Bill could cost gun shops thousands of dollars

Damon Arthur, Record Searchlight | Published 5:39 p.m. PT Sept. 7, 2017 | Updated 5:50 p.m. PT Sept. 7, 2017

A California bill awaiting the governor’s signature that would require gun stores to beef up security to prevent firearms thefts could cost local gun stores thousands of dollars to comply.

The bill, SB 464, would require gun store owners to install barriers in front of entrances to prevent thieves from breaking into the buildings by smashing into them with vehicles.

The bill would also require guns to be locked up when the store is closed.

“All this is doing is giving some anti-gun people a warm and fuzzy feeling,” said John Bastiani, who owns Bastiani Arms in Redding.

Even if an owner installs all the necessary anti-theft measures required under the proposed law, thieves’ intent on stealing guns could still get into a store, he said.

“It’s going to waste a lot of people’s money and it’s not going to make a building totally secure,” Bastiani said.

He looked into installing the barriers a few years ago and received estimates of at least $1,500, he said.

The bill’s author, state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has said that in 2016 there were numerous gun store robberies up and down the state, including Ventura, Rocklin, Grass Valley and El Cerrito.

In each of the 10 robberies cited, criminals rammed vehicles into stores, stole guns and made a getaway.

Firearms dealers are already required to take certain steps, such as having bars on store windows and installing security cameras, but they are too lax, said Allison Anderman, managing attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

“Existing California law does not go far enough to prevent thefts from gun dealers in the state,” Anderman said. (My personal comment… We should consider Mr. Anderman’s thinking process as it relates to thefts from gun dealers. If the current law doesn’t go far enough to prevent thefts from gun dealers what law will? All we ever hear from gun grabbers is the term “common sense gun control.” Is Mr. Anderman’s proposal even close to common sense? No! It has been said many times… all a lock ever does is keep the honest person honest. If a criminal wants something bad enough they will find a way of getting it. So common sense tells Mr. Anderman that we should impose this law on the 1,782 Federal Licensed gun dealers in California because 10 were broken into. That isn’t common sense in my thinking. Unfortunately for California this is the ONLY kind of reasoning we get from our so-called leaders in California. Our law makers always go to extremes when guns are involved. They like to use a sledge hammer to kill nats because it gives the impression they are actually doing something to prevent crimes that relate to guns. Unfortunately, all they ever accomplish is placing additional burdens on those that never break laws.)

Under the proposed law, concrete and steel posts would have to be installed in front of a store’s entrance and in front of any windows that run from floor to ceiling.

The posts would have to be capable of stopping a 5,000-pound vehicle traveling 30 mph. (My personal comment… The criminals will now use any vehicle over 5,000 pounds and most gun stores have access in which a vehicle can travel faster than 30 mph. So where does this requirement reach its limit? 80,000 pound vehicles traveling at 100 mph? Large trucks and SUV’s already weigh on average 5,411 pounds (http://cars.lovetoknow.com/List_of_Car_Weights) so this will not stop most of these vehicles before the law’s ink has dried. Again, this is typical of laws being passed that do not prevent their intended purpose as they relate to guns.)

When a store is closed, guns would also need to be stored in a vault or safe or a windowless room with no access to outside the building. (My personal comment… This makes for a labor intensified undertaking meant only as a means of discouraging the gun stores from remaining in business. If the posts work as Mr. Anderman suggests, then why do we need this extra step? Because Mr. Anderman already knows the posts will not prevent “ALL” gun store thefts so he has built in an additional procedure. Why not do away with the posts and simply require bank type vaults to be installed? That would solve everything. WAIT! Banks get robbed to don’t they? This is a senseless law that will not work.)

Any perimeter doors that run floor to ceiling would also need to have locking roll-down steel doors that could be closed when the gun shop is closed, the legislation says. (My personal comment… So now we need steel? I thought the posts would stop gun store theft. Let’s use the sledge hammer!)

Gun store owners could also run a cable or hardened steel rod through the trigger guards of guns kept in cases made with steel frames and smash-proof polycarbonate panels at least a quarter-inch thick. (My personal comment… I have a better idea. Don’t sell guns in California! This way California will find itself in the same position that Seattle is in today. Seattle has lost thousands of tax revenue by adding $25 to the sale of each firearm sold in the city and a 5 cent per cartridge tax on all ammunition sold in the city. Now the people in Seattle simply go to other cities to buy guns and ammunition. Smart.)

The glass would also need to be covered with a protective laminate film “specifically designed to delay entry and unauthorized access,” according to a Senate Rules Committee analysis of the bill.

 

Craig DeLuz, spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition, said the regulations could be so expensive they drive some gun shops out of business.

“SB 464 represents a solution looking for a problem,” DeLuz said in a statement. “It adds to the ever-increasing number of unnecessary laws and regulations that restrict how and where firearms retailers are able to engage in business, facilitating the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated right.”

Bastiani said he didn’t think complying with the law will drive him out of business, but would still be costly. He said he already takes steps to prevent gun thefts because he doesn’t want stolen guns in the hands of criminals.

Patrick Jones, who manages Jones Fort gun shop in Redding, said he began making plans to bring his shop into compliance under the proposal shortly after the bill was introduced.

Jones Fort does not keep its guns out at night where they are visible because they become too attractive to criminals, he said.

“If guns, particularly handguns, are visible at night, then you are probably going to have a break-in, and they try to get in any way they can. This is just another law where they try to micromanage what we do,” Jones said.

“It doesn’t stop the problem. It just costs more money,” he said.

Anderman sees it differently… “I would disagree that this is micromanaging. It is legislation in the interest of public safety,” she said. (My personal comment… Sure Mr. Anderman sees it differently. This is his way of solving a problem that he hasn’t a clue on how to solve. So it’s more of the same only it now requires more obstacles; that will take care of it. After all we all know that laws prevent crime, that’s why the laws against drugs are working so well in California.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.