“Starting in December, gun owners in San Jose will have to put their guns in a locked box when they leave the house,” sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com reports. “A deeply divided City Council narrowly passed the new law which requires gun owners to secure their firearms in a gun safe, lockbox or with a trigger lock whenever they’re not home.” How, pray tell, is the SJPD going to enforce this new law? Surprise home inspections? Post-burglary investigations? Gun control lunacy aside . . .
Do you lock-up your guns when you’re not home? I know a Texan with a couple of functional wall hangers that remain in situ when he’s out and about. He reckons his alarm system and two big dogs protect his firearms, and resents the idea that the government should tell him what to do in the privacy of his own home, period. Right answer?
No ones business but my own.
My house, my rules. Stay out of my home, no concern if firearms are “accessible” or not.
This is an ongoing attempt to criminalize gun owners which is fairly common. Mandatory reporting of stolen firearms plus mandatory storage laws means you can become a criminal because someone broke into your house.
This is not “common sense” regulation. This is another attempt to discourage firearms ownership…the long game.
“No ones business but my own. ”
This.
Except that burglars robbing your house get your guns for free with ease, which in turn arms thugs on the street, who promptly attempt to rob, rape, murder, etc. the rest of us.
Tell me, Mr. Selfish, do you leave open flames burning when no one is home, too? Why shouldn’t you? You don’t give a crap and won’t lift a finger to help reduce violent crime that spills out from your lackadaisical attitude. Why should you give a damn about burning down the neighborhood?
This, among other reasons, is why they hate us. Only this is different, because they actually have a valid point. Sure, the antis overplay their hand by passing mandates like this. Their real agenda has nothing to do with safety or crime. I get it. Still, reckless, idiotic 2A absolutists just hand them this issue on a silver platter because you refuse to secure your weapons.
We decry background checks because we argue that criminals get their guns from theft and the black market, anyway. Then we refuse to secure our weapons. We scream and cry about involuntary commitments and gun confiscation, but we refuse to anything about that heavily armed, psychotic uncle some families have, preferring instead to write off his increasingly bizarre and threatening antics as just his being colorful and eccentric. Then we all just sigh and shrug when one of these lunatics mows down a dozen people at the mall.
2A Absolutists: Whining about their own rights, but doing jack squat to respect anyone else’s, since the 1960s.
Shut up troll!
Troll?
Nah. Jonathan is on our side.
And he has some valid points – I’m just reluctant to make a character judgement on a fellow gun owner who chooses to not secure their property. All I can do is state why I choose to secure mine: because I would be really upset if my guns were easily stolen and would be more upset still if I learned any were used to hurt someone else. So I lock them up, figuring my mind would feel clearer if the thief had to work hard for my guns rather than simply picking them up out of the closet corner.
BLoving, you just made all of the valid points Jonathan was trying to make without insulting anyone, blaming burglary victims, or suggesting that leaving an inanimate object in your house is the same thing as leaving an open flame unattended in your house. Thanks for expressing an opinion without being combative!
I’ve had a firearm stolen, and it was used in robberys, I got it back Thanx to serial number check. I felt bad and stupid, I HIDE MY GUNS IN THE CLOSET now,. ,,,,
Yes, you’re a worthless troll. If you’re worried about who has guns and who doesn’t then the answer is ALWAYS the same; make sure you have one because NO ONE ELSE on this planet takes responsibility for your personal safety. You’re just making the same BS excuses like ‘blame the NRA’; ‘blame the manufacturers’; ‘blame Bush/Trump’; just another fucking excuse to ignore your own personal responsibilities so you can wag your finger from your little pedestal.
Wow, Jonathan, your douchebaggery is easy to see. My house is usually locked, but I live with careless teenagers and such – you know, normal stuff. I’ve got a home alarm, dogs, gun safes, motion lights, etc. Here’s the thing, nobody has a home that is completely secure. If you are robbed of anything else, you are a victim. But if you are robbed of guns suddenly you are another bad guy? I don’t think so.
Most “gun safes” can be defeated by anyone with nothing more than a sledge hammer and YouTube…
Liberty makes pretty good gun safes.
However, the only truly secure “safe” for firearms is the one you can’t see or don’t recognize as a safe. Unless you are willing to spend a fortune on an immovable, unbreakable safe secured to your concrete floor you can be defeated.
So, in Sacramento, how long before professional burglars start casing stores that sell gun safes and following their customers home? The bigger and badder the safe you’re looking at or purchasing, the more likely someone will be interested in seeing what you own BEFORE that safe is delivered.
Just sayin’.
