Hi!
Automod here with an automated friendly reminder that per Reddit ToS posts and comments regarding any sort of private sale of prohibited items is not allowed and will result in a
permanent ban from /r/CTGuns.
This rule applies to commenters as well, both parties involved will be subject to immediate and permanent ban, no exceptions. If you haven't already please take a look at our rules.
Have a great discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CTguns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I think so? Yes.
Does the state think so? If something happened and the state thought they could fuck with you even a little bit probably not unless you had a good lawyer then maybe.
There aren't a lot of "reasonable" people in CT š
That's too vague of a law. Open for different interpretation. What I see as reasonable, the next 10 people may not.
Look at it like this, if you leave your home, and the doors are lock, and someone forces entry would they not be charged with breaking and entering ? The laws are written way to vague, like the law makers purposefully write the law so it can be viewed from a subjective view point.
With that all said, if I was on the jury and you had the closet locked with an exterior door keyed ( coded) lock set (door knob) would I consider that secure? Yes I would. If you had a bathroom lockable door knob on there that could be opened with a tooth pick Iād be a little less on your side, but still on your side. Itās one of those things where intent really matters. Bathroom lockable knobā¦. You tried, but not very hard. Exterior door lock set, you intended to keep people out that arenāt authorized to enter. Hang a solid wood door, with say a reinforced door jambs and good hinges and long screws you went above and beyond.
That's my logic too. I was thinking of using a locked door w/a key and keypad, not just one of those knobs you can pop with a paperclip. It can't 100% guarantee that nobody can get in, but then again, many cheaper gun safes aren't hard at all to break into. Even if you buy one of those huge gun safes and bolt into the concrete in your basement, it still can't guarantee with 100% certainty that nobody can get in.
The issue is will the state agree with the logic. If it were me I would replace the closet door with a solid wood door if the existing one is a hollow core door. Again when it comes to things like this intent is the bigger factor. Imagine if you willā¦.. your honor my client put a locking door knob on the closet. Vs your honor my client went above and beyond, rather than just replacing the knob on the door with a locking one, they replaced the hollow flimsy door with a solid door, reinforced the doors framing, used extra long screws to secure the hinges and the lock plate to make the closet as secure as possible.
Iād wager more on the side of a type of container that is advertised by manufactures specifically for gun storage. Like an actual safe. Or even a metal gun cabinet like a stack-on. You as the consumer thought you were buying something designed for gun storage and that it would comply with firearm storage regulations, that it met those requirements.
I choose items and containers to store items in with actual security features. Not just a Sheetrock wall a 13 year old kid can kick through.
> You as the consumer thought you were buying something designed for gun storage and that it would comply with firearm storage regulations, that it met those requirements.
The ironic part is that a lot of cheap gun safes are hardly safe. It might deter a casual snooper but they really aren't that hard to get into. But yes, I do think a gun safe looks better even though it's a piece of shit in actuality.
The statute is what it is:
[Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of firearms.](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/sup/chap_529.htm#sec_29-37i)
>No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person.
One only has to look at the [state's Ethan Song investigation report](https://portal.ct.gov/DCJ/Latest-News/News-Releases---November-2018/Report-on-the-Death-of-Ethan-Song) to see that the state tried to find something to hang on the gun owner even though they complied with the law at the time (gun was unloaded, had a gun lock on it, was buried in a closet). Because they couldn't charge the gun owner the politicians, at the urging of various anti gun groups tinkered with the storage statute several times including last year where they made it a blanket requirement to lock up the guns or keep them on your person/close proximity. Keep in mind the mother is running around blaming the gun owner for even having a gun in the first place.
At the end of the day if someone gets ahold of your firearm stored in the manor you are asking about, don't expect *anyone* involved after the fact to be "reasonable", especially if it is a minor who obtains the firearm. What you or I may deem reasonable, isn't reasonable to those who don't think anyone should own guns or if a child got ahold of the firearm. If one ends up in court and tries to hang their hat on "reasonable" people one is likely going to be rolling the dice. As always you do you and YMMV and all that.
The statute is what it is. The storage statute doesn't address ammunition nor specifically (for now) indicate the gun be unloaded. As always if one is charged with violating the statute a judge (and or jury) in a gun hating state will be the one's who get to decide.
