SB 53 Suggestions?

[Glonky]

Hey all, most of you are probably well aware of the recent law (SB 53) that just passed earlier this year forcing all CA residents to store their firearms in a locked safe and if they don't comply they face serious fines or jail time.

Due to this I've been looking into what kind of safes to buy before I start applying for the FSC.

Only problem is that I live in an apartment complex, so I'm kinda limited on what safes I can get or what I can do with them (like bolting them to the wall or floor).

Do y'all have any suggestions/recommendations on what kind of DOJ approved safes I should look into getting?

 

[derelict]

The Harbor Freight Union 10 Gun Security Cabinet goes on sale for $150 pretty regularly and is an easy entry point without breaking the bank.

 

[RustVendor]

Compare them with name brands like Liberty, at the same wall thickness and volume.

I have some cool stuff but I just don't feel like I will be targeted by a high level safe cracker. Even if it's just for fire, my friend has his melted liberty safe on his wall that had his fathers collection. It's a giant puddle.

 

[irongunner]

Yeah, it was a stretch for me back then too. Rice and peanut butter diet help with expensive purchases (at least mentally). The group buy discount made it actually doable for me. As TreeLogger said, yes it is a high expense but once you compare the quality of Sturdy's ingredient vs its competitors - there is a clear winner. Also, auto-manufacturers would dream to have thin panel gaps like Sturdy.

There is a real tradeoff off between security and useability. I like my fire-lined 2419 but that sucker is heavy. Taking off the door and still requiring 4 guys to move each section up stairs and around corners would have been a burden. There are definitely an advantages to the cabinet that meets regulations.

Honestly, It seems you are trying to decide between a gun cabinet/locker and a gun safe. The safe is good if you have the space, funds, and most importantly if you have 4 guys to help you lift the door and the body when you move. Like others have stated, a gun cabinet/locker that meets regs is very appealing and has real world benefits.

Understand the use-case with the cabinet and don't expect any long term fire or theft protection from something you bolted together. A gun cabinet is to a gun safe like a shotgun is to a precision rifle. Each has their own specific use and advantages. Unless you are just trying to check a legal box, you might also consider what level of investment you'd like to have to protect/store your investment. I would reconsider a $100 cabinet if you are storing $20,000 of equipment in an apartment complex. Knowing what I know now, I should have gone with a gun cabinet when I initially started with only a pistol and long gun.

 

[ar15robert]

True, although I'm worried about accidentally causing damage to the wall/floor and then having to deal with the management after the fact... >_>

Use some 3/8 to 7/16th lag bolts.Hole would be about a dime sized.If you have some handyman skills patching it would be as easy as filling it back in with mud then repainting especially if in a closet.Atleast this way it makes safe harder to remove

Just make sure to find the stud first

 

[Gawernator]

I have a cheap gun locker from Big 5 or somewhere like that, but it's really not a big deal. You just need to make sure kids aren't going to be able to access it. So if you're like me and don't have kids it's not really a concern. The chance of being charged is near zero unless you're asking cops to come into your house every month, and you have to be convicted 3 times for it to even be criminal

(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a violation of this section is punishable by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for a first violation and up to five hundred dollars ($500) for a second violation. A third and any subsequent violation is a misdemeanor.

 

[9Cal_OC]

I get we’re responsible gun owners but Heller already addresses that we’re not required to have guns locked up. For those with no kids, and you're home, technically your gun is within your control


Likely why the penalties are minor initially. One can definitely contest that if cited.

 

[RustVendor]

I get we’re responsible gun owners but Heller already addresses that we’re not required to have guns locked up. For those with no kids, and you're home, technically your gun is within your control


Likely why the penalties are minor initially. One can definitely contest that if cited.

Technically the California law says under your control. What that means in practice is no one else can access them before you. If you aren't home or asleep that would almost certainly mean locked up. There's a grey area if you want to have a nightstand gun.

 

[Hit Factor]

Technically the California law says under your control. What that means in practice is no one else can access them before you.

Where are you getting that legal definition of “under your control”? Can you cite a source?

