Los Angeles Pushes New Mandatory Firearm Storage Law On Civilians, Exempts Cops

The Los Angeles City Council has modeled a new law after San Francisco’s mandatory firearm storage bill, and is pushing the regulations on the city’s non-law enforcement residents.

Like San Francisco’s bill, L.A.’s would require all non-law enforcement civilians to keep their firearms stored under lock and key whenever the weapons are not in their immediate vicinity.

The reasoning for the exemption, according to Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) Director Peter Repovich, is so that law enforcement officers, retired or active, can swiftly respond to emergency situations.

“To protect themselves and society… you have to give them the ability to respond quickly,” said Repovich.

Of course, unless the average citizen just so happens to live with a police officer the new law would, by Repovich’s own admission, preclude them from protecting themselves in any situation where immediate action is necessary, like say, a home invasion.

“The law thus burdens their right of self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable – when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed,” said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in response to the court’s earlier rejection of hearing a case challenging the constitutionality of San Francisco’s bill. “There is consequently no question that San Francisco’s law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right.”

Thomas provided a clear example of how a mandatory firearm storage law can have deadly serious consequences.

“… she is forced to store her gun in a code-operated safe and, in the event of an emergency, would need to get to that safe, remember her code under stress, and correctly enter it before she could retrieve her gun and be in a position to defend herself,” said Thomas. “If she erroneously entered the number due to stress, the safe would impose a delay before she could try again.”

Despite what the LAPPL believes, the Constitution of the United States covers each and every American equally.

The National Rifle Association has pledged to continue fighting to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, hoping that law enforcement officers will join them in this battle.

(This article is a submission by freelance writer Brent Rogers)

{ 18 comments… add one }
  • Wyatt Earp July 9, 2015, 1:55 pm

    So, “cops are exempt,” hu? Well now isn’t this another fine example of why the King’s Men have [historically] always been the enemies of The People.

  • OFBG July 8, 2015, 10:45 pm

    I regret that I don’t have the links available, but if you really want to see how ludicrous the LA laws are, just look at the stories in the Albuquerque Journal documentingt that city’s police department’s lackadaisical concerns for both firearms and ammunition under the Department’s control.

  • Frank Boyer July 7, 2015, 4:13 pm

    I escaped Southern California ( orange county ) in 1998 and moved to Texas, little did i know what was going to happen in California after i left .. what a bummer for the Law Abiding 2nd Amendment Following Citizen in California .. its time you escape and come to God’s country were the law abiding citizen freely owns guns, have concealed handgun permits and as of January 1st 2016 any chl can open carry .. and no waiting period for guns at gun shops if you have a chl .. so if anyone from California escapes to San Antonio Texas look us up we want to be your firearms dealer

    • Amil Baker July 8, 2015, 11:02 am

      Don’t forget that to tell people if they have a clean record the instant check in Texas is to fill out a form 4473, which takes about 3 minutes. It requires showing your drivers license or other picture idenity, then it is handed to some young lady with a computer that types in some of the pertinent information and if they are not real busy you will have an answer back within a minute. If you don’t want to put down you Social Security number it will be delayed until they look it up. I seldom have a delay on any Instant check. If you have your CHL you fill out the form 4473 and the FFL approves your purchase. A couple of times I have denied to sell a gun to someone that I was concerned about their proposed use of the weapon. Once case was a Felon who was denied by the ATF and another I had concerns about his having mental problems. Some weeks later he borrowed a shotgun and used it to end his life.
      Amil

      • Joe McHugh July 10, 2015, 8:43 pm

        Amil Baker “A couple of times I have denied to sell a gun to someone that I was concerned about their proposed use of the weapon. Once case was a Felon who was denied by the ATF…..” Um, …..did you call the police and delay that felon by showing him other firearms? Or did you at least call the police later and show them the signed 4473 form for further action? When a felon signs the federal 4473 form attesting that he is not a felon, he commits a felony fraud. Such felons resort to buying guns on the black market when they are stymied at gun dealer stores. By involving the police you would have been instrumental in preventing more crimes when the court put him right back in jail. The signed federal 4473 form would be enough to convince any judge to do so. Such behavior is not a “mistake”, it is a self-evident step in acquiring a firearm to commit a crime.

        Adjudged dangerous psychotics are another matter, only because some states are lax in reporting them to the N.I.C.S. center in Clarksburg, West Virginia. By the way, would someone tell me why a person, who is adjudged as being a danger to himself and others, is walking among normal people?

  • General Lee July 7, 2015, 4:17 am

    This is so stupid. San Francisco has gone downhill with their anti gun laws, etc. and look at parts of San Francisco where the police are afraid to go into because it is filled with criminals with guns. Love to know how they think they are going to enforce this, go to your home anytime and check your safe or locking device/cabinet or safe? I am sure they would love to. Anything Los Angeles related is absolutely stupid. The mayor, city council, keep on fooling and lying to the public concerning guns, they try enact pointless laws claiming it will help drop crime, lies, lies, lies. Common sense you lock up your weapons when you leave your home for any reason. When you are home, you keep whatever weapon or two in safe accessible locations or on you to be safe and ready. According to the story, I don’t know why they say it would apply to retired police in Ca. Sadly when they retire, they can’t carry or have their 10 plus round magazines anymore, only the ones they owned before the 10 round magazine ban. Sadly police have been loosing more & more power, like when retired. It happened in many states as well. Commiefornia is going to SH*T

  • sam July 6, 2015, 6:34 pm

    Who cares? Totally unenforceable.