“sigh and shrug.” yeah, no. more like “open frosty and curse.”
you and the mouse in your pocket should find a new crowd to hang with.
one time we had a break in but nothing was taken, only the stove top burners had been turned on.
i never lock up my guns when i leave the house, they usually wait until i get to the range and then do that on their own.
John, I’m just curious, what rights exactly are not being respected, since the 1960’s? And is it any justification for others to disrespect our civil/constitutional rights?
John, I’m just curious, what rights exactly are not being respected, since the 1960’s? And is it any justification for others to disrespect our civil/constitutional rights?
Lock ’em up like the National Guard in Massachusetts? No. I lock my front door.
The blame lies squarely with the thief and the government for not keeping a certain subset of the population behind bars. PERIOD!
Edit: Am I responsible for what a car thief does if he breaks into my locked vehicle and kills someone with it? Should I have also put it in a locked garage too? That’s what they are arguing here. Sorry not buying it.
Amen to that.
Everything point you make is the truth, DY; however, truth rarely slows down the elite’s constant attack on Americans owning guns. They have plans, and armed citizens is not something that they want to deal with. If we love what freedom we have left, we must understand the implications of these actions and oppose them in every way required.
Nope. I mean no lockup.
I have one strategically placed Mossberg 930 that doesn’t get locked up unless the grandkids are visiting. Not exactly hidden, not exactly in plain view. The burglar looking for a quick score wouldn’t find it, but it might get noticed by someone with plenty of time.
I am trying to come up with a better way to hide it, but it can’t do its job if it’s locked in a safe.
You may want to give a Fast Box from SecureIt a look see, I bought one for my Mossberg 590A1. It won’t keep out a determined thief but it’s better than nothing. I rent, and therefore I cannot make the necessary modifications to my home (drilling into the floor etc) to warrant buying a proper safe. The Fast Box mounts to the bed frame and is small enough to be concealed with a bed skirt.
https://www.secureitgunstorage.com/product/hidden-gun-safe-model-47/
Have you considered the shotgun lamp a la “The Great Outdoors”?
I do lock my guns up when I’m gone, but only out of concern about theft, not some guilt trip bullshit laid on by others.
^^ That. Right there.
I lock them all up because I don’t want to get shot with my own weapons by a burglar. I also don’t want to explain to the insurance company why they were not locked up if they were stolen.
Spot on. My damn *HOME* is supposed to be secure from thieves, and if it is not that is the fault of LE and/or the courts. Once a freaking criminal is in my home, he should be made aware that he must simply lock up my guns instead of stealing them, or LE and the courts will be mean to him. These idiots are smart enough to realize that such concepts are stupid, so they seek to protect the criminals by restricting ME, instead of putting criminals in prison. After imposing rules like this, will a burglar even be committing a crime when he takes my guns? Or will all be forgiven because I was supposed to lock them up?
Certainly, they’re behind a Maxwell Smart-like set of doors. Including the DNA-sampling “nose snapper” at the end just in case someone makes it that far…
In all seriousness, we make sure they all go back to the same place when we leave, so all family members and trusted friends know where they are and how to get to them in case of need. Any guns not where they should be are either with us or in the workshop and down for repair (and in a non-functional state).
This is basically certain people thinking they can legislate moral behavior: “if we make a law saying that poeple have to lock up their guns, that will make parents in to responsible people who lock up their guns to ‘protect the children.'”
No it won’t. And fuck you. You just want to punish people for owning things you think are icky.
Agreed on all points; one can legislate neither morality nor good judgment.
OK, so do you wear your seat belt? I can tell you that in the 70’s, you probably did not. And were are we with smoking in this country? Child seats in cars? How often do you see a kid in the front seat?
The point is that one may choose to wear a seat belt because they acknowledge the risk. Parents are responsible for their children. Again, this is risk mitigation.
Were basically all parents in the 70s and 80s guilty of criminal negligence because they didn’t have their kids in a seat until they were 16? Absurd.
Forcing someone to do something may get you some form of compliance but that doesn’t mean that you’ve changed the persons heart or mind and therefore they are now “moral”. That term is not synonymous with “law abiding citizen.”
In China, when they had the one child policy, the citizens would’ve been law abiding when they went in to kill their 2nd non-legal child…was this moral? Absurd. Law abiding? Yes.
Seat belts and gun possession are not the same thing. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment which was put in place for a specific purpose of keeping the hand of government off guns owned by citizens. For similar reasons “mandatory seat-belt” rules are not applicable to our rights to free speech. You can argue that all manner of behavioral accommodations will result in a safer society but they come to a dead stop when they run into our constitutional guarantees. This is exactly what our founders intended.
