California Democrat Legislators to SCOTUS: Middle Finger on Gun Storage

Democrat legislators in California are making a habit of giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court of the United States.  They think they are somehow smarter, wiser, and well, just plain superior.

The 2008 Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made several things abundantly clear that our elected libs have trouble comprehending:  the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (as opposed to a collective right) and the primary ruling in Heller v. Washington DC was that the federal government could not require that firearms be stored and locked in a manner where the gun was not immediately accessible.  What’s more, McDonald v. Chicago further ruled that states and local governments cannot require firearms to be similarly locked.

SCOTUS affirmed that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home and the Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests” the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

But two of California’s multitude of anti-gun legislators – Senator Anthony Portantino and Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman – see things differently.  Just this week, both introduced legislation that mandates locked firearm storage.

AB 276 (Friedman) would require a gun owner who is 18 or older and outside their residence to securely store any firearm “against theft or unauthorized access”. Right there this bill is a clear breach of Heller, but here’s the kicker:

The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions, or under other specified provisions regulating the storage of firearms, from subsequently owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their possession or control, any firearm.

This means the penalty, although “just” a misdemeanor, would result in permanent revocation of gun rights.  PERMANENT.  Simply put, anyone who is found to have had an unsecured firearm in their home while outside and subsequently convicted, can say adios to gun ownership.

Senator Portantino’s SB 172 does basically the same thing as AB 276, but the penalties for a violation seem almost reasonable in comparison to the Friedman bill:  the loss of gun rights is “just” for ten years.  Snark aside, this is an awful bill too and is just more evidence of legislative arrogance.  Portantino has made no secret of his disdain for the 2nd Amendment – he has a long history of wanting us disarmed and vulnerable given his authorship of bills mandating age restrictions and pushing one-gun-a-month.

To deliberately restrict an individuals’ ability to quickly access a firearm when entering or leaving their place of residence is outrageous.  This is when many are the most susceptible to crime, yet the single mom who lives in a gang-infested neighborhood or the disabled man fumbling for his keys late at night just don’t measure up to a liberal’s definition of vulnerable.

Statistically speaking, gun owners are consistently more law abiding than the general population (especially those with CCWs), which is why there are fewer deaths from accidental shootings than choking on your dinner.  If Portantino or Friedman really cared about firearm safety, they would seek out the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Project Child Safe, which very effectively schools gun owners on the importance of safe firearm storage, and in so doing, saves lives along the way.

Just because California is a heavy weight in terms of commerce, population, coastal/mountain and desert beauty doesn’t mean we are so cool that we get to make up our own rules.   We don’t get to explain the facts of life to SCOTUS on anything, especially when it comes to being able to protect our homes and families from the dangers of this very broken world.


  1. Michael on January 31, 2019 at 2:06 pm

    Good ol Commiefornia

  2. Stephen Milano on January 31, 2019 at 2:09 pm

    Nothing more worthless, then a firearm you can’t get to.

  3. steven s lamb on January 31, 2019 at 2:54 pm

    recall Porkantino

  4. James on January 31, 2019 at 6:47 pm

    WHY, are these, “so-called” legislators, ALLOWED to stay in office, when it is BLATANTLY CLEAR AND DEMONSTRATED, that they hold their Oaths of Office in DIRECT CONTEMPT of the Constitution of this Bation.

    • David Miller on February 5, 2019 at 5:29 pm

      Because the voters in their districts like these bills. If you’re from California, you might not understa.d this reality: in most places Democrats run unopposed by Republicans. The Republican Party is very nearly dead in CA.

  5. Geoff on February 1, 2019 at 11:42 am

    Kommiefornistan, a Dictatorship disarming the Citizens and moving towards total confiscation and termination.
    Gun owners in Communist Kommiefornistan, if you have the means, GET THE HELL OUT!!!

  6. Joe R. on February 1, 2019 at 2:01 pm

    1. If we can just stick to the single most important 2nd Amendment Argument, the SCOTUS, and all lower Courts, and California Legislators, will not be able to avoid the simple logic (with a straight face).
    It is thus:
    1)The Constitution (and we are on our 3rd one if you’re paying attention [Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights Amendments {up to #3}]) is only there to attempt to briefly describe how we will all get what we want of/by/for/ and from/ each other under the U.S. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (you know, the thing where we all say we have “Rights”, like to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [THE ONLY TIME THE CONSTITUTION MENTIONS A “RIGHT” IS IN ARTICLE 8 with respect to intellectual property, the “Bill of Rights” cites “Rights” but it is the Declaration of Independence that says that RIGHTS ARE unalienable and that they come from our GOD]). If the Constitution doesn’t get the job done [getting what we demand under the Declaration] we can amend or chuck The Constitution.
    2) The Declaration cannot be repealed, amended, nor re-written. We can write a new one, but that will cost a good many people their pelts.
    The Declaration hints 1x in the 1st Paragraph, and states no less than 2 x in the flesh language of the 2nd Paragraph, that should a bona fide citizen see fit, they should chuck the government and install new guards for their security [The ENTIRETY of the Declaration of Independence is about chucking the government].
    3) Therefore, the 2nd Amendment requires PARITY of arms with our government, as our Founders / Framers couldn’t have meant for a citizen who decided it was necessary to chuck their government to have to ask for permission from that government for the means, NOR THE PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS, to do so.
    4) AT LEAST! PARITY of arms, with our government, and it’s not our fault what that parity entails. ESPECIALLY in the manner in which we possess them, which should have notably less limitations than that imposed on our government’s possession of them. And it is immediately evident to anyone that the government is not limited to “type”, nor to its possession of such weapons only in its “home”.
    #NaCL – all who are in contention to that.

