Matt Cubeiro Discusses Flawed Locked-Storage Mandate on Cam & Co

Published on October 24, 2017
Duration: 7:06

Matthew Camaro of Chuck Michel & Associates discusses flaws in San Jose's proposed firearm storage ordinance. The ordinance's definition of 'locked container' incorrectly references the California DOJ's Firearm Safety Devices Roster, which does not include common gun safes. This could render many legally owned safes non-compliant, creating a 'trap for law-abiding gun owners.' The ordinance may also conflict with California's existing negligent storage laws and state preemption.

Quick Summary

San Jose's proposed firearm storage ordinance is flawed because it requires 'locked containers' to be listed on the California DOJ's Roster of Approved Firearm Safety Devices. This excludes many common gun safes, creating a trap for law-abiding owners and potentially conflicting with state preemption laws.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: San Jose Gun Control Measures
  2. 00:10Letter to San Jose Mayor and City Council
  3. 00:30Flawed Definitions in Proposed Ordinance
  4. 01:07Ordinance Requirements: Locked Container vs. Trigger Lock
  5. 01:18California Penal Code and Locked Container Definition
  6. 01:27California Roster of Approved Firearm Safety Devices
  7. 01:36DOJ Misinterpretation of Firearm Safety Devices
  8. 01:51Distinction Between Gun Safes and Firearm Safety Devices
  9. 02:08Absurd Result: High-End Safes Deemed Non-Compliant
  10. 02:26Confusion Among City Council Members
  11. 02:44Vote Margin and Potential Influence of Legal Letter
  12. 02:57Ordinance Passed Without Revision
  13. 03:01Persistent Definition Problems
  14. 03:18Firearm Ordinance as Last Agenda Item
  15. 03:25Proponent's Response to Criticism
  16. 03:43Future Attention to the Issue
  17. 03:51Upcoming Final Vote
  18. 03:54Conflict with California Preemption Law
  19. 04:07California's Negligent Storage Provision
  20. 04:25City Council's Approach vs. State Law
  21. 04:46Flexibility in State Law vs. Local Mandate
  22. 05:07Final Vote and Potential Reconsideration
  23. 05:22Pre-Litigation Letter and Potential Lawsuits
  24. 05:33Patchwork of Local Firearm Laws
  25. 05:48Traps for Law-Abiding Gun Owners
  26. 06:09Potential Criminal Penalties
  27. 06:23Litigation Against Jurisdictions
  28. 06:29Pleasant Hill Lawsuit Example
  29. 06:45Conclusion and Contact Information

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main issue with San Jose's proposed firearm storage ordinance?

The primary issue is the ordinance's definition of a 'locked container,' which incorrectly requires it to be listed on the California DOJ's Roster of Approved Firearm Safety Devices. This excludes many common and effective gun safes, potentially making owners non-compliant.

How does San Jose's ordinance conflict with California state law?

The ordinance may violate California's preemption law, as the state already has a negligent storage provision. The local ordinance imposes a stricter, less flexible mandate than the state law, which allows for consideration of individual circumstances.

What are the potential consequences for gun owners under this ordinance?

If enacted as drafted, the ordinance could create 'traps' for law-abiding gun owners. Failure to comply could result in misdemeanor charges, carrying penalties of up to a $1,000 fine and six months in prison.

What is the California Roster of Approved Firearm Safety Devices?

This roster is maintained by the California Department of Justice and lists specific devices approved for firearm safety. It does not, however, include general gun safes, leading to the confusion and flaws in San Jose's proposed ordinance.

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from CRPA TV

View all →