Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/10/2002 10:39:33 AM EDT
I discovered that rules adopted by the California Department of Justice to implement AB 106 (Firearms Safety Act of 1999) circumvent the clear wording of the bill. Specifically particular, section 12088.2. In the text of the law it says (in referring to acceptable gun safes) the Attorney General shall make regulations setting standards for security of safes including ensuring "the firearm cannot be readily removed from the gun safe except by an authorized user utilizing the key, combination, or other method of access intended by the manufacturer of the device." As the plain text reveals, locking mechanisms apart from combinations are allowed. However, in the regulations published here http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/gunsafe.htm (actually regulation 977.50) the only acceptable lock is "a mechanical or electronic combination lock." So no standards were set for any other type of lock, the Attorney General just decided to not allow them. Even the initial regulations (as posted on the DoJ website) make no mention of any other locking mechanisms. I own a safe that exceeds almost all of the minimum standards set out in the regulations except for the locking mechanism. Mine uses a 4-bitted key. This means that unlike your standard house key with one bitted edge my safe key has an X shaped cross-section, with different cuts on each of the 4 edges, making it pick-proof. The lock is protected by a drill resistant plate. I cannot fathom why a $15 trigger lock (which uses a single bitted key) can be more secure than my safe. Regardless, if a standard had been set and the locking mechanism failed the test, then I would understand. However, the regulation does not even acknowledge the law authorizing locks of other types. I have written to the Department of Justice asking why they ignored the clear wording of the law, I will see if they respond. I also emailed every State Senator that voted against AB 106, and to a couple of pro-gun Assemblymen. I also called the Cal. Rifle and Pistol Association, left a voicemail for Chuck Michel, the CRPA and NRA legal counsel. Can anyone think of anything else I should do? Madkiwi
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 1:32:05 PM EDT
I don't understand why the ruger cable lock that comes with the gun is not good enough and you need a trigger lock? it doesn't make sense try too think like a liberal it will all make sense!
Link Posted: 4/13/2002 8:10:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2002 8:15:49 PM EDT by eje]
Really interesting post. The DOJ regulations also say that a safe meets DOJ standards if it is listed as an Underwriter Laboratories Residential Security Container: [url]http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/showpage.html?name=TQDE.GuideInfo&ccnshorttitle=Residential+Security+Container&objid=1074260496&cfgid=1073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073993748&sequence=1[/url] I looked up some of the listed safes at random and I found several that had key operated locks only (e.g., Cannon models 15, 21). So by approving the UL listed safes, some of which are key operated, the DOJ regulations seem to abide by P.C. 12088.2. Check the UL list to see if your safe is on it. If not, and you want to pursue the matter further, you might want to consult an attorney about filing some kind of writ to challenge the regulations, or get approval for your particular safe. You may want to inquire if the DOJ has any procedure to request approval for a safe that does not meet the current regulations; you might have to try this before filing a writ.
Link Posted: 4/15/2002 9:10:51 PM EDT
I can think of something else you could do: Get the hell out of California!
Top Top