    • Mark Pool on February 15, 2019 at 11:02 am

      Well spoke sir..Joe R. for governor.!!..I’d vote for you in a second….problem is your common sense has no place in a place where it’s not common at all..should be called uncommon your Constitutional freedoms talk is soooooo archaic..MoonBeam an Klamitia got some big ole grey matter upstairs an I’m sure knows what’s best for us Unwashed Masses..heck.. we haven’t even got a comic book for gosh sakes.. an let the smart just soak in
      California…our motto..?.we’re all here..cuz we’re not all there..speak in a Forest Gump voice… its ah law Bubba..

    • Loyal Citizen on February 20, 2019 at 8:58 am

      I like your thinking. Clearly the 2nd amendment is another check and balance to power. Funny that the majority in California hate Trump’s Executive policies, and at the same time wish to neuter themselves. They believe if they bent over even farther they will be safer. And yet year after year they FEEL more vulnerable. The NEWS doing its ugly work.

  7. R Vincent Warde on February 1, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    I definitely am opposed to this bill – in fact I left California due to their oppressive gun laws. I also have educated myself as much as possible, including reading the entire Heller decision more than once – as well as what several pro-2A lawyers have written on the subject.

    While this law may very well be unconstitutional, it IS NOT a direct violation of Heller. In fact, what they are trying to do is write a law that is as restrictive on storage as practically possible without directly violating Heller.

    Heller requires government to allow people to have functional firearms available for self defense within the home. When the owner is not home, that ruling does not apply – hence this law does not “directly violate Heller”. It may indirectly violate Heller, and I think it is likely a 2A violation – but there is no direct violation of the ruling in Heller.

    The next two important issues SCOTUS must rule on is the extent of the 2A right outside the home and the matter of “scrutiny” (the level of protection a constitutional right must be accorded). Hopefully we will get good solid rulings on both these issues out of the case recently accepted by the Supreme Court. If we do, then this law may very well be found unconstitutional.

    • L.A. Paredes on February 4, 2019 at 9:30 am

      We are not going to split hairs on this matter – we do believe that anyone who is unable to quickly access a firearm upon entering their home IS a violation of Heller. You are correct, however, that New York State Rife and Pistol Association v. City of New York will indeed give the court the needed opportunity to rule on scrutiny. Our brief calls for a lever higher than strict scrutiny – one that the late Justice Antonin Scalia described as “textual, historical and traditional” thereby eliminating any “balancing test.”

  8. Enemyofthebstate on February 1, 2019 at 4:36 pm

    Gun owners in California deserve to lose every single gun right they have.

    You’ve sat by and done NOTHING as the Jack booted government thugs take your rights and kill you with impunity if they feel the need.

    Rise up and fight or quit yer bitching.

    • L.A. Paredes on February 4, 2019 at 9:29 am

      Bold words require bold action. We respectfully disagree – GOC has been in the trenches for over 40 years.

    • David Miller on February 5, 2019 at 5:39 pm

      Do you live in CA, sir? If not, then I respectfully suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. The political demographics make it impossible to resist legislatively. There is not a single Republican in a state wide elected office at either the state or Federal level. Not one. In many races, with the top two rule, two Democrats vie for office in the general election, if there was even a Republican in the race. The Republican Party is on life support in CA.

    • Mark Pool on February 15, 2019 at 10:44 am

      Kinda like Einstein in a mental institution…you can be a Blood Red Patriot in a land of Bluecoats here in Calipornia..doesn’t mean we “did nothing” whole counties population is half of just the town of Petaluma..we could all vote exactly the same ..wouldn’t change a thang.. that SoCalif has the we say..NoCalif gets the we pay..
      What’s needed is politics without politicians..Our insane leaders slobber on each other while calling Einstein a retard..oops..special needs disabled
      ..State of Jefferson stand!!..protect our freedoms from “threats both foreign and DOMESTIC”..for the California 3rd Reich Gestapo is formulating the “final solution” folks ready for your shower selection?

  9. Loyal Citizen on February 20, 2019 at 8:46 am

    California Politicians take an oath to protect the Constitution, and many, as soon as they take office, break this oath. Popular news sites that depend on the 1st amendment, don’t understand that the weakening of any of these amendments weakens all of them. Everyday, privately owned firearms prevent crime. Rapes, Murders, Assaults, Burglaries are prevented because criminals fear privately owned firearms. But this FACT is never reported on the news. It’s because the NEWS is managed, it’s propaganda. Propaganda made legal in 2012 by a broken and corrupt Congress. When our vote no longer counts, when protest is ignored, what are we left with? Ask yourself, what does it mean to live in a FREE country. And ask yourself, what have all these gun laws done to prevent crime. Nothing, because they are not intended too. They are the step by step process to remove our RIGHT of self protection. The frightening question is WHY?

  10. Loyal Citizen on February 20, 2019 at 9:14 am

    I will be very surprised if the Supremes do anything to contradict the lower courts. The absolutely ridiculous decisions of the 9th Circuit tell me that the Courts are just as political and broken as our Congress. This Organization called the United States is dedicated to the status quo. The power players like it just they way they have built it. They pay little in taxes while buying more and more influence from OUR representatives. The corruption is built in.
    When the Supremes decided $$$ equals Speech they pulled back the curtain to show what they really are. Puppets.