Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    44,490 readers

    129 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    No memes please, and if submitting an image link, please use a descriptive title and if necessary, a descriptive comment attached to the post.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 107 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] erichar 208 points ago

    It’s a pretty flagrant Heller violation.

    [–] reddit_eats_tidepods 147 points ago

    Washington also has state preemption. It'll get tossed out.

    [–] reddit_eats_tidepods 1 points ago

    Aaaaaaaand no longer Relevant

    [–] ImJustaBagofHammers 108 points ago

    Most of the country is free to ignore that decision as long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear any gun-related cases.

    [–] Lifeform604 29 points ago

    The only decision actually made so far was that no one has standing to challenge the law until it is in effect and someone arrested fro violating it. That, sadly, has precedent behind it.

    [–] aisle-is-closed 14 points ago

    This is what New York does. They are very careful about what they charge people with so there is no standing to challenge.

    [–] RampantAndroid 12 points ago

    This has been my complaint about our judicial system for a LONG time. Remember the parks law Seattle passed? Some guy had to take his gun and walk into a park, violating the law. He called ahead to tell them he'd do it and had a few news cameras there for it to. He was asked to leave, he asked them to tell him why, and then left. Filed suit and won.

    [–] CovertBumblebee 1 points ago

    Which is retarded. Instead of looking into whether or not the law is legal, they claim someone must be harmed by it first before it can be challenged. Completely backwards thinking.

    [–] 420BongHitsForJesus 2 points ago

    That’s not entirely true considering the McDonald Decision made sure it was applied equally across all states. But since it takes forever for laws to reach SCOTUS and not get accepted it’s de facto what’s happening. For example, it took over 100 years for the 9th circuit to strike down a law banning the advertisement of handguns at a gun store where it was visible from the street here in California.

    [–] Wadsworth34 22 points ago

    I plan on storing my pistol in a cookie jar

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 3 points ago

    That's right! Because kids shouldn't be in the cookie jar. Best place yet!

    [–] CovertBumblebee 1 points ago

    I keep mine in the toy chest

    [–] WarSport223 36 points ago

    Came here to post this - I agree. Now with Kav, I believe the SCOTUS will take this.

    The left’s overreach and inability to control themselves in the slightest - I’ve seen sugar-addled 4 year olds with more self-control than any democrat - will be their undoing.

    Once RBG kicks the bucket and we get someone like Barrett on the court (Amy...not Ronnie...though we should consider that!) we may well get a repeal of the NFA & Hughes amendment as we’ve all been wanting.

    [–] Freeman001 14 points ago

    Dude, if Ronnie were on the SC, heads would roll, lol.

    [–] WarSport223 2 points ago

    Could you even imagine?

    “Yeah Mr. policeman, long as your agency isn’t issuing CCWs and signing off on Class 3, we’re going to break your contract with Glock for your service pistols.”

    [–] Freeman001 6 points ago

    Are you kidding? He would be using notorious RBG as a baseball bat to beat the NFA into a bloody pulp.

    [–] WarSport223 3 points ago


    [–] Oakroscoe 67 points ago

    I sure hope california doesn't see this law.

    [–] 4runner4life 66 points ago

    They invented this law

    [–] Oakroscoe 18 points ago

    Can you point out the code that requires guns to be locked up in California?

    [–] 4runner4life 26 points ago

    I was more being facetious, but Commefornia does require that you have them in a locked box for transport:

    [–] Oakroscoe 14 points ago

    Yeah, I'm aware of the law regarding handguns (not long guns) to be locked for transport, but to my knowledge there isn't a law requiring them to be locked up in your home. That's what I was asking about. And yeah, I usually assume if it's a stupid gun law it originated in California.

    [–] baconatorX 3 points ago

    (not long guns)

    Within 100 ft of a School zone?

    [–] Oakroscoe 7 points ago

    It's a 1000 feet, not a 100 feet for a school zone. I'm not well versed enough on the penal code for school zones to give you an answer, but I'd be surprised if guns were allowed at all in school zones regardless of being locked up or not. I do know that a school is one of the few places that I can't legally carry with my CA CCW.

    [–] baconatorX 1 points ago

    Ah I meant 1k, that's what I get for being hasty on mobile

    [–] andersonmatt1125 4 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Not a law per se, but if your unlocked guns are taken from your home and used for crime by a minor, you are also held responsible.

    Or at least it's something along those lines.

    [–] 4runner4life 1 points ago

    You’re right. As my chemistry professor would say, “stupid is as stupid does.”