    • LeftThumb July 7, 2015, 9:45 pm

      I would think their idea is they want to enforce it which would give them the excuse to knock on doors and further ways of keeping an eye on you and your weapon. LA already sends letters to the home of anyone who buys a handgun, telling them how dangerous they are.

  • Seth July 6, 2015, 5:51 pm

    FOOLS! I am LE and that is absolutely absurd. The conservative people of California need to get out of there now! It is beyond repair.

  • Larry July 6, 2015, 2:21 pm

    Leftists! The whole state is controlled by leftists making the governing body a bunch of mouth breathing morons & nincompoops! Conservatives, run as fast as you can for the border & get out of the land of fruits, nuts & flakes ASAP!

  • Jms370 July 6, 2015, 12:53 pm

    Any law that has the potential to get me killed in my own home, I simply won’t comply with. When the police come I’ll show them my useless locking device. Yes sir everything worked out dandy. Our legislators should all have home invasions done on them, then we will see who changes their mind about gun control. Keep on pushing, don’t be surprised when we push back..

  • BATTLEON July 6, 2015, 10:54 am

    This city government is controlled by a group of putrid, limp wristed liberal idiots. I fought fire for the LAFD for almost 26 years in Watts and I’m here to tell ya this new proposed toilet paper law, won’t do a thing to stop criminals or gang violence. The gangs have guns and will use ’em regardless of what any ignorant, asinine new City law says. Just another liberal, “touchy, feely” BS law, that won’t do anything to stop gun violence in LA. Law abiding citizens will again be punished for trying to protect and defend themselves. But again, the idiots in control will feel better about themselves, because they “did something”.

  • BW July 6, 2015, 6:03 am

    Yes, the LA city council is out of control when it comes to these anti-gun and ultra liberal decisions. However, don’t blame the LAPPL. And don’t confuse LAPPL with LAPD. In the above article all they said is police need to be an exception. They didn’t say they support the law. Don’t expect them to raise hell about citizens gun rights. They are a union, and thus get paid dues to focus only on what effects their clients.. Not the general public.

  • jim July 6, 2015, 2:41 am

    Active military and former military ought to be exempt too right?? Oh I forgot being former military constitutes high risk of being a terrorist. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

  • The Rubes July 2, 2015, 1:01 pm

    Democratically controlled Los Angeles is becoming more draconian every year with anti-gun legislation. They, like many other oppressive jurisdictions, use the ruse of public safety as their excuse for passing laws that always favor law enforcement, politicians and their celebrity friends. The mentality is always one of elitism for those with money and power. What gets me is how Los Angelino’s apparently like being submissive to those in power because they keep on voting for these tyrants, and do nothing about the oppressive gun laws the Dems like to pass. Small example: if memory serves me, I believe that a simple IWB “empty” holster is illegal in Los Angeles. How’s that for tyranny?

    • Skip1499 August 24, 2015, 11:19 am

      Why the voters keep electing the same type of ultra liberal politicians is beyond me. As for passing laws that “always favor law enforcement”, not even close. It’s a fight for the police department to get anything from the elected officials, whom most are ACLU members (the last mayor was the So Cal director of the ACLU at one time) or supporters. Empty IWB holsters are not illegal in Los Angeles although, considering the anti gun thinking in City Hall, I’m sure the elected officials would like to make them illegal.

  • Mark N. July 2, 2015, 12:04 am

    The basis of the law is the it is necessary to lock guns up, as in SF, when not in one’s personal possession and control, for “public safety.” And the Ninth Circuit, in upholding the law, held that the lock box requirement did not “excessively burden” second amendment rights, because, after all, what is a second or two to get your gun from the safe when your home is invaded. The wrongheadedness–or more properly utter stupidity–of the requirement is demonstrated most hypocritically by the exemption from the law for LA police officers–AND EVEN RETIRED OFFICERS. Why do retired officers have a need to reach their guns faster than the average citizen? There is no rational basis for the exemption and it is patently obvious a political payoff to get the police rank and file (through its union) to back the bill.

    • Skip1499 August 24, 2015, 11:01 am

      The Los Angeles Police Protective League is not a union. It was formed to protect the Police and Fire Pension Fund from the greedy clowns who run Los Angeles. Besides that, they are the main bargaining agent for lieutenants and below. Strikes and job actions are illegal in California for public safety workers, police, fire fighters, etc. The LAPPL did not back this law, quite the opposite. The fought this as overly restrictive and a waste of time because a state law already covers negligent storage of firearms. They fought to exempt police officers because they are the ones who represent the officers, both active and retired.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend