Here is the PDF of it. Start reading on page 3 I believe. http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2014...2-2015.pdf

After reading it several times I see it as nothing more than a feel good measure. Locks only keep the honest man out. Trigger locks are all but useless. I see this as a unenforceable law that opens the door to additional laws. Next they will be adding long guns and ammo to this list. I know, I know, OMG the slippery slope comment again.

The more I think about this the more I am questioning if this law is legal. I think this may be taken to the higher court for a decision. I say that because of the District of Columbia v Heller decision. I may be wrong but requiring all guns to be inoperable or locked up it may be considered restricting a persons constitutional rights. If nothing else this may be fun to watch.


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

I wish the ordinance already included long guns, F.U.

But, even as it stands now, I think the new ordinance helps reduce the the chances of small children shooting guns and juveniles committing suicide.

I like it. It doesn't take guns away from anyone, but it does reduce the risk of guns getting in the wrong hands, in my opinion.

HotD we were posting at the same time . . . again, hahahaha. My above post may have something to do with their reasoning to just mention handguns. It might be the loophole that makes it legal because, by leaving long guns alone,it dose not entirely restrict a persons ability to defend themselves.

(10-29-2015, 03:38 PM)F.U. Wrote: It might be the loophole that makes it legal because, by leaving long guns alone,it dose not entirely restrict a persons ability to defend themselves.

Ah, could be.

I guess it would be harder for a small child to handle a long gun or a juvenile to commit suicide with one, as compared to hand guns anyway?

I've only shot handguns.

Most any long gun would difficult for a child to use for the purposes of suicide. I think I read a kind of key phrase in that ordnance "When not within reach". Presumably that gives a path to have the weapon at hand and unlocked, on a nightstand or the like. One would still need to secure the weapon when leaving the room/house.
I don't count all my guns every day either, but I do know exactly where they are. Very few people in and out of our house and no kids, other than my grand kids once or twice. When they were here I did move the ones out in the open to somewhere unseen. So I don't worry much about a kid getting hold of any of them, if we had a break in, they would have to look except for the two on my desk, well they might have to look, the desk is a mess most of the time. House is alarmed and I have cameras up.
I am kind of with F.U., this seems to be mostly a feel good law, although it will doubtless stop a few killings, we will never know about those, no way to measure what didn't happen. I also see it as a set up for the next step should it prove ineffective "Now Lock all of them up all of the time"

I have to wonder how long FBI director Jim Comey stays a head and how long until Barry cuts his head off. Or he steps down. I kinda hope he stands up to the vitriol but this administration is not known for any dissention.

Interesting to say the least.

As I was working on a shotgun at work today I thought about making this post [now this place is even in my head at work Geez, lol]. I was thinking about the psychological effects on people when it comes to different looks of the same gun. So I thought I would throw my thought out there for discussion.
What I did was take a hunting shotgun and turn it into a home defense shotgun. As I was doing so I thought about how some peoples opinion of the gun would change just because of a few hundred dollars worth of accessories. I am not saying they are wrong, I am just saying that I can see how my adjustments would alter their opinions. I even had a friend comment on the gun as I was working on it. Saying , Oh, you building a assault shotgun? I corrected him by saying No, I am building a short barreled, adjustable stock, vertical forward grip, side saddle shell holder, with heatshield, shotgun. Anyway , again, just throwing this out here for discussion.



This is what I started with [stock photo]






And this was about $300 and 30 minutes later,

The first one looks like one I have seen many times in my life and holds no anxiety to me. The second one looks scary dangerous and I don't think I'd even want to be in the same roof with it.

That's what I am talking about. Same gun, just different look, but a much different opinion of it. One shoots no more or no faster than the other, but one looks "evil".

Actually the one I altered is much more comfortable. It has a adjustable length stock and with the pistol grips is more ergonomic .

I have never cared for the vertical handle on the forestock, I prefer the regular one, the pistol grip I am good woth, my street sweeper is set up the same way, but I like a short stock on a short gun. The only reason to have a long stock it for careful aim, not gonna happen if the sweeper comes out. I like a well designed weapon light to go with it. The Boca police liked my setup when they met up with it a couple years ago.
You do nice work

I always did like the street sweeper. I even like the knox conversion they produced for Mossberg, converting it to s drum or stick mag pump.
Thanks for the complement on my work Six.

Another "shooting" in a NC university this morning, Killing one and wounding others, WTF, again!


I'm afraid I'm beginning to have the opinion that it "is" the guns are that are killing people!

Because "99" percent of the sickos out there would not have the "balls" to have to get up all close and personal to the people to stab, bludgeon, or beat their victims to death. (They're too cowardly to be able to do that)

Guns make it so easy, impersonal, and massive, so . . . . . .

Smart Guns

60 Minutes aired a good piece on the pros, cons, and political challenges with Smart Guns last weekend.

Interesting to see various Smart Guns and how they work.

Starts at 15:00 in below video.



I think the New Jersey law -- the one that states that once Smart Guns are commercially available, they will be mandatory in New Jersey -- is short-sighted and has backfired. No one in the gun industry wants to open that door.

The Senator who authored the bill realizes that and says she is willing to amend the law to take out the 'mandate' and replace it with a stipulation that every gun store display/offer at least one Smart Gun.

A "smart gun", requirement is tantamount to putting a "band aid" on a gash requiring stitches! Absurd!

Why is it that it seems it's always "men" (MI) and "guns" equals "mass shootings", many times, killing multiple people?

Have not seen many times (if at all) where "women" (MI) and "guns" equated into "mass shootings", killing people.

Are women better balanced, or is it that women don't "relish guns" as much as men?

They just hide the bodies better and stuff. Plus they are more into the "slow kill" scenario.

(11-04-2015, 09:35 PM)Maggot Wrote: They just hide the bodies better and stuff. Plus they are more into the "slow kill" scenario.

True...