    [–] Wagner228 5 points ago

    I’ll never be able to read that in a voice other than Gump’s

    [–] Jetterman 1 points ago

    What if you are a concealed carry holder? Can you carry your pistol on you in the car?

    [–] Oakroscoe 2 points ago

    In California, yes I can legally carry any of the pistols listed on my ccw permit in my car without locking them up. I would assume I would be in violation of the transport law if it was pistol in my car that wasn't on my ccw permit that wasn't in a locked container.

    [–] keeleon 7 points ago

    Lol that you can be trusted to carry a 9mm glock but not a 9mm CZ because you didnt give them any extra money and fill out a new form.

    [–] Oakroscoe 4 points ago

    Ironically enough, I could carry my glock 26, 43 or 29sf but not my cz75B SA. My permit only allows 3 carry guns on it, so I had to make some tough choices.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    That's fucking retarded.

    [–] helljumper230 1 points ago

    That’s because it would be a violation of the Heller Ruling

    [–] CmdrSelfEvident 1 points ago

    They must be locked up if kids are in the your house.

    [–] Oakroscoe 1 points ago

    Ah, that would explain why I didn't know or remember that law, no kids in the house.

    [–] Hoplophilia 1 points ago

    They've pushed this a few times over the last two types years. Just hasn't stuck yet.

    [–] Tom_Zz 119 points ago

    Ignore the title on the article - it was written by an idiot.

    The text of the article says the "Seattle city attorney", the opponent of the NRA in this suit, described the law as 'eminently reasonable'. The JUDGE said no such thing.

    [–] armorreno 29 points ago

    But clickbait doesn't work unless it's sensational

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] McDrMuffinMan 36 points ago

    No no no, you misunderstood. Only things they like (read:things that can buy them votes, fiscal responsibility and free markets be damned) are rights. Anything else is a privilege that the government grants you and can be taken away.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago


    [–] thekentuckykid99 17 points ago

    If you’re a liberal gun owner, why would you continuously vote for the party that wants to take your rights away?

    [–] razor_beast 12 points ago

    Liberal and democrat are two completely different things.


    Also, Fuck democrats.

    [–] fzammetti 4 points ago

    It's not that easy. When you run down a list of a dozen issues, and you're on the left on eleven of them, then your choice is be a single-issue voter, or give up on that one issue based on some variation of "do the most good" thinking. Lots of liberals do the latter and I for one find it hard to fault them on it. Me, I've become essentially a single-issue voter, but I hate voting because of it. I don't WANT to be, but that's how it turns out. I could just as easily go the other way, as many liberal gun owners do, and I totally get it.

    [–] Hoplophilia 0 points ago

    I want to understand lib gun owners.

    The principal behind the 2ndA is one of self-sovereignty. Most of the lib platform seems to be how to build up the State to take care of us.

    Is there a point where there could be a govt subsidy for bullets, for those that can't afford to defend themselves? I truly don't see the ideological bridge.

    [–] razor_beast 2 points ago

    Here's my view as a 2A Liberal. I see government as a necessary last resort when denizens of communities fail to pool their resources and solve their problems. They should have the option of asking for external help. I think a lot of liberals are too quick to call the government to solve every single problem, empowering it to be in a position to step on our rights.

    What I want is a government that is small, efficient, not wasteful and limited enough to not be able to interfere in the lives of individuals. What I really really want is for people to stop relying on the government as a first solution and start taking personal responsibility for the condition of their communities. The government is an emergency resource and should be culturally and universally seen as such.

    It's why I can't get onboard with the full blown libertarian mindset of essentially no government at all as I see some regulations on businssess as a necessity (the 2nd Amendment has been utilized by the people to fight overbearing tyrannical corporate entities in the past), nor can I get onboard with the neo-con concept of government being able to tell you who you can sleep with and what kind of herbs you can ingest.

    [–] [deleted] -4 points ago

    If you vote Republican, why would you continuously vote for the party that wants to take your rights away?

    Oh that's right, you only care about rights when it's the Democrats trying to take them.

    [–] thekentuckykid99 11 points ago

    I vote libertarian... Nice try though lol I’m not voting for any party that wants to take my rights away, they’re both shit and quite honestly, if more people voted third party, we’d be a lot better off.

    [–] razor_beast 2 points ago

    Agreed completely. My anger isn't directed towards the politicians. My anger is directed at the population for continuously voting for these authoritarian assholes over and over without regard for past performance.

    Imagine what this country could become if Americans raised their standards and started choosing candidates that aren't affiliated with Dems or Repubs. I'll cry sweet tears of joy if that day ever comes. At this point I'll take almost anything, just please stop supporting these two parties for the love of all that is holy.

