PDA

View Full Version : LA City Council Votes In Favor To Require Safe Storeage of Handguns Within Homes



Artful
10-28-2015, 06:11 PM
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/10/27/la-city-council-to-vote-on-motion-to-safely-store-handguns-within-homes/


LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously in favor Tuesday to require firearms to be stored safely within homes.

Under the motion, handguns will need to be disabled, locked in a container and kept on the owner’s person or placed within that person’s reach.

The measure (PDF) (http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014/14-1553_misc_10-22-2015.pdf), which is backed by Councilman Paul Krekorian, aims to keep weapons away from children or others who could unintentionally harm themselves.

Krekorian told KNX 1070 police will only be able to enforce the law under specific circumstances, such as “when the police have an interaction with a family for example that’s engaged in domestic violence, or when a county work checks on home in a child welfare check.”
Council members voted on the ordinance at 10 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles.


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gun-storage-20151027-story.html


L.A. to require that stored handguns be locked up or disabled

Los Angeles lawmakers voted unanimously Tuesday to pass a new law requiring Angelenos to lock up or disable their handguns at home if they aren’t close at hand.

In an impassioned speech before the vote, City Councilman Paul Krekorian argued that the new rules would help prevent deadly accidents and youth suicides by stopping the guns from falling into the hands of curious children or despondent teenagers. Krekorian said more preschoolers are killed with guns annually than police officers.

“It’s unacceptable to live in a country where it’s more dangerous to be a preschooler than to be a police officer — and we can do something about that today,” Krekorian said.

Under the new law, Angelenos who violate the storage requirements could face a misdemeanor charge. Gun rights activists have warned they may sue over the rules, arguing that city lawmakers shouldn’t decide how people choose to protect themselves in their homes.

L.A. is already being sued over another gun control measure passed this year — a ban on firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition — on the grounds that it is preempted by state law. Attorneys for the National Rifle Assn. have raised similar arguments about the storage law.

The Council had already voted in favor of the gun storage rules earlier this year, but city lawyers still had to hammer out the final wording of the ordinance.

Under the law, handguns must be locked up or disabled with a trigger lock unless they are “within close enough proximity and control” that the owner or another legally authorized user can readily retrieve and use them "as if carried on the person."

That wording was added partly to reassure the police union, which had raised concerns about whether retired officers would be able to quickly access their guns and pushed for an exemption.

It is unclear exactly what the rules could mean in specific situations — for instance, whether someone could sleep with a loaded gun on his or her nightstand.

The question of whether someone was in control “would be a case by case, fact-based determination made by a court,” said Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for City Atty. Mike Feuer.

Krekorian said police won’t be going door-to-door to examine how guns are stored but could encounter violations while reacting to other calls or in the aftermath of a shooting.

Before the Tuesday meeting, a Krekorian aide emailed gun control activists saying that Councilman Mitch Englander's office had sought to delay the vote on the gun storage rules. Englander said that wasn't true and reiterated that he firmly believed the law was necessary.

“This is less about gun control and simply more about controlling your gun,” Englander said before the council voted 14-to-0 for the new law. “It’s really that simple.” Councilman Gil Cedillo was absent.

Krekorian and Englander stood side by side at a news conference after the vote, where Englander attributed the talk of a delay to "a miscommunication." Mayor Eric Garcetti plans to sign the law, which would go into effect 30 days after he does so.


from the PDF link in the first story


WHEREAS, firearm injuries have a significant public health impact both nationally and locally;

WHEREAS, between 1999 and 2010, over 8,300 unintentional shooting deaths were reported in the United States, including 2,383 children and young people under the age of 21;

WHEREAS, on the average, over 16,000 people in the United States are treated each year in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional gunshot wounds;

WHEREAS, in 2010, firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the United States, constituting almost 62 percent of all gun deaths;

WHEREAS, over 50 percent of suicides are committed with a firearm; WHEREAS, approximately 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010;

WHEREAS, firearms were used in 44 percent of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010;

WHEREAS, more than 75 percent of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of people under 19 years of age were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend;

WHEREAS, a 1991 study found that 8 percent of accidental shooting deaths resulted from guns fired by children under the age of six;

WHEREAS, having a loaded or unlocked gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of gun-related injury and death;

WHEREAS, in 2013, more than five children under the age of 12 were killed each month by guns that were improperly stored and secured at the home of a family member or friend;

WHEREAS, children are particularly at risk of injury and death, or causing injury and death, when they can access guns in their own homes or homes that they visit;