 

[RustVendor]

Where are you getting that legal definition of “under your control”? Can you cite a source

​

25105.​

Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b) The firearm is securely stored, as defined in Section 25145.
(c) The firearm is carried or readily controlled by the lawful owner or another lawful authorized user, as defined in Section 25145.



(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.

 

[CadeH]

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

DC v Heller

 

[Hit Factor]

​

25105.​

Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b) The firearm is securely stored, as defined in Section 25145.
(c) The firearm is carried or readily controlled by the lawful owner or another lawful authorized user, as defined in Section 25145.



(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.

LOL. There’s no way that definition of “readily controlled” (legally different from “under one’s control”) can withstand constitutional scrutiny. At best, it’s unconstitutionally vague. Realistically, it’s impossible.

For instance, if you go to the range and the RO calls the range cold, everyone who steps behind the line and/or goes down to hang a target has just violated that law. If you take your gun to a gunsmith, you have no way to prevent unauthorized users (besides, arguably, the gunsmith you turned it over to) from gaining access to it. If you go to a match and leave your PCC in your cart or in the designated stage storage area, you violate that law the moment you walk out to tape targets or serve as RO. You want to keep a backup gun in your cart, or remove your gun to go use the bathroom? Sorry, criminal! And God forbid you ever have to ship your gun off for warranty work. I could go on, but any reasonable person — including non-gun owners — can see how ridiculous that language is.

 

[RustVendor]

LOL. There’s no way that definition of “readily controlled” (legally different from “under one’s control”) can withstand constitutional scrutiny. At best, it’s unconstitutionally vague. Realistically, it’s impossible.

For instance, if you go to the range and the RO calls the range cold, everyone who steps behind the line and/or goes down to hang a target has just violated that law. If you take your gun to a gunsmith, you have no way to prevent unauthorized users (besides, arguably, the gunsmith you turned it over to) from gaining access to it. If you go to a match and leave your PCC in your cart or in the designated stage storage area, you violate that law the moment you walk out to tape targets or serve as RO. You want to keep a backup gun in your cart, or remove your gun to go use the bathroom? Sorry, criminal! And God forbid you ever have to ship your gun off for warranty work. I could go on, but any reasonable person — including non-gun owners — can see how ridiculous that language is.

it actually only applies in your residence so none of that would be a violation.

 

[CadeH]

it actually only applies in your residence so none of that would be a violation.

And Heller already said that laws requiring your firearms to be disabled or locked up inside your home are unconstitutional, so who knows if this law even matters beyond arresting parents when their kids steal a gun and shoot someone with it.

 

[RustVendor]

And Heller already said that laws requiring your firearms to be disabled or locked up inside your home are unconstitutional, so who knows if this law even matters beyond arresting parents when their kids steal a gun and shoot someone with it.

I dunno, the way Heller is worded it could be legal, earlier in Scalias opinion he says essentially that the law requiring all firearms to be inoperable was problematic because it had no self defense exception. In the final summary it uses the words "immediate self defense". It's still not super clear:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

 

[CadeH]

I dunno, the way Heller is worded it could be legal, earlier in Scalias opinion he says essentially that the law requiring all firearms to be inoperable was problematic because it had no self defense exception. In the final summary it uses the words "immediate self defense". It's still not super clear:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

I think its something that the Supreme Court should clarify in the future, but the odds of something like this ever making it up there is really low. Its an infraction the first two offenses, and the only way you are going to get caught for it is if someone breaks into your house while you're not there and steals a gun and you admit to the cops it doesn't have a trigger lock on it, or if your kid steals your gun and gets caught with it. If the police are showing up to your house for any other reason you're an idiot if you let them in with your stuff not secured.

Currently as it stands the law says

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.

with readily controlled meaning

(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.