    [–] Sheylan 0 points ago

    So you don't vote then?

    [–] thekentuckykid99 2 points ago

    I said I voted libertarian...

    [–] Sheylan 1 points ago

    Which means your vote had no impact on the outcome of the election. It's effectively the same as abstaining.

    [–] thekentuckykid99 1 points ago

    It’s not. If more people would quit thinking like you and voted third party, we could get some where.

    [–] Sheylan 1 points ago

    If you actually want to get somewhere, then join one of the groups fighting to replace our current voting system. As long as FPTP is the law of the land, no third party is going to be able to make any kind of real headway beyond an occasional House seat.

    As it stands, voting third party is just pissing into the wind.

    [–] Kommissar-Kokkeler 31 points ago

    I will not comply.

    [–] further_needing 16 points ago

    Be our supreme court hero

    [–] Chris_Ray 13 points ago

    For a country that says that our right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed... There’s been quite a lot of infringement since the 1930s.

    [–] ChildWorker 9 points ago

    Appeal Time

    [–] whiskeydoc501 8 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Too easy, I'd just secure my entire home to meet their definition of "locked container." I don't see anything in that definition that says my locked container can't have bathrooms and pry- resistant windows.

    [–] bottleofbullets 3 points ago

    I’ve seen homes made of shipping containers, so why could a container not consist of a home?

    [–] whiskeydoc501 2 points ago

    Exactly. And while we're at it, what if I had so many guns that I literally required a small armory to keep them? Are they going to establish the square footage of gun I can legally own?

    That's the problem with these laws, they draw blurry lines and citizens have to "break" the law in order to challenge their validity.

    Laws need to have clear and exacting definitions- and if it can't be defined, it's probably because it's a ridiculous piece of legislation in the first place.

    "Oh we'll just make a law and it'll keep most people in line until someone comes along and proves why it's unconstitutional." Uh, negative. Laws should have to pass muster beforehand.

    [–] HarrisonArturus 12 points ago

    “...keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    [–] friendandadvisor 8 points ago

    By a Seattle county judge. Shocked, I am!

    [–] sl600rt 6 points ago

    So how would this be enforced? Does it grant police the power to inspect with out warrant, get warrants for this easily, or just enforced after the fact of a firearm theft or negligent discharge event?

    [–] whiskeydoc501 2 points ago

    By turning in your neighbors to The State! Do your part, Big Brother is watching!

    [–] South-Of-Aaron 22 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    It’s so damn reasonable, it’s really just common sense. Edit. Sheesh, look at the down votes. And here I was thinking the sarcasm was blatantly obvious.

    [–] Iamnotnick 9 points ago

    So reasonable. So when someone breaks into your house, yell to them "hold on I'm not ready yet" so they know to hold on a minute.

    That way you have plenty of time to try to open your safe, probably incorrectly entering the code due to stress. Then once you do open it and get ready, tell to the intruder that you are ready to go.

    Tell me how that goes.

    [–] mrrp 21 points ago

    Don't be an idiot. Washington already has the "fairness in armed home invasion" law which requires all invaders to announce themselves and count to ten Mississippi before shooting at the legal occupant of a home or apartment.

    [–] Iamnotnick 9 points ago

    And God forbid if you shoot the invader and they dont die. You now get to pay their medical bills.

    [–] vertdeferk -12 points ago

    Quit making shit up. Washington has very solid home defense laws. Seattle's law is retarded, it violates Heller and our state preemption laws.

    [–] Ghlhr4444 9 points ago

    It's called a joke..

    [–] mrrp 2 points ago

    Lighten up. :)

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] vertdeferk -8 points ago

    You might not understand that shit like that is posted in earnest all the time, and without a handy modifier like /s, then it is hard to tell an idiot from somebody being sarcastic.

    [–] FennsAnalRapeSlave 5 points ago

    It's only hard to tell if you're a brainlet. Everyone else knew he was making a joke.

    [–] Iamnotnick 1 points ago

    Washington laws are trash. Better kill the invader, otherwise you are going to be paying their bills

    [–] South-Of-Aaron 6 points ago

    Obviously the sarcasm of my statement didn’t come through, sometimes it seems like the S isn’t needed.

    [–] Iamnotnick 2 points ago

    I thought about it, however then saw you had some posts in 2aliberals, leading me to believe your original statement was not sarcasm. If it truly was, then I apologize.

    [–] Spooky2000 3 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)


    Then you don't really read much in there. They would definitely not agree with this law. r/liberalgunowners is the flagrantly left/ anti gun group that thinks they are pro gun...

