This ordinance is ridiculous, not well thought out and completely unenforceable. It also violates decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller. This is a "look good" ordinance so that the council can say "Look we are taking action" that really is not any kind of action at all.

From the news I have been reading there are a lot of people buying guns for the first time in the past month. One gun store employee said they had not seen such a buying frenzy sine the Rodney King riots. If you want to be scared think of hundreds of first time gun owners running around our community. They can not even take a gun safety class because they are shut down until who knows when.

I'll gladly pay the 50 dollar fine for the peace of mind that comes with knowing I have immediate access to a gun that I will use to protect my family. Else I have no chance against an armed intruder whose gun is unlocked.

Thank you City Council for a wise policy that will save lives.

The UK and other countries have had laws like this for years and they work!!!

Peter,

As usual you really don't understand this ordinance. How will it save lives? It actually creates more risk than it prevents and it is just silly. The only time it allows you not to have a gun locked up is if you are wearing it. That means technically if you are cleaning a gun you are breaking the law, if you are inspecting a gun you are breaking the law, if you are taking the gun out to your car to go to the range you are breaking the law.

You might want to look as the laws on the books in California and then explain how this is going to make anyone safer. It is certainly not going to change anyone's behavior.

Enough - I understand the ordinance well enough to actually put my name on my comments. I don't need to hide.

All of the issue you raise are consistent with the ordinance.

Similar ives elsewhere have reduced guns deaths - many of which are acccidental and ou suicidal using guns owned by others.

Here is the gun lock opposition document that I submitted to the council. I mention attached photos but don't see a way to include them in this comment.
-------------------------
Drew,

I had a chance to speak to council member Catherine Carlton about the pending gun lock ordinance. She explained that the vote in favor would be sure to pass so there’s no point in me speaking to the council tomorrow evening in opposition to the ordinance. I will offer here a brief version of my reasoning to oppose the new ordinance.

Everyone gives at least some consideration to home security. Almost everyone locks their doors and windows. Many people have an alarm system installed and/or video surveillance cameras. Some might choose a modest level of personal defense such as having pepper spray or a baseball bat handy. Some choose to have an easily accessible loaded firearm, usually a pistol, as a much more powerful self-defense tool.

As a 53-year resident of Menlo Park I know that it is generally a very safe community. Many would consider having a loaded firearm for self-defense as being extreme and unnecessary. The likelihood of having a home invasion is very low. But “low” doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. Fairly recently on December 12, 2018, Menlo Park resident Kathy Anderson was stabbed and killed by a home intruder. Perhaps she didn’t have any means of self defense or, if she did, wasn’t able to retrieve it quickly enough to make use of it. It’s not just a gun-nut fantasy that this situation can occur.

This gets to my main reason for opposing the pending ordinance. In a home where there are small children, I’m in agreement with the current ordinance that requires that any firearms be locked and inaccessible to the children. Not to do so would be incredibly irresponsible. However, this argument doesn’t apply to homes having no small children. Anything that even slightly slows down access time to my firearm in an emergency situation can be the difference between life and death. I keep my loaded handgun in an unlocked drawer in the nightstand beside my bed. From the time I’m alerted I can have the gun in my hand in 4 seconds, stopwatch timed by my wife. Having to deal with a locking device of any kind on my gun adds delay to that and reduces my cushion of being ready to defend myself against the threat. Seconds really do matter in a case like this.

It’s not easy to estimate how much time is added by needing to unlock the firearm. If a key type lock is used you must first turn on the light and then you have to spend some time finding the key. Leaving the key in the lock at all times would defeat the whole purpose of the ordinance. So, what do you do with the key? To make any sense at all the key must be at least slightly hidden. Once the key is in hand you have to insert it in the lock in a situation where you’re under extreme stress with adrenaline pumping and possible clumsy handling of the key. Once the key is inserted you still have to remove the lock. Only then is the firearm ready for use.

How much extra time does that take? The exact circumstances could vary but I can easily imagine that it takes an extra 10-15 seconds to get the gun ready even when you’re hurrying as much as possible. The extra delay could be fatal.

There are other possibilities for securing the gun besides using a key lock. With a combination lock you could unlock it with a few button pushes which takes some time though probably less than the keyed lock. There are gun lockboxes that can be opened with the touch of a fingerprint. This is probably the fastest way you could get quick access to your locked gun. Knowing, unfortunately, that the new gun lock ordinance will pass, just last week I purchased such a fingerprint activated gun case. Using the fingerprint technique, I’ve timed myself and am able to get the gun ready in 4-5 seconds from the time of being alerted.