The problem is that when things like “Safe Storage” are enforced by law, it rapidly becomes a tool to punish ordinary peaceable gun owners who aren’t committing crimes or causing trouble. This is the Canadian experience- I see no reason to believe it would be different elsewhere.
Gary Mauser conducted a review of criminal charges laid against licensed gun owners in Canada, and came up with some important results. The key element is below:
“…I found that that 2,490 criminal charges were laid each year for “Unsafe Storage” from 1998 to 2016 across Canada. Add in another 587 additional charges for “Firearms Documentation” to total more than 3,000 charges per year for violating bureaucratic firearms rules… I found that just 4% of the charges for documentation irregularities involving “unsafe storage” of firearms and “firearms documentation” were accompanied by criminal charges for violence. In 96% of these cases, the gun owner in question was just charged with administrative violations, without involving any violence.”
http://justiceforgunowners.ca/are-peaceable-pal-holders-being-deliberately-disarmed/
I’m not arguing about the law, just the statement “one can legislate neither morality nor good judgment”. That is most definitely not the case. And one can looks at law that effectively changed peoples behaviors. How effective do you think just telling people that using seat belts would have been a changing behavior? Or smoking is bad for you, but you can get a pack for $1 at any age and smoke anywhere.
Or how about this for a “reasonable” law, carrying an AR15 at low ready on a one point sling, safety off and finger on the trigger is illegal. Or just you hand on the grip.
No I don’t lock my guns, but I do lock my house. I don’t wear my seat belt, a motorcycle helmet nor do I wear a bicycle helmet elbow and knee pads or a mouth guard just because some body decided to legislate to the least intelligent denominator.
So the question is this, then: Would your behavior be different, or your judgment better, if there were no law?
The law can, and certainly does, provide punishments if you fail to abide by the laws. A law might make you thoughtful, and it might make you decide to not, let’s say, take a bicycle off someone’s bike rack in a parking lot. But a person who doesn’t take the bike because he thinks theft is wrong, has a very different moral outlook than the person who doesn’t take it only because they’re afraid of what will happen if they get caught.
Consider a cliff with a gently increasing slope, rather than a sharp edge. A sign that says “If you walk beyond this point you may slip, fall and die” does not make anyone more intelligent, nor is it guaranteed to improve their judgment in other circumstances. It would reduces the mess at the bottom of this particular cliff, but that’s it.
Binder, you can have safe storage laws, but be prepared for them to be weaponized and used against ordinary, peaceable people. In Canada, in self-defense cases, one of the first things the defender gets hit with is an unsafe storage charge. Ian Thomson’s case is a textbook example- the prosecution was arguing that there was no way he could have removed his revolver from safe storage in time, therefore it must have been unsafely stored. Then they tried to argue about the proximity of ammunition, then some other nonsense. Fortunately Mr. Thomson won his case, but that was years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so.
I’m not arguing the philosophical implications, I’m pointing out the real-world results of these laws.
As mentioned before…mine are locked in a safe/closet to avoid theft…nothing more.
If you leave and lock your house…the HOUSE is a locked container…just sayin’…
Yes I do lock up my guns when I’m not at home. No reason to leave them vulnerable to theft. When I am home though, I always have one on me or within reach.
Schnauzer Alert!
Two shotguns “locked” to the wall in the bedroom. A backup pistol stuffed between the mattress and box spring and my EDC gussied up on the bed side table at night.
Everything else goes in the safe because I don’t have insurance riders on my gun collection.
“A deeply divided City Council narrowly passed the new law which ”
“requires gun owners to secure their firearms in a gun safe, ”
“lock box or with a trigger lock whenever they’re not home.”
That seems poorly worded.
So you would have to put a trigger lock on a gun you have with you
when you are not at home ?
No, just on the ones you leave at home. The purpose is not to deter theft, but to prevent children from having access. Thus, the law is massively overinclusive, but nonetheless, under controlling authority in the Ninth Circuit, it is a valid restriction.
Obviously, otherwise you’re basically inviting theft of your firearms.
Rubbish.
Leaving them leaned up against your trash can next to the curb on garbage day is inviting theft. Leaving them inside my home requires committing criminal trespass and burglary in order to steal them. That is not an invitation.
It’s difficult for urbanites to imagine, but there are vast areas of the U.S. where few people routinely lock their house, garage or car. People pull into town and park their pickup truck, rifle in a gun rack in plain view, and leave the windows down so the cab doesn’t get too hot. These areas have less crime than urban areas where locks on everything are considered mandatory.
You forgot to mention the keys to that truck are in the ignition.