WHEREAS, a 2005 study found that an estimated 1.69 million children age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms. Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire handguns;

WHEREAS, more than two thirds of school shooters obtained their guns from their own home or that of a relative;

WHEREAS, quick access to loaded firearms heightens the risk that a young person’s impulsive decision to commit suicide will be carried out without reflection or seeking help, and that the attempt will be fatal. One third of youths who died by suicide had faced a crisis within the previous 24 hours. Among people who nearly died in a
suicide attempt, almost a quarter indicated that fewer than five minutes had passed between deciding on suicide and making the attempt. While fewer than 10 percent of suicide attempts by other means are fatal, at least 85 percent of firearm suicide attempts end in death;

WHEREAS, guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault, or used in suicides and against family and friends rather than in self-defense;

WHEREAS, only one in ten firearm homicides in the shooter’s home is considered justified. Of every ten firearm homicide victims killed at the shooter’s residence, six were intimate partners or family members of the shooter, three were friends or acquaintances of the shooter, and only one was a stranger to the shooter;

WHEREAS, applying trigger locks or using lockboxes when storing firearms in the home reduces the risk of firearm injury and death;

WHEREAS, keeping a firearm locked when it is not being carried ensures that it cannot be accessed and used by others without the owners’ knowledge or permission.

This simple measure significantly decreases the risk that the gun will be used to commit suicide, homicide or inflict injury, whether intentionally or unintentionally;

WHEREAS, safe storage measures have a demonstrated protective effect in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored;

WHEREAS, there is a wide consensus among medical professionals, police chiefs, gun control advocates and gun rights groups that applying trigger locks or using lockboxes to store unsupervised guns in the home promotes health and safety;

WHEREAS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that state and local governments mandate safe storage of firearms;

WHEREAS, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that, if families must have firearms in their homes, the firearms should be stored locked, unloaded and separate from locked ammunition;

shooter93
10-28-2015, 06:29 PM
I believe this was also argued in the Heller case and the Justices found that those types of restrictions negate the real ability to defend your home so this one will be going to higher courts I'm sure.

MaryB
10-28-2015, 10:32 PM
Kalifornistan...

NavyVet1959
10-28-2015, 10:45 PM
They forgot a "WHEREAS" clause:

"WHEREAS the LA City Council is full of cowardly leftist faggots who are scared of their own shadows..."

OptimusPanda
10-28-2015, 11:07 PM
We have the same thing here in Mass. Except it's all firearms that need to be locked, and the penalties are higher if you leave a "high capacity" firearm unlocked.

Duckiller
10-29-2015, 02:00 AM
Serious questions if the Los Angeles City council has the right to pass laws on magazine capacity or how citizens store firearms. State law may have precluded the City for passing these laws. NRA, CRPA and several sheriffs have sued the city over magazine capacity and I am sure that some good citizen of Los Angeles will sue over how they have to store their firearms. City will be defended by the City Attorney (at tax payer expense) and if the City looses the council members suffer no consequences for passing an illegal law. In theory an informed electorate would vote such a council out of office. If we really had an informed electorate we would never vote these idiots into office. Stupid electorate=stupid elected officials.

NavyVet1959
10-29-2015, 06:59 AM
The Council Members should have to pay out of their own pockets if they lose the court case. That might make them think twice before coming up with any other braindead ordinances.

dragon813gt
10-29-2015, 07:20 AM
So how will this prevent firearms being used in a criminal manner? Should be interesting to see if they amend it to say law enforcement is exempt from this law.

mjwcaster
10-29-2015, 09:10 AM
I believe this was also argued in the Heller case and the Justices found that those types of restrictions negate the real ability to defend your home so this one will be going to higher courts I'm sure.

Yes it was found unconstitutional in Heller.
From Wikipedia (Ok not the best source, but it agrees with my recollection of the case)-
-----------
The Supreme Court struck down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States) provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975) as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) and shotguns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun) be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_lock)."
---------------
And then incorporated (applied to state and local governments, not just Federal) in McDonald vs Chicago (Rip Otis).

IIRC Chicago tried the same type of regulations (non-operable, or maybe it was 1 functioning) after McDonald, and was further spanked in the courts.

My memory is fuzzy on the exact sequence and cases involved.

I guess it is time to donate to the SAF (and others) and let them do their thing.

When will they learn?

Even Chicago has stopped fighting some lawsuits, and passing some unconstitutional legislation.
But only some.

scarry scarney
10-29-2015, 12:07 PM
The different Sheriff's are suing, saying that under the Los Angeles city ordinance, their deputies could be arrested for having a magazine that holds more then 10 rounds, even if they were in the LA on official business.