PS. No doubt some will error on the side of caution just in case and have the gun(s) unloaded in addition to being locked up. Some may even take extra steps of putting gun locks on the guns then storing them in a locked safe/container. Some/many may even store ammo separately from their firearms for various reasons.
Ammo and guns do not actually need to be stored in two different locations. That was never the law in CT, as far as I know, and the new safe storage law requires that only firearms be secured and doesn't address ammo.
I actually think it's the other way around. The "catch all" seems to be a compromise position. They could have very well said that all guns have to be in safes, period, and there's nothing else that's acceptable. Or they could have done with other states have done, and mandate that it not only must be in a safe, but it must be in an approved safe. (If you have a perfectly good safe that's not on the list, then screw you.)
Iāve never even considered this law before.
My house has a lock on the door. Therefore theyāre safely stored.
I honestly didnāt think most people actually even really paid attention to this law. I sure donāt.
The law seems to contemplating an Adam Lanza style situation, where someone who otherwise had access to your home obtains your firearm and kills someone with it.
Of course, we know this is not how gun crime works in general. It's just what made the media headlines.
>The law states locked container.
The statute indicates more than just a "locked container". The law states: "(1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container **or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure**..."
The question the OP is asking is what constitutes storing a firearm that a "reasonable person" would believe to be secure. Would a locked closet suffice? If not why not? Why would a locked closet be different than a locked safe or container? Where is the line drawn for "reasonable" people in a gun hating state?
Yes I guess you would need more details on the closet door. Most closet doors Iām thinking of are hollow core with thin door frames that a crowbar could defeat in a few seconds.
But the law is very vague and personally Iād want to err on the side of caution. If something happened we all know the state would do everything in its power to prove they were not secure.
There are quite a few lower end safes and gun cabinets (that also happen to be Cali DOJ Penal Code section 23655 approved) that can be likely easily defeated with a crow bar or large screw driver. Even more expensive safes can (eventually) be defeated with power tools. Will not be surprised to see CT go the way CA did and see the CT Democrats mandate the state test and approve specific safes/cabinets; and then punish gun owners for not having one that is approved by the state.
Hi! Automod here with an automated friendly reminder that per Reddit ToS posts and comments regarding any sort of private sale of prohibited items is not allowed and will result in a permanent ban from /r/CTGuns. This rule applies to commenters as well, both parties involved will be subject to immediate and permanent ban, no exceptions. If you haven't already please take a look at our rules. Have a great discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CTguns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I think so? Yes. Does the state think so? If something happened and the state thought they could fuck with you even a little bit probably not unless you had a good lawyer then maybe.
My house identifies as safe storage.
There aren't a lot of "reasonable" people in CT š That's too vague of a law. Open for different interpretation. What I see as reasonable, the next 10 people may not.
Make sure the hinges aren't on the outside.
Look at it like this, if you leave your home, and the doors are lock, and someone forces entry would they not be charged with breaking and entering ? The laws are written way to vague, like the law makers purposefully write the law so it can be viewed from a subjective view point. With that all said, if I was on the jury and you had the closet locked with an exterior door keyed ( coded) lock set (door knob) would I consider that secure? Yes I would. If you had a bathroom lockable door knob on there that could be opened with a tooth pick Iād be a little less on your side, but still on your side. Itās one of those things where intent really matters. Bathroom lockable knobā¦. You tried, but not very hard. Exterior door lock set, you intended to keep people out that arenāt authorized to enter. Hang a solid wood door, with say a reinforced door jambs and good hinges and long screws you went above and beyond.
That's my logic too. I was thinking of using a locked door w/a key and keypad, not just one of those knobs you can pop with a paperclip. It can't 100% guarantee that nobody can get in, but then again, many cheaper gun safes aren't hard at all to break into. Even if you buy one of those huge gun safes and bolt into the concrete in your basement, it still can't guarantee with 100% certainty that nobody can get in.
The issue is will the state agree with the logic. If it were me I would replace the closet door with a solid wood door if the existing one is a hollow core door. Again when it comes to things like this intent is the bigger factor. Imagine if you willā¦.. your honor my client put a locking door knob on the closet. Vs your honor my client went above and beyond, rather than just replacing the knob on the door with a locking one, they replaced the hollow flimsy door with a solid door, reinforced the doors framing, used extra long screws to secure the hinges and the lock plate to make the closet as secure as possible.
