CityofSantaBarbara
Santa Barbara Youth Council Aims to Prevent Gun Violence with Safe Firearm Storage Ordinance
The Santa Barbara City Council will consider a Safe Firearm Storage Ordinance to set new requirements for storing firearms in residences and vehicles within the City of Santa Barbara. The Santa Barbara Youth Council, a city advisory group comprised of local youth ages 13 to 19, will present the draft ordinance during the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 5.
The proposed ordinance aims to protect public health and safety by preventing unintended access to firearms. If passed, the Safe Firearm Storage Ordinance would require firearms to be stored in a locked container and disabled with a trigger lock.
“The Youth Councilmembers have taken full initiative in drafting this proposed ordinance,” said Recreation Specialist Nicole Morgan, who serves as the liaison to the advisory group on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department. “Over the past year, they listened to the concerns of their peers, took the initiative to make a change, sought the input of the public, and drafted a well-informed ordinance that, if passed, could save lives in our community.”
The proposed ordinance was drafted in response to the growing concern about gun violence voiced by local teens during Youth Council’s 2023 Youth Speak Out, an annual event designed to connect local youth and City leaders. This was identified as one of the top issues facing local youth, as the increase in gun violence in the United States has disproportionately impacted children and teens.
In September 2023, the Youth Council voted to draft an ordinance preventing unintended access to firearms. Youth Council held a special meeting in November 2023 to review the first draft of the ordinance, with many members of the public attending to voice their support. Youth Council members presented the ordinance to the Parks and Recreation Commission in December, followed by the Ordinance Committee in February. Youth Council incorporated feedback from all meetings into the proposed draft to be presented to the City Council on March 5.
Kudos to the young adults and future leaders standing up against gun violence! We have a bright and caring generation coming into power.
I do wonder though, isn’t there already CA law requiring gun safes? Does SB City not have a similar ordinance? Either way, great job!
How is this ordinance standing up to gun violence? Making a home owners gun inaccessible when an armed intruder breaks into his or her home. Gee, sir, could you please wait just a second, I have to get into my locked box and load my weapon so I can protect my fami;ly…..LOL What is the purpose of having a firearm if one cannot access it in an emergency? Lets not run the druggies off State Street. Lets shackle the police so they cannot do their job. Lets have huge amounts of unknown, unvetted illegals enter our localities and lets have cashless bail laws so we can turn the criminals back on to the streets post haste, BUT lets do everything we can to keep the law abiding citizen incapable of defending his or her self readily. Makes sense to me…
Just the usual racist nonsense from you. Use whatever critical thinking skills you might secretly posses to answer your own question.
Then again, since I doubt that’s possible. Here you go: you can release the trigger lock in under HALF A SECOND. You still have plenty time to protect the family that you don’t really want to protect by locking your gun.
Sac- Also going to a race card always is super tiring. Just saying.
OG – CHALF was the one to bring in the “unvetted illegals,” so go whine to him about “the race card.”
Sac- So they’re incorrect ? Show me.
Huh? Ranting about illegal immigrants when discussing gun safety is not only off topic and racist, it ignores the fact that US citizens commit a far higher rate of violent crimes than undocumented migrants.
Sac- ” Lets have huge amounts of unknown, unvetted illegals enter our localities ”
This IS happening. It just is. Not race-based, fact-based. Again, show me
I never said it’s not happening. I said it’s racist and off topic to start ranting about illegal immigrants in an thread about gun safety and gun violence.
Here, to simplify: blaming illegal immigrants for the need to have guns is racist. Why? Because it ignores facts and displays prejudice towards an entire group of people for something that more US citizens actually do.
CHALF – They’re not all coming here to “murder citizens” no matter how hard you wish that to be true. You’ve been duped, like the other ignorant, hateful and scared fools who spew this stuff.
Why aren’t you more concerned with the group that IS committing the most murders – US Citizens? Answer: because, just like your fellow chicken littles, you blame the group you’re scared of or just don’t like. Lazy, scared and ignorant, the lot of you.
Again, keep your hate out of our community. We have enough here already.