Attached are two photos of my new gun storage box. I bought it at Amazon for about $150. Key based gun locks are much less expensive, under $10, but induce dreaded delay in accessing the gun. The model is “awesafe Gun Safe with Fingerprint Identification and Biometric Lock”. The white button is the fingerprint reader.

A gun at home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self-defense. (Kellerman, et all Web Link )

A locked safe makes it slightly safer.

This law is a good start.

Why stop at guns? What about alcohol, medicines, drain cleaners and cannabis? Shouldn't these all be required to be locked up in your home in case your children access them when you aren't looking?

More stupid regulations by our city council. I won't vote for any of them next election.

Ms. Trump, Nonsense. Suicides by a gun are just that. Had the gun not been there it is more than probable that the suicide would still occur. Your web link and data are completely useless in the context of this law. Using your logic cars should be outlawed in the home because you’re more likely to be harmed if they are there.

Responsible gun owners do not deserve to be burdened by such legislation. Go after the gangs, the illegal guns and the multi offenders. Oh right, you and the California liberals are against that.

The Supreme Court in Heller v DC ruled that these types of mandatory general 'locked and unloaded' storage laws are unconstitutional (2nd amendment) and in McDonald v Chicago made that ruling binding on the states and their political subdivisions (14th amendment).

And the purported exemption provided for carry on the person doesn't avoid the ruling.

A gun at home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self-defense.

> Had the gun not been there it is more than probable that the suicide would still occur.

Prove it -show us your numbers (you can't because you made that up.)

> Your web link and data are completely useless in the context of this law.

You really have nothing, don't you?

> Using your logic cars should be outlawed in the home because you’re more likely to be harmed if they are there.

Yup, nothing but inanities.

So it stands:

A gun at home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self-defense. A locked safe makes it slightly safer.

> They are lying.

Yet you offer no substantiation of your fever-swamp fantasy of 'lies'.

I recall that you insisted Obama would take away your guns if he had both houses of congress. Didn't happen.

It was you, kind madam, that lied.

A gun at home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self-defense.

“Held:

“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)

Dicta:

“[A] statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense [is] clearly unconstitutional.”

Is the City prepared to spend money defending this in the resulting litigation? As a lawyer, they should expect interested parties to get together and file suit to get this revoked. In addition to it's own fees, the City could be forced to pay the fees of the filing party.

Where was the City attorney on this? Did he not advise the City of the unconstitutionality of this? If not, a different City attorney should be hired.

If the reporting on this is accurate, this ordinance will not stand.

i spoke with Ray M. about this after the vote and this is a "me too" law.

apparently all of the local communities have passed similar laws.

Ray lowered the fine to $50 and made it a ordinance offence (i.e. not criminal). all of this does not diminish the fact that the first time they enforce it they can expect a lawsuit from CalGuns and the NRA.

This is NOT a Heller case (that was about legally keeping a gun in DC)

Thanks
Roy

Roy - Where can we see the ordinance that was actually passed?
Proposed ordinance 1067 provided for criminal prosecution (misdemeanor), a $1000 fine, six months in jail, or both.

Also, why do you think anybody needs to wait until they try and enforce it?
Is it not the case that the ordinance goes into effect 30 days after voting? If so, on April 10, people will have a well founded fear of prosecution/fines and would have standing to file suit against the violation of their rights.

Also, respectfully, I disagree about whether this is a Heller case. In Heller, the question decided by the Supreme Court was: "Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?" Clearly, the Supreme Court found that they did and then applied this holding to the States in MacDonald. In 2015, (i.e., before Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), the Supreme Court declined to grant cert in Jackson v. San Francisco, which is the same issue - over the dissents of Scalia and Thomas. Do people think that the same case now will get a better or more hostile reception by the Supreme Court as currently constituted or how it is likely to be constituted in ~3-4 years?

Also, why does anybody need to wait for CalGuns or the NRA?
Any Menlo Park resident could bring suit on April 10 in federal court.
The City should anticipate litigation.
Seems like there are better uses of tax dollars.

And now San Mateo County Court is closed. This is the next step towards mass social panic and misbehavior. People will start ignoring the justice system, not a good thing right now.

Guns are rarely used for self-defense, and often used to harm somebody in a home.

Simple math. Obviously owning a gun is more of an emotional need or crutch for some people.