Due to popular demand, we have come up with a guard to protect against accidental damage to the lock mechanism, especially with 1911 style guns. This unit will be added to our safe for 2021 models and it will be available to purchase in mid-October. For those customers who have run into this issue, please contact us to arrange one sent to you.
Gun violence has a devastating impact on American children and teenagers. Over 2,700 children and teens (ages 0-19) are shot and killed and nearly 14,500 are shot and injured every year – that’s an average of 47 American children and teens shot every day.1 And the effects of gun violence extend far beyond those struck by a bullet: gun violence shapes the lives of the millions of children who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting.
A gun is a dangerous weapon to keep at home which is why one must exert caution when using it or storing it at home. If your gun falls into the wrong hands, it could be detrimental to you and your family.
A lot of people get a gun license so that they can defend themselves and their loved ones in the case of an attack but a lot of times this plan backfires because the gun is not kept in a secure location.
This is why people often install gun safes at their home so that they can keep their gun protected and can enjoy a peaceful and sound sleep every night. However, buying a gun safe has both pros and cons which every gun owner should know about before purchasing it.
Some trying to comply with California’s latest gun control mandates were left scratching their heads after the state’s website bogged down approaching the deadline.
Required to register guns newly classified as “assault weapons” by June 30 due to a change in state law concerning bullet buttons and homemade firearms, many instead found themselves shut out of the online process. In acknowledging the problems with the California Firearms Application Reporting System, which requires users to submit a number of photographs of their firearm as well as their own personal information, officials simply said the system was “experiencing a high volume of users,” and recommended steps for gun owners to troubleshoot their own computer equipment. However, the problem may go deeper than the last minute surge in use.
Jay Jacobson, who has been trying to register some of his personal rifles since April, told a Bay Area CBS affiliate that he has had one of his builds rejected by DOJ at least three times.
“Everybody that’s doing this is doing so to comply, they have a willingness to follow the law. And yet they’re making it as difficult as possible,” said Jacobson.
Others, details the report, have been busy modifying guns to make them “featureless” and thus not considered an assault weapon under California law. As detailed by another reportfrom ABC30, one Fresno area shop saw lots of demand for sub-caliber kits that convert their ARs to shoot .22LR.
Both Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association issued alerts and reference guides on options available to those impacted by the registration with the latter holding a series of webinars on how to legally avoid the process by modifying builds and the legal ramifications of building a “ghost gun” in the state.
In reaction to the news that CFARS was rife with issues in the lead-up to Saturday’s deadline, both the Firearms Policy Coalition and CRPA warned those experiencing problems of their rights and are actively seeking information from those who found the process inaccessible.
“Given the serious problems currently facing CFARS, if you intend to register, it is recommended that you maintain detailed records of your registration attempts, including screenshots, pictures, or videos, indicating the date and time of your attempts,” noted the National Rifle Association’s state affiliate.
A “yes” vote supports prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
A “no” vote opposes this proposal to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and require certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
Regulation of ammunition in California
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. The legislation also requires sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice.
Changes to state law
Proposition 63 would require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. Dealers would be required to check this permit before selling ammunition. The measure would eliminate several exemptions to the large-capacity magazines ban and increase the penalty for possessing them. Proposition 63 would also enact a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms.
Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 is a misdemeanor. Proposition 63 would make stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
State of the ballot measure campaigns
Yes on Prop 63 has outraised opponents six-to-one. As of October 21, 2016, supporters had received almost $4.8 million, while opposing committees had raised $741,826. The California Democratic Party, a supporter of Proposition 63, has contributed over $1 million to the campaign. The National Rifle Association is against the initiative and has contributed $95,000 to opponents. Polls indicate that around 68 percent of residents support Proposition 63.
Requirements to buy ammo
Proposition 63 would require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a four-year permit from the California Department of Justice. Dealers would be required to check this permit before selling ammunition. The Department of Justice would be authorized to charge up to $50 for permits to support administrative and enforcement costs.
California enacted legislation in July 2016 that, in addition to Proposition 63’s requirements, would mandate dealers to check with the Department of Justice to determine if the buyer is authorized to purchase.
Licenses to sell ammo
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips are not required to obtain a license
Proposition 63 would establish a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow these dealer licensing requirements.
California banned large-capacity magazines for most individuals in 2000. Individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 were allowed to keep the magazines. Proposition 63 would remove the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of large-capacity magazines. Individuals who do not comply with the measure would be charged with an infraction.
Court removal of firearms
Proposition 63 would enact a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms. Courts would be required to inform individuals prohibited from owning a firearm that they must turn their firearms over to local law enforcement, sell their firearms to a licensed dealer, or give their firearms to a dealer for storage. Probation officers would check and report on what prohibited individuals did with their firearms.
Starting in July 2019, the July 2016 legislation prohibits most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer. Proposition 63 would move up the start date of this law to January 2018. It would also make bringing out-of-state ammunition into the state without first delivering it to a dealer an infraction.
Dealers of ammunition would need to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. Individuals would need to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Failure to report would be considered an infraction.
Penalty for theft
Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 is a misdemeanor.
Proposition 63 would make stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.