If they are illegal, they should not have been here to murder citizens in the first place. Love when your arguments are so weak you have to make up race issues. If England was on our southern border, what makes you think we would not feel the same about illegal immigration. You think if whites were sneaking across our border and killing our citizens, we would not want it stopped? Like I said, if it is for the honest, hard working American citizen, you are against it. I do not care what the reason these people are coming in for nor if the Majority is peace loving. They are breaking the law sneaking into our country. The ones here for what you consider good reasons are not worth the nightmare the ones who are not are causing. Baeting cops in Times Square? Robbing cell phones off NYers and having organized crime outfits with IT guys breaking into the phones and stealing the CC info. How about you sell your opinion to Laken Riley’s parents!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/2894316/laken-riley-five-other-illegal-immigrants-charged-murder/
Sac-
“Then again, since I doubt that’s possible. Here you go: you can release the trigger lock in under HALF A SECOND. You still have plenty time to protect the family that you don’t really want to protect by locking your gun.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Not to be mean, but you don’t. Even if my gun was on the nightstand (trigger locked) and the keys right next to it (defeats the purpose), It would take way longer than your sarcastic half a second. Have you ever tried to use one? In a situation? Probably not as most people haven’t. People voting out of fear of responsible gun owners instead of the criminals that none of this matters to.
You’re wrong OGSB. Biometric locks (pretty cheap too – only about $35 on Amazon) can be opened in as little as .3 seconds. If you can’t use a trigger lock that quickly, then you shouldn’t be keeping a gun in your home. Train, practice, go to ranges, whatever you need, but PLEASE do not keep guns in your home if you can’t handle them safely and efficiently if you ever need them.
Sac- Nice, now I can leave loaded guns everywhere! JK of course. I have the old-fashioned keyed locks…, but I don’t use them. All mine are in a safe. I appreciate your concern over my ability to safely care for and use my weapons though! Very neighborly of you.
OG – well yeah, I want you and your family to be able to be safe from gun accidents and also have the ability to protect them if the need should ever arise.
Sac- I’m not worrying about needing a gun in 1 second or less in Goleta. I can take care of myself and would rather they be in a safe.
So wait, why are you opposed to them having a trigger lock and being in a safe?
Sac- Just think it’s stupid. Make people spend even more money to comply for no reason. If you want to, then go for it, just don’t make me do it. $35 bio lock is garbage, so it’s at least $100 per gun. I have many guns…most old from family that are not used much. A waste of money if already secured.
Anything that makes a firearm inaccessible increases safety for anyone nearby.
Including the Perp about to murder you…
Nope. Statistics show that a firearm in the home is a threat to everyone in the home, and orders of magnitude more likely to injure a member of the household than anyone else. But, you’ve been told what to say by your social media.
An argument the gun grabbers make all the time. I do not want the Gun brabbing Democrats making more laws to punish what they consider unsafe storage. Every chance the Dems get, they will incrementaly stifle gun rights or punish the gun owners. The fact is the left wants to abolish civilian gun ownership. Unfortunately, they keep running into that pesky 2nd amendment. The responsability of safe gun ownership lies with the legal owner. The Government should stay out of it. If they want to make suggestions, fine. Not make legally binding laws that infringe on how an individual has his or her weapon at the ready. Kewep the damn governemnt where it belongs. A entity that works for and is paid by the US citizen, not a weight always on its back be it ridiclous taxation and regulations. You should rue the day the 2nd amendment is amended by the aGov. Surely the other amendments wil follow. Wise up!
“I do not want the Gun brabbing Democrats making more laws to punish what they consider unsafe storage.” – and a trigger lock is too much for you? Why would you oppose a safety measure that can be disabled in LESS THAN A SECOND?
“The fact is the left wants to abolish civilian gun ownership.” – That’s absolutely false. Typical fear propaganda by those who think they need guns to go by celery at the store.
“The responsability of safe gun ownership lies with the legal owner.” – LOL…. yeah, because we all know that all gun owners are super responsible….. just look at the lot of you crying about safety measures!
