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?

 

[Gawernator]

didnt heller smack down this requirement in like 2008?

Heller strongly suggests that California cannot force residents to render their only immediately available defensive firearm inaccessible. But SB 53 was drafted with control and carry exceptions, and its constitutionality has not yet been conclusively decided. Until a court enjoins or invalidates it, it remains enforceable.

The strongest constitutional argument against SB 53 is that it may still burden immediate home defense during ordinary activities such as sleeping, showering, or being in another room. A gun sitting on your nightstand may arguably not be “readily controlled” while you are asleep, yet locking it introduces delay during precisely the kind of emergency Heller protects against.

There is also unfavorable Ninth Circuit precedent. In Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit upheld a similar ordinance requiring handguns to be locked unless carried on the person. The court expressly recognized that this burdened self-defense while sleeping or bathing, but concluded that a few seconds needed to unlock the gun was only a minimal burden.

That decision is vulnerable because it relied on intermediate scrutiny, balancing the burden against the government’s public-safety interests. The Supreme Court rejected that interest-balancing framework in Bruen and replaced it with a text-and-historical-tradition test. So the reasoning of Jackson is substantially undermined, although no court has yet definitively held that SB 53 is unconstitutional.

 

[treelogger]

didnt heller smack down this requirement in like 2008?

Yes and no.

Pre-Heller, in DC you could (a) not store a fully assembled handgun at home, (b) not even get a purchase permit for a handgun. So in a nutshell no handguns were available AT ALL for self defense (the emphasis is intentional).

Heller said: Handguns are the most common way for self defense, self defense in the home is a basic consequence of the 2A (after getting rid of the militia prefatory clause), and having no handguns available at all is therefore not acceptable. But what Heller did not say is: All handguns all the time anywhere.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Yes and no.

Pre-Heller, in DC you could (a) not store a fully assembled handgun at home, (b) not even get a purchase permit for a handgun. So in a nutshell no handguns were available AT ALL for self defense (the emphasis is intentional).

Heller said: Handguns are the most common way for self defense, self defense in the home is a basic consequence of the 2A (after getting rid of the militia prefatory clause), and having no handguns available at all is therefore not acceptable. But what Heller did not say is: All handguns all the time anywhere.