I like NavyVet's comment of having the city council members pay the court battle!

NavyVet1959
10-29-2015, 02:47 PM
I like NavyVet's comment of having the city council members pay the court battle!

The problem that we have is that these people (legislators, council members, HOA board members, etc) can create whatever rule they want and basically face no punishment for it. At worst, they *might* get voted out of office. They have created rules that shield them from being sued or if they are sued, the governing body pays for the legal defense. They need to be held accountable. With their personal wealth is threatened, maybe they will reconsider creating these stupid rules.

MaryB
10-29-2015, 09:46 PM
Like the idiot dem in the senate who introduced a bill placing a $100 tax on all guns? Shades of Jim Crow laws! Guess what segment won't be able to defend themselves? The poor dems claim to represent! They should have to pay for every dime of taxpayer money wasted on these bills that have zero chance of going anywhere.

TXGunNut
10-29-2015, 10:23 PM
With 20+ Whereas's it's a "simple measure"? Yes, firearms should be stored safely. I live alone, my doors are all locked (to protect casual intruders ;-)). Every firearm in my house is stored safely. Thank God I live in Texas.

MtGun44
10-30-2015, 12:51 AM
I do not buy their claim of 16,000 accidental gunshot wounds per year.

If they make the gun unusable for self defense they will run afoul of the
Washington DC Heller ruling.

NavyVet1959
10-30-2015, 06:48 AM
If they make the gun unusable for self defense they will run afoul of the
Washington DC Heller ruling.

They don't care. They figure that it will take awhile for it to make it through the courts and in the mean time, they are able to oppress their citizens with impunity.

Until we take away their personal legal protection and immunity, they will keep doing things like this. They need to understand that when they infringe upon the rights of their citizens, they will *personally* pay for it is a most direct manner.

MaryB
10-31-2015, 12:17 AM
Temporary restraining order stops them cold while it is in court!

GabbyM
10-31-2015, 10:01 AM
They just want to set up laws that will allow them to bust into any gun owners home then arrest them for a violation, at will. That's what laws are for. They tried some pretty unbelievable stuff here in Illinois. but the Illinois State Police stepped in to put a stop to it. Like Attorney General Lisa Madigan trying to publish the names of all Firearms ID card holders in the state.

popper
10-31-2015, 11:08 AM
Texas has an almost similar law, anything happens with your gun and your double screwed. I understand about toddlers, the older ones just haven't been taught to leave other people's stuff alone.

dtknowles
10-31-2015, 12:15 PM
Like the idiot dem in the senate who introduced a bill placing a $100 tax on all guns? Shades of Jim Crow laws! Guess what segment won't be able to defend themselves? The poor dems claim to represent! They should have to pay for every dime of taxpayer money wasted on these bills that have zero chance of going anywhere.

Just playing a little devils advocate here, who would run for office or propose any legislation if some court could decide that your legislation was frivolous and you could be expected to pay the costs of all the proceedings. Worse yet not some court but instead some Congressional panel. Can't imagine anyone in politics would even support such a change in our laws. Not saying the idea is wrong just such a nonstarter as to be silly.

Tim

NavyVet1959
10-31-2015, 01:23 PM
Just playing a little devils advocate here, who would run for office or propose any legislation if some court could decide that your legislation was frivolous and you could be expected to pay the costs of all the proceedings. Worse yet not some court but instead some Congressional panel. Can't imagine anyone in politics would even support such a change in our laws. Not saying the idea is wrong just such a nonstarter as to be silly.


It wouldn't keep them from running for office, but it might deter them from creating stupid laws. That's a plus in my book.

shooter93
10-31-2015, 06:28 PM
Who would run Tim?.....Maybe people who KNOW they would never introduce such a ridiculous bill?

MaryB
10-31-2015, 10:50 PM
No more silly than these idiotic gun laws that will go nowhere in a repub controlled senate!


Just playing a little devils advocate here, who would run for office or propose any legislation if some court could decide that your legislation was frivolous and you could be expected to pay the costs of all the proceedings. Worse yet not some court but instead some Congressional panel. Can't imagine anyone in politics would even support such a change in our laws. Not saying the idea is wrong just such a nonstarter as to be silly.

Tim

dtknowles
10-31-2015, 11:28 PM
I concede. Someone with a conscience might run, nah.


Tim

opos
11-01-2015, 10:40 AM
Who's gonna tell the Crips?