“Not make legally binding laws that infringe on how an individual has his or her weapon at the ready.” – The government absolutely has the right and responsibility to require safety measures to protect children from negligent parents.
“You should rue the day the 2nd amendment is amended by the aGov. Surely the other amendments wil follow.” – Uh, yeah, there’s a ton of amendments in the Constitution. And if we have another Article, such as the Second, that has allowed and excused the deaths of MILLIONS of innocent Americans, then I sure the F hope we amend it!
‘Millions of Americans’? I think not. Not by negligence for sure. More like over turf and drugs. You also fail to mention how many Americans have been saved by guns in the hands of the citizenry.
Want to regulate guns and make a difference? Make the use of an illegal firearm, in the commission of a felony, a federal crime with a10 year mandatory sentence.
Better yet, instead of changing the amendment with YOUR infinite wisdom, as in all matters, how about you just worry about YOUR home and how YOU conduct yourself in it. Stop trying to have the Gov , as usual, force the rest of us to conduct ourselves as YOU see fit.
Your condescending attitude , where you always try to assert yourself as having the moral high ground, is irritating. Tend to your own and leave others alone!
“Your condescending attitude , where you always try to assert yourself as having the moral high ground, is irritating.” – Oh please give it a rest and listen to yourself LOL!
And when it comes to gun safety, I DO have the moral high ground. That is, I put the lives of children over the paranoid and ill perceived “needs” of people with gun fetishes who don’t want the eVIL GOvErnMenT to tell them what to do.
Eh, maybe I exaggerated, but definitely hundreds of thousands. Is that more acceptable to you?
And no, not just by negligence and I never said that. I mean in general, deaths from gun violence.
“how about you just worry about YOUR home and how YOU conduct yourself in it.” – Screw that, it’s about protecting my family from all the idiots with guns out there. No, you don’t get to “mind your own business” me when people are killed every damn minute by guns in this country. It is EVERYONE’s business!
You see people like YOU are why we need these laws. Ignorant, lazy and totally fine with unfettered gun use and possession. Gun nuts were never really the brightest bulbs – best to have responsible people take matters into their own hands and try to prevent as much accidental and intentional death from your precious guns as possible.
Chalf. Logorrhea.
Yap, yap, blah, blah, cry, cry.
CHALF – I begrudgingly waded through your swamp of a Lie Fest and found that not a single sentence in your hate-filled rant is true. Not even one. Impressive, if it weren’t so pathetic.
CHALF – “If they really went after the perpetrators of the most gun violence, YOU would be screaming racism”
Yeah, see what I mean about your hateful and ignorant racist rants?
Yes, a certain demographic has a higher rate of gun violence. OK, so what do you think we should do? Only target one race in dealing with guns? Ban sales to one race?
Do you see how terribly racist that makes you for even suggesting? I doubt you do.
As for the rest of your rant…. pure gooblygook and outright LIES as usual. For example, I’ve repeatedly condemned Hamas (not Gazans you Islamophobe) for Oct 7.
You keep saying I hate Americans. I don’t hate all of them, only YOUR kind: racist, intellectually lazy, ignorant, hateful fools.
Do us all a favor here and stay in your desert with your hate. “YOU are NOT one of us.”
The endless egotism of gun worship, with an underpinning of insecurity, unwarranted fear, and an inferiority complex.
How many deadly home invasions while the owners are home have happened in Santa Barbara County in the last 10 years?
So if this ordinance was enacted in a higher crime vicinity, you would oppose it? You support it in Santa Barbara because there are very low numbers of home invasions when someone is home. .
I would NEVER, EVER oppose any type of gun safety law. EVER. Only criminals and negligent parents oppose measures to keep children safe from accidentally shooting themselves or others.
This is nice and all but I’m not putting a trigger lock on my already safely secured (yes in a safe) guns until they mandate breathalyzers on cars.
Too many DUI drivers out there for me to fathom that this is a reasonable request
Unrelated. Plus, do you have any idea the cost and undertaking it would require to redesign all cars as opposed to requiring trigger locks? Are young children accidentally getting into cars and killing each other, their friends, their parents and siblings? This is the problem with guns, not cars.
