amoral without thought. The operator can be good or evil in their intent when using the tool.
Parent should teach their children and all minor who enter their homes about firearm safety. Parents should enroll their children in F/A safety courses every year.
“When will one of these Bills actually address crime?”
When the Dims no longer need criminals voting?
How are they going to enforce compliance? Unannounced “visits” by SWAT teams?
I would imagine a “see something, say something” campaign.
Rat your neighbor for your benevolent overlord, the infallible Almighty State.
“How are they going to enforce compliance? Unannounced “visits” by SWAT teams?”
Seems that in England, police just show up, unannounced, and demand to see all your firearms, and how they are secured. Coppers don’t fear getting a buckshot blast in the face. Everyone is so polite, donchaknow?
Comments are closed.