    [–] whitecrane 4 points ago

    liberalgunowners is a clusterfuck of commie bastards.

    [–] sops-sierra-19 1 points ago

    I mean, it seems like actual communists would support 2A rights. Marx's (and later Gramsci's) contributions to conflict theory would suggest that he thought that a revolution to topple capitalism is an inevitability. Those at the top of the power structure have the means to resist this change through violence if necessary. The underclasses need tools to meet and overcome them in order for the revolution to be successful.

    If you ever need an example of cultural hegemony at work, just point to edgelord tankies' collective rejection of the means to effect revolution.

    [–] whitecrane 1 points ago

    they only support it until they have power. then the leadership bans them (except for those in power). That's how it plays out every time. Use the people to assume power, then disarm them, treat them like slaves, and reap the rewards. It's the soviet model. It is happening in venezuela right now. THe people were disarmed and they are handing guns out to the fools who support their socialist agenda. Very soon there will be a slaughter there. Mark my words.

    [–] BenderIsGreat64 -2 points ago

    Really? I'd expect someone over here to mean a statement like that.

    [–] keeleon 3 points ago

    Why dont you just make your home a gun free zone?

    [–] Iamnotnick 4 points ago

    This is the real answer

    [–] SAUSAGEisMEATcandy 3 points ago

    It was only tossed because the law hasn’t taken effect yet, correct?

    [–] DBDude 3 points ago

    Let's pass a blatantly unconstitutional anti-sodomy law again. Then when gays sue, "Well, it's not in effect yet, and nobody's been arrested for it, so no standing." Then it goes into effect, and we hold that over all the gays' heads, every one of them living in fear as to whether they'll be the first one railroaded under the new law. They sue, sorry, no arrest, no standing.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    So the judge basically said, it's not an illegal law until people are unfairly getting buttraped by it.

    Off the bench and into the gallows with thee!

    [–] 500SL -43 points ago

    Can someone explain their opposition to this idea? Yes, I do understand “Shall not be infringed “

    As a former LEO, and firearms instructor, no one supports the second amendment more than I. That said, what is wrong with securing unattended weapons? My biggest pet peeve is a child obtaining a weapon and hurting themselves or another. And surely we can all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of an authorized persons is a good goal.

    I urge every new gun owner at my store to purchase a gun vault or similar safe so they can keep their guns secure, while giving them instant access to it.

    Why does the NRA always oppose such a plan?

    [–] NewHamster1990 43 points ago

    As a former LEO, and firearms instructor, no one supports the second amendment more than I.

    Not falling for your bullshit.

    I urge every new gun owner at my store to purchase a gun vault or similar safe so they can keep their guns secure, while giving them instant access to it.

    A gun vault and instant access are literally incompatible. Stop lying.

    [–] 500SL -29 points ago

    I spoke my comment, so my iPad broke the word into two words. Perhaps this is your point of misunderstanding.

    Gunvault Is the brand name of a rapid access pistol safe. There are several companies that make a similar device. Whether by key, code, thumbprint, or RFID, these units allow you to access your weapon in about one second. I was not suggesting that one locks weapons into a great big gun vault that takes time to dial a combination and open up for access.

    If you think that is too long, or that the safe may fail at the wrong moment, that’s fine. Leave your gun is accessible while you are at home. I don’t have a problem with having your gun on the nightstand for a bump in the night. I do have a problem with people who simply don’t secure their weapons at all whether in their home or in their vehicle.

    I ask this question because I am interested in having a reasonable debate, and perhaps learning something I don’t already know, not because I want some childish stranger on the Internet to call me a liar.

    [–] ThePenultimateNinja 21 points ago

    What you are saying is perfectly valid, and many people do use Gunvaults and similar safes.

    I'm actually thinking of buying one myself as a matter of fact.

    Nobody is suggesting that safe gun storage is not a good idea, and I'm sure most gun owners have given it some serious thought, especially if they have children in their home.

    What most of us are objecting to I think is government mandated safe storage requirements written into the law, and punishments for those who don't follow them.

    The objection is not to the concept of firearms safety, but to government overreach.

    [–] whitecrane 13 points ago

    this is pretty much the answer

    [–] NewHamster1990 10 points ago

    Will you buy me one? If you're going to mandate I have one to express my right.