While I agree that they are unrelated throwing another law onto already law abiding gun owners will not help the problem. Those who are leaving firearms accessible will not be swayed by this ordinance if it passes. And the result will just be more of the same.
IMO it’s better to regulate who gets firearms and have harsher punishments for those who are found to be lacking in consideration and safety measures. lol left the gun out and it was discharged by a kid? Kid goes to foster care and mom gets locked up. Not trigger guards for those of us who never have and never will have problems safely owning/handling/storing their firearms.
Cars have locks, why shouldn’t guns?
Because one needs a gun readily available when out of nowhere you are broken into, NOT a car.
You can still have your gun ready and available, it just needs to be unlocked in UNDER ONE SECOND.
Look, if you folks are so ill-prepared to use your guns that you can’t quickly and efficiently unlock them, you shouldn’t have them near your family. PERIOD.
That “lol” was meant to say mom, not being sarcastic in my response
Well, what about the infant brother/sister of the kid who plays with an unlocked gun and shoots them in the face? Or the mom/dad? Or the kid themselves? Tougher penalties are all fine and good, but this is about gun safety. Preventative/proactive laws need to be tougher. What happens to the negligent parent after the preventable tragedy occurs is useless.
No one is taking your guns. They just want to make them harder for a kid to accidentally kill themselves and/or others around them. How in the eff could that seriously even a problem for anyone?
Sac- Gun safety IS important! Stupid to trigger lock guns that are unloaded in a safe. Again, the criminals…
Again…. .3 seconds.
https://www.vikingtriggerlock.com/
Again… in a safe.
Yes, a criminal can break in, kill me and my family, but can’t take my guns. I get this instead, they do the above and take my gun.
Unless you think people should do both???
How would they take your gun if it’s in a safe? The idea is guns should be kept in safes or lock boxes (keep it under your bed if you want) and trigger locks on those guns especially if the safe has a key that a kid could use.
With biometric tech easily and cheaply available, the time it takes to use your weapon once removed from it’s safe, should be less than a second, or in some cases, less than half a second.
If you’re concerned about the time, practice! Anyone who keeps a gun nearby for home protection should be practiced and trained in using it. It’s a huge responsibility and should not be taken lightly.
Sac- Lol! Let’s just say I agree with you. I keep mine in the safe so that they can’t be stolen or used by the kids. Combo lock. I have been trained, have trained my family, and continue to do so for fun! I also have a freezer of Elk!
OG – ok sounds like we were just missing each others’ points. It happens! Glad to hear and enjoy the Elk!
‘no one wants to take your guns’ You believe then in a citizens right to own a gun as long as they are not a felon or domestic violence convicted? You support the 2nd amendment?
I do not believe in unsecured guns in a home with young children myself. When I first moved from NYC to NV , I would go in homes with rifles in glass cased gun racks, with Children as young as 5 and six. I was told they train the children at a very early age to respect the firearm, its danger and it is NOT to be touched. I personally am nervous with this approach, but in NV back then, it seemed to work well. Seemed that people that hid a firearm and the children were not trained, was where the danger lies. They pick it up thinking it is a toy.
I keep mine in a safe and always remove one when home for instant access. Unfortunately where I live, in Las Vegas, breaking into peoples homes when they ARE home, is common place. I moved here when this was a cowboy town run by the Mob, and it was far safer then. Go figure.
To paraphrase your screed – “I believe what I want to believe, facts be damned.”
“You believe then in a citizens right to own a gun as long as they are not a felon or domestic violence convicted?” – Yes
“You support the 2nd amendment?” – Not completely. I think it needs to be amended. The often ill perceived “shall not be infringed” needs to be clarified and limited.
Of course Vegas was safer when there were less people and therefore, less crime. No brainer.
Shall not be infinged ‘ should be amended…how so?
The entire amendment needs to be amended to qualify that clause. The intent of the founders will never be known, but for the sake of our modern civilization, it should not be construed to mean there is an absolute, inalienable right to own/possess any time of weapon that could possibly ever be made.