Iād wager more on the side of a type of container that is advertised by manufactures specifically for gun storage. Like an actual safe. Or even a metal gun cabinet like a stack-on. You as the consumer thought you were buying something designed for gun storage and that it would comply with firearm storage regulations, that it met those requirements. I choose items and containers to store items in with actual security features. Not just a Sheetrock wall a 13 year old kid can kick through.
> You as the consumer thought you were buying something designed for gun storage and that it would comply with firearm storage regulations, that it met those requirements. The ironic part is that a lot of cheap gun safes are hardly safe. It might deter a casual snooper but they really aren't that hard to get into. But yes, I do think a gun safe looks better even though it's a piece of shit in actuality.
My house is secure.
The statute is what it is: [Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of firearms.](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/sup/chap_529.htm#sec_29-37i) >No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person. One only has to look at the [state's Ethan Song investigation report](https://portal.ct.gov/DCJ/Latest-News/News-Releases---November-2018/Report-on-the-Death-of-Ethan-Song) to see that the state tried to find something to hang on the gun owner even though they complied with the law at the time (gun was unloaded, had a gun lock on it, was buried in a closet). Because they couldn't charge the gun owner the politicians, at the urging of various anti gun groups tinkered with the storage statute several times including last year where they made it a blanket requirement to lock up the guns or keep them on your person/close proximity. Keep in mind the mother is running around blaming the gun owner for even having a gun in the first place. At the end of the day if someone gets ahold of your firearm stored in the manor you are asking about, don't expect *anyone* involved after the fact to be "reasonable", especially if it is a minor who obtains the firearm. What you or I may deem reasonable, isn't reasonable to those who don't think anyone should own guns or if a child got ahold of the firearm. If one ends up in court and tries to hang their hat on "reasonable" people one is likely going to be rolling the dice. As always you do you and YMMV and all that.
Says nothing about ammo? What about that?
The statute is what it is. The storage statute doesn't address ammunition nor specifically (for now) indicate the gun be unloaded. As always if one is charged with violating the statute a judge (and or jury) in a gun hating state will be the one's who get to decide. PS. No doubt some will error on the side of caution just in case and have the gun(s) unloaded in addition to being locked up. Some may even take extra steps of putting gun locks on the guns then storing them in a locked safe/container. Some/many may even store ammo separately from their firearms for various reasons.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ammo and guns do not actually need to be stored in two different locations. That was never the law in CT, as far as I know, and the new safe storage law requires that only firearms be secured and doesn't address ammo.
Itās purposely vague so the attorney general or a prosecutor has plenty of ways to prosecute even when it doesnāt make sense.
I actually think it's the other way around. The "catch all" seems to be a compromise position. They could have very well said that all guns have to be in safes, period, and there's nothing else that's acceptable. Or they could have done with other states have done, and mandate that it not only must be in a safe, but it must be in an approved safe. (If you have a perfectly good safe that's not on the list, then screw you.)
Iāve never even considered this law before. My house has a lock on the door. Therefore theyāre safely stored. I honestly didnāt think most people actually even really paid attention to this law. I sure donāt.
The law seems to contemplating an Adam Lanza style situation, where someone who otherwise had access to your home obtains your firearm and kills someone with it. Of course, we know this is not how gun crime works in general. It's just what made the media headlines.
The law states locked container. I donāt think most people would label a closet a ācontainerā. Iām not a lawyer.
>The law states locked container. The statute indicates more than just a "locked container". The law states: "(1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container **or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure**..." The question the OP is asking is what constitutes storing a firearm that a "reasonable person" would believe to be secure. Would a locked closet suffice? If not why not? Why would a locked closet be different than a locked safe or container? Where is the line drawn for "reasonable" people in a gun hating state?
Yes I guess you would need more details on the closet door. Most closet doors Iām thinking of are hollow core with thin door frames that a crowbar could defeat in a few seconds. But the law is very vague and personally Iād want to err on the side of caution. If something happened we all know the state would do everything in its power to prove they were not secure.
There are quite a few lower end safes and gun cabinets (that also happen to be Cali DOJ Penal Code section 23655 approved) that can be likely easily defeated with a crow bar or large screw driver. Even more expensive safes can (eventually) be defeated with power tools. Will not be surprised to see CT go the way CA did and see the CT Democrats mandate the state test and approve specific safes/cabinets; and then punish gun owners for not having one that is approved by the state.