That doesn’t make the behavior wise.
Meth is everywhere.
This is California, and there is one thing I have observed about California is this: Because California has so many stupid laws, many Californians ignore most laws. Sometimes, they view People who follow the rules as weak. Strange, but understandable. Has anyone else made the same observation?
Me, and I live in Ohio.
i pity the fool that tries to get the answer to this question by a little B&E.
I have NRA insurance on all of my guns. All three of them. My wife and I each have our own every day carry piece that stays with us 24/7. The third is my previous EDC, which stays in a locked case so that I don’t have to remember to lock it up when minor children visit.
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(b) 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://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm
…lock ’em up when away…absolutely. If someone breaks in whilst I’m out and lifts a firearm because I left one sitting around, my ass is in the sling.
How ever, when the “lock ’em up even when you are home” city ordinance is passed, I’ll ignore it.
live in N.Y.S. you have to lock up pictures of guns here
I hope some of the Coke that just shot out my nose messed up your keyboard, too.
Anything that is not carried is in one of 2 safes. My Best safe has electronic lock, which is why I have an ak and a glock 17 in case the unthinkable happens and Nork invades in another safe with mechanical lock
Too many years of being beaten down in MA has me securing my guns when I’m not home. At least there’s some theft protection as a secondary “benefit”.
It is a rare event indeed that our home is actually unoccupied by humans. But I have well trained Wilson, our Chessie, in the 4 rules and he is an excellent marksman with both pistol and rifle.
A: No.
Have grandkids around a lot, everything but my carry gun stays in safe.
I wouldn’t leave $500 in cash sitting on my nightstand, why the hell would I leave a $500 gun sitting on my nightstand?
If you have a gun, you need a safe.
Or a holster.
My money, my guns, my house, my rules.
Why don’t they make it illegal to break into someone’s house and steal their guns? Talk about blaming the victim. Should all car keys be locked up to prevent auto thefts? Should women be required to wear chastity belts to prevent rapes?
Sort of…handguns go in a drawer that’s very hard to pull out if pushed in. A trick drawer.No little kids. Maverick behind a door. When I get an AR it will change. Not at all sure about a safe. I’ll figure it out…any suggestions?
If you don’t need to have the AR ready to go, pull the bolt and lock it up. Also, I like the magazine well locks for transportation.
Typical stupid California government, trying hard to make owning firearms illegal. Total overreaching and victim blaming. Guess if a burglar steals your firearm and shoot himself with it he can probably sue you, God forbid he cuts himself on the window he/she breaks to get into your place, it wasn’t tempered, so you get sued. California is full of idiots.
If a gun is not going with me when I leave, it’s typically locked up. No kids at home anymore, but I still do it to deter thieves should they get past my big Rottweiler. But that’s a choice I make of my own accord. I do not recognize the authority of nor will I comply with any level of government attempting to mandate what I do with my firearms in the privacy of my own home.
I carry even while at home, with my AR locked but fairly accessible. The rest are locked all the time. I had kids at home, and it’s a habit I maintain. And it makes my wife feel better. But not because the government tells me so.
San Francisco has a far more offensive ordinance that requires that all guns be disabled or secured in a safe unless in one’s immediate possession–and by that they mean on your body. A ridiculous law, but unfortunately one that was upheld as not violative of the Second Amendment by the Ninth Circuit. So the San Jose ordinance is valid under that controlling authority.
The purpose of these laws is to reduce the risk that a child will cause injury to himself or others if the child gains access to an unsecured and loaded firearm. And as we all know, such accidents do happen. There is already a law that declares it is a crime not to secure your firearms and a child causes injury to himself or other. So these laws just guild the lily. The laws are not intended to prevent theft.
To answer the question, no, I do not secure my firearms. I do not own a safe. Some guns (black powder revolvers) are in plain sight if a burglar wants to take them, the others less obvious, on my person, or well hidden. But we do not go out much (my wife is disabled), we have no children (they are grown) or grandchildren or any minors coming into the house. i
My entire house is a “lockbox” when I’m not home.
Beyond that: none of the government’s business.
Came here to say this.^
Is this kind of like blaming the victim? You had it coming wearing something so revealing….oops, I mean having something desireable to the criminals in your home you were just asking for a break-in.
And, of course, how is this enforced? Is this just another one of those ‘add-on’ charges that the criminal courts love so much where a simple crime can suddenly have a bunch of things added to it to become a much bigger crime (and therefore worthy of so much more news coverage).
Yes, my firearms are secured when I am not at home because they are in my home and I lock my doors.