While I support the right to own guns (as I have one), I do not think civilians need, nor should be able to own/posses, certain types of guns. Specifically, those designed to kill a large number of people as quickly as possible, eg, semi-auto rifles with bump stocks (which are currently being fought in the USSC) or other attributes that are unnecesary for home defense or hunting.
Further, in order to possess such weapons, civilians should be required to undergo thorough training, licensing and obtaining insurance, just like they need to drive a car.
So, those are my thoughts. No desire to ban guns. The way the 2A is written now is holding up any true and reasonable gun safety laws. It’s abhorrent to me when the gun nuts and NRA hide behind the antiquated 2A when children are being killed in schools, people murdered en masse in churches, malls, grocery stores, etc. It’s time to do something meaningful. The time is NOW.
Perhaps if they made these types of weapons a class 3, same as suppressors or Fully automatics. Then far fewer would be acquired as the class 3 is a very long screening process, and expensive. Still, if they were made illegal tommorow it would be near impossible to make the public go along. CA banned many of the imported ones and gave already owners X amount of time to register them. Even with the grandfathering in of these weapons, there was virtual non compliance. An estimated 420,000 were in the CA citizenry hands, and only 4% compliance or there abouts if I am not mistaken. Not only are there many millions of these in the hands of citizens, there are 100 magazines for each out there. Just an impossible task. Even upping the age of purchase was recentley found to be unconstitutional.
Other remedies should start being considered as banning is a failure. Far as I am concerned stiffer mandatory sentences will definitely help. also, start having a real discussion as to what is the catalyst causing teens to mass murder? It is not only the availability of firearms. Firearms were far more accessible in the 1950’s, yet these things were not only not common place, but almost unheard of. There seems to be a correlation between some of these anti depressants and violent behavior. Seems there is a hesitance to examine this as big pharma is making a lot of money from these drugs. Why would a young man do these unspeakable acts , access to a gun or not? Something is drastically wrong in our society now.
There is no correlation between antidepressants and gun violence. Just another myth propagated by con social media.
The 2nd amendment is a complete anachronism, and these days is merely an excuse for gun worship. Just as there are limits on 1st amendment rights to prevent abuse, the 2nd amendment needs rational limits. Sportsmen who hunt and target shoot will survive just fine without large magazine capacity and semiautomatic operation.
The second amendment pertains to a “well-regulated militia”, and was formulated in a time when the colonists were opposed to a standing army. The rough equivalent today is the National Guard.
Firepower has a time dimension. We should ban all semiautomatic firearms, allowing only bolt-action long arms (rifles and shotguns) with a minimum barrel length of 32 inches, and fixed box magazines loaded by a stripper clip.
Handguns would be limited to a minimum barrel length of 6 inches, and be single-action revolvers, or be single-action with fixed-box magazines loaded by stripper clip.
All magazine/revolver capacities should be limited to 5 rounds maximum. Sound suppressors should be forbidden. No legitimate hunters or target shooters would be the least bit inconvenienced by such restrictions, and mass shootings would be much more difficult.
Combined with severe mandatory penalties for mere possession of nonconforming weapons, and required training and licensing of firearms owners, we could eventually greatly reduce gun deaths, much as the more civilized countries of the world have already done. Since our country is awash in firearms, it will take a long time, but eventually sanity would prevail over the current stupidity.
There should be strongly enforced restrictions and high taxes on ammunition, and all propellants, casings, primers, and projectiles should be required to have batch-numbered identifying marks or embedded nanoparticles to aid in post-crime investigations. Reloading equipment and supplies should be strictly limited and closely monitored for compliance. Use of lead projectiles should be eliminated. We should also consider reducing the power of firearms by limiting them to brass rimfire cartridges and/or restricting the bore pressures and diameters. Looking toward the future, guided projectiles should be banned, and duly licensed firearms should incorporate biometric devices that disable them if they are not being wielded by the registered owner. People who wanted to keep existing, but nonconforming firearms would have to modify them to comply or render them nonfunctional, or trade them in for a conforming weapon.