No thanks to the Pleasanton City Council caving to a special interest organization (Moms Demand Action) trying to further undermine 2nd Amendment rights - that are nearly gone in this state. Why should a person who lives alone have to be forced to lock up their guns? What good is gun for defense if it is locked up? So exactly how many unintentional shootings by children were there - in a nation with 330 million people and just as many firearms?

Some of us have caught on to the "gun safety" game (and the bad guys committing crimes on the streets don't care). We heard the same excuses when gun shops were run out of business in the city years ago and the county supervisors banned gun shows at the fairgrounds. Almost no one gets approved for a concealed weapons permit in any Bay Area community - regardless of their ability/background. It won't be considered "safe" until the legal gun ownership process is made either prohibitive and/or useless.

Web Link

Others of us have caught on to the myth of the "responsible gun owner" pushed by monetary interests like the NRA. Why should you have your guns locked up? Is that even a serious question? Even the military locks up weapons. It's called being responsible about the fact that you own a deadly weapon. We own guns and you're right we have locks on them even without this new Pleasanton law. Don't you?!

What if I lock my doors.. then in reality my gun is locked inside my house.

Obviously this is for a gun owner that lives alone or no kids.

"Others of us have caught on to the myth of the "responsible gun owner" pushed by monetary interests like the NRA. Why should you have your guns locked up? Is that even a serious question?"


The Supreme Court threw out the same requirement in place in Washington DC. Reason? Self-defense becomes meaningless and/or prohibitive. The vast majority of gun owners have nothing to do with crime/violence and the state already has storage laws as it relates to guns.

The new city requirement is yet another feel good measure from the irresponsible political left to supposedly "solve" problems. People who actually abuse guns/commit crimes/disobey gun laws are portrayed by the same politicians as bystanders/victims of "not enough gun laws" or a "public health problem".

So, Michael B, what is your solution to the gun violence issues that have, are, and will continue to plague this country? You've trotted out the usual 'most gun owners are responsible' argument but, based on the on-going senseless, needless killings in this country, that doesn't seem to hold water. In my mind, the roots of the issue are: A.) violence is the solution to my individual problem, B.) having a gun provides me with the 'strength' to force my solution on you -and open-carry seems to reinforce that as an idea. It's the willingness to impose a personal standard of justice and it permeates throughout US society -young, old, male, female, regardless of race. Frankly, society certainly seems to be easing toward some degree of vigilante justice -Gov. DeSantis seems to think a vigilante force is a good idea...

"So, Michael B, what is your solution to the gun violence issues that have, are, and will continue to plague this country? You've trotted out the usual 'most gun owners are responsible' argument but, based on the on-going senseless, needless killings in this country, that doesn't seem to hold water."


Let's start by stop using/trotting out the term "gun violence". Violence is a complex problem in our society and firearms (objects) do not commit acts of violence.

Most gun owners are responsible (and the 2nd Amendment is widely supported). Millions of citizens own guns/have permits to carry them - and do nothing wrong. Gun control advocates have no logical nor rational explanation for it. "Safe storage" is laughable as a solution and negatively affects the ability of self-defense. The city's own staff report cited several hundred unintentional shootings by children for the entire population of the United States as a "need" to implement it. Really?


What about what happens on the streets of our cities? The typical law-abiding person who owns a gun legally is involved with this? If you want to put a dent in this problem, take on the progressive establishment and discredit the "everyone is a victim" mentality they promote. Get involved with young people to keep them out of the criminal justice system, address out of wedlock birthrates, and aggressively enforce/prosecute people who violate gun laws.

Generally I agree with the 2nd amendment right, and responsible gun ownership laws. But I think what we routinely see is these changes don't move the needle - case in point are criminals going to follow the law on gun ownership? Probably not. Are irresponsible gun owners going to? Probably not. So we're left with adherence by a population that primarily isn't the problem because they are law abiding.

To solutions, because it is the right ask, I'm not sure - make bullets $500 ea with a rebate if you turn spent shells in? Even that would just turn legal owners to filling their own shells.....but again, I don't know the answer, but I think we all agree that ineffective legislation isn't either.

"but again, I don't know the answer, but I think we all agree that ineffective legislation isn't either."

Who's "we"?

Groups like Moms Demand Action and "progressive" politicians are going to continue peddle the myth that the average person who owns guns and has nothing to do with violence is somehow "not doing enough" to stop it. Or that a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (ignored by criminals)needs even more. They are not going to admit their policies do not work, they will demand even more "safety" measures, and the end result will be no one (except for the financially or politically well connected) will be allowed to legally own guns.