And before anyone screeches that my firearms should also be locked in a box inside my home: a thief who is willing to break into your Big Locked Box (your home) is willing to break into your little locked box (your gun box/cabinet/safe).
Whether they break into the little locked box while they are still in your home or cart your locked box away to their garage to break into it doesn’t really matter.
And yes, I do tend to keep my firearms locked in another box in my home, although that is really to secure them from any small children who happen to visit.
Note: keeping all of your guns in a locked box actually makes it easier for a thief to carry away ALL of your firearms: it is far easier to carry 7 rifles and 6 handguns in a convenient carry case (your gun box/cabinet/safe) out your door than to try and gather them from multiple locations in your home and carry all of them in your hands out the door.
Mine’s heavy as f*ck and bolted to the floor.
Yeah, mine was empty and 600 lbs when it was bolted to the floor, now it is NOT empty and much heavier. The guns and other stuff locked in it when I’m home are locked in it when I leave. There are guns which are not in that category.
It’s your best, and worst, guess.
It depends. Lets forget that they are guns for a second.
They are extremely pilferable, valuable, and have a ready black market. I lock up any guns that I’m not likely to use. I keep a shotgun out and loaded, my trusty M&P9c and my M&P Bodyguard. Everything else I lock up, not for safety, but for the same reason I have my phone encrypted I don’t want to make it easy for a thief. The fact that they are guns is hardly a consideration. I live alone with my two dogs and a cat, I wouldn’t leave other valuables laying around that aren’t in everyday use, nor do I do so with guns.
We don’t need a law on this.
I do indeed , for the same reasons that they most likely passed this law . TO COVER THEIR ASSES .
I don’t think the city will have to ‘ enforce ‘ , this , it is obviously not constitutionally enforceable , but if a criminal breaks into your home when you are not there and picks up a loaded gun next to your bed and then commits a crime with it , the city and the victims of the crime will now have better chances of receiving financial compensations through civil courts because the criminals, although liable , usually have no assets .
I would move and tell the city why before you go .
Personally , I do it because I’m staying with my 93 year old mother in law currently , to care for her in her late life , and there are visitors in and out a lot , many with young children and I know very personally ‘ MURPHY’S LAW ‘ is alive and active in my life .
Hey guys, let’s start this conversation all over. This law is not intended to deter theft. It has nothing to do with theft. It is solely intended to keep minors separated from firearms. The law will be enforced when a kid gets ahold of a gun and shoots himself or someone else. Otherwise, no one is coming into your house to check to see that you locked up your guns when you left the house. Which makes it pretty pointless–as an ordinance, it gets punished as an infraction, maybe a misdemeanor. But when a kid gets a gun, the owner may be facing a serious state law felony.
So the law is overkill. It is pointless for anyone who doewn’t have minors living or visiting under their roof, but penalizes people any way.
In case anyone misunderstood my comment , thanks for the reiteration .
First 3 purchases
1 Mossy 500
2 AK
3 Safe.
Not telling anyone what they should do. I feel I owe it to fellow gunners to stay out of trouble. My personal choice. I also have a central alarm, so….
And not for nothing, but I lost a Beretta cheetah in a burglary.
guess
Safes.Cameras.Kill Zone.Claymores and few other surprises. That about covers it. Uncle Sam and the Viet Cong were great teachers.
Did you know it’s a felony to booby trap your own house, and if a theif gets killed by them your charged with manslaughter, and if they get hurt they can sue you? It ain’t right but it’s the law.
Know DON’T Care…
Gun safes aren’t safes. They’re sheet metal boxes that can be broken into with hand tools. Proper safes large enough to store long guns cost more than what my meager collection is worth. My guns are insured against theft. I don’t have kids, but I do keep my guns locked up in a sheet metal cabinet if I know nobody will be home that day, just in case one of the neighborhood brats decides to break and enter.
Yeah, I lock ’em up. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the responsible thing to do. But please — we do not need yet another goddam law.
Why would I lock my guns up in a safe? I already lock them up in my house. If someone breaks into my house a tiny handgun safe isn’t going to stop them. They are going to pick it up, carry it out, and then smash it open at their convenience.
Personally I lock them just in case of uninvited guests. To each their own! Of course the carry piece is always on me!
I’ve got kids and I don’t want to deal with the hassle of reporting stolen firearms, so yes, my guns are locked up when they are not on my person, like any responsible gun owner.
Some valid points on both sides. I could and should keep a loaded gun in each room in the house, but I don’t at the moment. I know a few with no small children/grandchildren who do. Lock them up when they go on vacation, but not when they go to the local 7-11.
I keep my guns stored in a liberals a$$. Nobody wants to look there!
Comments are closed.