Its so vague that who really knows what any of it means.
Heller left it entirely ambiguous when it came to safe storage laws, and reading through it more closely I am not entirely sure if it would be struck down either going directly through Heller. It should be noted though that as it currently stands DC did not reattempt a safe storage law, beyond one that requires it when there are minors in the home. It kind of covers the state's ass on the two main things that Heller struck down DC's storage laws on- 1) no self defense exemption, 2) the penalty for violating the law was excessive. Who knows, we only got two paragraphs about it from Heller.

 

[RustVendor]

I think its something that the Supreme Court should clarify in the future, but the odds of something like this ever making it up there is really low. Its an infraction the first two offenses, and the only way you are going to get caught for it is if someone breaks into your house while you're not there and steals a gun and you admit to the cops it doesn't have a trigger lock on it, or if your kid steals your gun and gets caught with it. If the police are showing up to your house for any other reason you're an idiot if you let them in with your stuff not secured.

Currently as it stands the law says

with readily controlled meaning

Its so vague that who really knows what any of it means.
Heller left it entirely ambiguous when it came to safe storage laws, and reading through it more closely I am not entirely sure if it would be struck down either going directly through Heller. It should be noted though that as it currently stands DC did not reattempt a safe storage law, beyond one that requires it when there are minors in the home. It kind of covers the state's ass on the two main things that Heller struck down DC's storage laws on- 1) no self defense exemption, 2) the penalty for violating the law was excessive. Who knows, we only got two paragraphs about it from Heller.

At the end of the day the average gun owner is probably kinda dumb and won't lock up their guns unless you make them. Heller definitely carves out an examption for having a gun unlocked and accessible for self defense. Even if you are sleeping you can probably have an unlocked gun next to you as long as no one gets to it while you are sleeping. The pipeline for criminals to obtain guns is definitely largely through theft, so if that goes down due to more people putting their stuff in safes that's not the worst thing. Less gun crime makes us look better and makes it easier for us to argue our position.

 

[CadeH]

At the end of the day the average gun owner is probably kinda dumb and won't lock up their guns unless you make them. Heller definitely carves out an examption for having a gun unlocked and accessible for self defense. Even if you are sleeping you can probably have an unlocked gun next to you as long as no one gets to it while you are sleeping. The pipeline for criminals to obtain guns is definitely largely through theft, so if that goes down due to more people putting their stuff in safes that's not the worst thing. Less gun crime makes us look better and makes it easier for us to argue our position.

Yeah its a bit complicated. If I am home I have no problems leaving my guns out while working on them, leaving my CCW on the nightstand, etc. When I leave they get locked up. Personally I don't think its the state's business to tell me I can't have an Arisaka mounted as wall art, but I can understand why the law exists.

 

[grandpapeepap]

didnt heller smack down this requirement in like 2008?

 

[RustVendor]

Yeah its a bit complicated. If I am home I have no problems leaving my guns out while working on them, leaving my CCW on the nightstand, etc. When I leave they get locked up. Personally I don't think its the state's business to tell me I can't have an Arisaka mounted as wall art, but I can understand why the law exists.

for sure, not that it makes it that much better but there are some little Bull trigger locks on the approved safety device roster that would be legal

 

[Gawernator]

I think its something that the Supreme Court should clarify in the future, but the odds of something like this ever making it up there is really low. Its an infraction the first two offenses, and the only way you are going to get caught for it is if someone breaks into your house while you're not there and steals a gun and you admit to the cops it doesn't have a trigger lock on it, or if your kid steals your gun and gets caught with it. If the police are showing up to your house for any other reason you're an idiot if you let them in with your stuff not secured.

Currently as it stands the law says

with readily controlled meaning

Its so vague that who really knows what any of it means.
Heller left it entirely ambiguous when it came to safe storage laws, and reading through it more closely I am not entirely sure if it would be struck down either going directly through Heller. It should be noted though that as it currently stands DC did not reattempt a safe storage law, beyond one that requires it when there are minors in the home. It kind of covers the state's ass on the two main things that Heller struck down DC's storage laws on- 1) no self defense exemption, 2) the penalty for violating the law was excessive. Who knows, we only got two paragraphs about it from Heller.

So much this. How tf are you going to get convicted on this 3 times to make it criminal?