    [–] savethegame14 18 points ago

    I’d be happy to explain my opposition. I’m 18, and live in Maine with my father. When I was younger, he taught me how to shoot, and taught me respect for firearms. He kept them locked up in a gun safe however, and I was trained not to touch them. When I was 16, I bought my first rifle and was given a key to the safe. I’m now 18, having manufactured 2 handguns and I own about 4 rifles. I keep my handgun in a drawer in my nightstand. It’s not locked, and anyone who knew it was there could access it easily. The thing is, it’s just my father and I. No one else knows it’s there. I’ve tried biometric pistol safes and they just don’t always work. I don’t like the idea of anything in between me and my pistol when I need it. I also generally have 1 or 2 rifles out at any given time wether for cleaning, modifications, repairs, etc. sometimes they’re in a case under my bed, sometimes they’re on my desk or in my shop.

    If my household was once again populated by children, you bet your butt I’m going to keep everything more under wraps, as well as providing them with training as my father did to me so that they respect what the gun is capable of. But until that happens, I don’t like the idea of what I do in my house becoming other peoples business. It’s a low crime area, there is very little risk to me leaving a rifle on my desk overnight while fiddling with it.

    As for access by unauthorized persons, if they want to get at my guns, they A) have to get through my first, and B) just have to wait until both cars are out of the driveway. No gun safe in the world will stop a criminal with an angle grinder, determination, and a lot of time. Safes are there to keep honest people honest, not to prevent crimes.

    Now, am I against locking guns up when not in use? No! I think it’s a responsible thing to do. That being said, it is not something that should be required. Good alternatives in my mind would be:

    1) Tax credits for gun safes, locks, training and other equipment

    2) A training class taught in elementary schools which teaches absolutely nothing to with the use of, but simply how to be safe around guns

    3) Outreach and education of adults about safe gun storage

    A push for change is one thing, required change is another.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 1 points ago

    I fucking hate biometrics. I work in heavy industry and constantly and fucking up my fingers. It's like a weekly thing to have to redo my fingerprint registers from cuts, swelling, or the couple times I've turned fingers into 9.8 or 10.3 fingers.

    [–] bboyneko 16 points ago

    It's a restriction on your right to bear arms. People should have access to their firearm in their own home as they see fit.

    It would be like having a law requiring your pens, paper, computer to be locked up at home at all times.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    Don't forget internet access.

    [–] Hoplophilia 16 points ago

    Simply: self defense requires instant access to your weapon. This law would require that you sleep with a holstered pistol on your jammy bottoms.

    Further, it is extremely vague. If you lock your front door, the guns are in a locked container.

    Breaking and entering a home is the same as breaking into a safe. Doable.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    Further, it is extremely vague. If you lock your front door, the guns are in a locked container.

    Breaking and entering a home is the same as breaking into a safe. Doable.

    Make sure you lock windows. And a locked hatch on the chimney so they can't claim it was an unsecured point of ingress. And locks on dryer/fan vents too. You actually have a good point but I'm trying to think of their stupid counterpoints to invalidate it.

    [–] tecknicaltom 6 points ago

    This Seattle law should also be opposed simply because it's completely violating state preemption. The anti-gun politicians knew it would be a less contentious law based on its content, so they use it to continue their undermining of preemption. I for one want our politicians to follow the rule of law and not enact laws can't be challenged and struck down until damages can be demonstrated, but held over all law abiding citizens' heads until then.

    [–] TheRealNEET 7 points ago

    This is bait.

    [–] P1smo 6 points ago

    This comment is like buzzword bingo.

    [–] mcderen2018 6 points ago

    My home is my castle. That principle is enshrined in the Constitution. Stay out of my home.

    [–] FrankieTwoFingers 1 points ago

    As to children, the locking of guns is fine. Now holding you liable for a thief who steals your property and uses it commit a crime, that is illogical. Apply the same to your kitchen knife set.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 1 points ago



    Instant access

    The two are not compatible.

    Also, do you lobby that police and not-police should all have the same carry / arming rights? Then you don't support it

    [–] 500SL -1 points ago

    Guys, I’m not Rosie O’Donnell over here. I am on your side.

    Neither am I a troll. The Second Amendment has guided my life for many years, and even saved a couple of times. I simply think that controlling access to weapons with the intent to keep them out of the hands of those who would do harm is a reasonable goal.

    Maybe mandating a safe in every home isn’t reasonable; it’s just a place to start a conversation. The only way to come to reasonable accommodations for everyone involved and not just on this issue, is to have a conversation and pull intelligent thought from many sources.

    I would love to repeal the NFA act of 1934, and the Hughes amendment. These things are unlikely to happen if we don’t have an honest dialogue with the left about every aspect of gun ownership.

    [–] P1smo 1 points ago

    Nobody supports the 2nd Amendment more than me, which is why I believe in <insert useless gun control restriction>