A Bay Area community in California has adopted a new gun storage ordinance that it claims is one of the toughest in the state, requiring gun owners to keep their firearms locked up with ammunition stored separately unless it’s “in use”, which could subject the city to a lawsuit by residents and Second Amendment groups.
The city council in Pinole, located a few miles north of Berkeley, included another gun storage mandate in their new ordinance aimed at those traveling with a firearm requiring guns left in vehicles to be disabled with a trigger lock and stored in a locked container in the locked trunk of the vehicle. Though the city’s press release says the text of the ordinance can be found on the city’s website, it wasn’t available to view as of Sunday morning.
There’s a significant issue with the ordinance adopted by the city council, as well as an older ordinance that’s been in place since the late 1970s. The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that a similar ordinance in Washington, D.C. requiring guns to be kept locked up with ammunition stored separately unless being used for “recreational purposes” violated the right to keep and bear arms because there was no exception for self-defense. Pinole’s ordinance doesn’t appear to include a self-defense exception either. In fact, when I was perusing the city’s municipal code, I discovered that the city currently prohibits discharging a firearm in self-defense.
Chapter 09.20.10 of the Pinole City Code declares it’s “unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, air gun, air rifle, or other gun or device discharging by the use of powder, air, or springs, any bullet or shot of any kind, or sling-shot, in the city of Pinole”, with only three exceptions:
- On any pistol, skeet, trap, or rifle range, the location of which has been approved by the chief of police of the city of Pinole;
- In certain designated areas which have been approved by the chief of police for hunting of migratory game birds; or
- Peace officers as defined in Section 830 of the California Penal Code and acting within the scope of their official duties
A violation of that ordinance can result in a misdemeanor conviction, a $500 fine, and the possibility of six months in the Contra Costa County Jail, while violating the gun storage ordinance can lead to a $1,000 fine.
In its press release, the city quoted several officials who spearheaded the effort to put the new ordinance in place.
Vice Mayor Cameron Sasai played an instrumental role in introducing the new ordinance and working with City Attorney Eric Casher to develop the legislation, making it one of the strongest in the State of California. “The impact of this local law is lifesaving,” stated Sasai. “Secure gun storage is a simple yet effective measure that will keep firearms from getting into the wrong hands, protecting our community from the impacts of gun violence.”
“The adoption of this ordinance is an important step in safeguarding our community,” said Mayor Maureen Toms. “By securing firearms, we are preventing unnecessary harm and promoting responsible gun ownership in Pinole.”
My question for Sasai and Toms is simple: did either of them actually bother to look at the existing ordinance or check to see if their gun storage mandate comported with what the Supreme Court said in Heller? Requiring ammunition to be stored separately from a locked an unloaded firearm makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to use that gun in self-defense if needed, but since the city prohibits the discharge of a gun to save the life of a homeowner or resident, maybe the mayor and vice-mayor see that as a non-issue.
Second Amendment groups like the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California, on the other hand, might be very interested in Pinole’s prohibition on using guns for self-defense inside the city limits, and if Pinole sticks to its gun ordinances Sasai and Toms could soon find themselves and the city involved in a lawsuit.
Read the full article here
