Los Angeles city council members want residents of their city to lock up their handguns when they are not in use.
At least some of them do. LA city council members are debating controversial new gun law changes, but the plan has faced resistance from the local police officers union.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the proposal would require city residents to either lock up handguns not being used or apply trigger locks to them. The proposal, based on an ordinance passed in San Francisco, is meant to protect children from gun accidents.
The proposed rules exempt active duty and reserve officers, but the police union wants retired officers and their families also included.
LA police officer turned Councilman, Joe Buscaino, argued that the city should be sensitive to the concerns of retired officers because they could be targeted for investigations they undertook while on the force. Buscaino goes on to say the ordinance should target “irresponsible gun owners.”
Police Union director Pete Repovich reportedly said it was vital for current and retired officers alike to be exempted to “protect themselves and society,” according to the article.
But Councilwoman Nury Martinez says she believes whether you are a retired police officer or an on-duty police officer, locking your firearm at home is just the responsible thing to do, “as opposed to having to go to another child’s funeral.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that a revised version of the law is being drafted that would exempt those with concealed weapons permits. This based on another council member’s suggestion to lift the storage requirements for those with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
He argues that those permits can be granted to judges, current and retired officers and other applicants approved by local law enforcement officials. It makes sense he says since getting that permit involves an “extensive background search” and mandatory training.
A law firm that represents the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. warned LA council members that the proposal violates the Second Amendment and contradicts state law.
