Amid complaints Congress is failing to address gun safety, Los Angeles city leaders backed a sweeping new ordinance
Tuesday requiring local handgun owners to safely lock up their weapons or face misdemeanor charges.

The proposed law, set to be one of the strictest in the California, follows a national trend of children and teens accessing
unattended handguns with sometimes fatal results, said Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Krekorian, who spearheaded the
ordinance.

“It will help protect children,” Krekorian said of the law. “It will help prevent momentary instances of anguish from becoming
tragic suicides.”

Under the ordinance, which returns next week to the council for a vote, gun owners must store their firearms in a locked
container or disable them with a trigger lock. Guns don’t have to be stored if the weapon is carried or “within close proximity
and control that the owner can readily retrieve and use the handgun as if carried on the person.”

Lawmakers and city attorneys worked on the wording up until Tuesday’s City Council vote after pushback from gun advocacy
groups and several City Council members, who sought the additional word “control” in the law. Critics feared that without
that phrase, gun owners could leave their weapon on a bedside table, for instance, and fall asleep.

With the final law, gun owners are responsible for their weapon, advocates believe.

“We have a safe gun storage law that we can be proud of,” said Margot Bennett, executive director of Los Angeles-based
Women Against Gun Violence.

Bennett said her group isn’t concerned the law only applies to handguns, saying so-called “long guns” aren’t as much of
an issue.

June 26, 2008, 01:24 pm
Court: Trigger Lock Requirement Also Unconstitutional

In the Supreme Court's decision against D.C.'s handgun ban today, the court also ruled that trigger-lock requirements are unconstitutional.
"The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use
arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the opinion of the court.

The same law has been in Hawaii since 1992;


HRS 134-10.5

No person shall store or keep any firearm on any premises under the person's control if the person knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor, unless the person:

      (1)  Keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or

Quote

June 26, 2008, 01:24 pm
Court: Trigger Lock Requirement Also Unconstitutional

In the Supreme Court's decision against D.C.'s handgun ban today, the court also ruled that trigger-lock requirements are unconstitutional.
"The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use
arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the opinion of the court.

Under the ordinance, which returns next week to the council for a vote, gun owners must store their firearms in a locked
container or disable them with a trigger lock. Guns don’t have to be stored if the weapon is carried or “within close proximity
and control that the owner can readily retrieve and use the handgun as if carried on the person.”

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

What you've quoted above refers the D.C. Firearms Control Regulations Act "Home Rule" that required a firearm within ones residence be kept "un-loaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-locking device". Which was basically banning possession of an operable firearm within ones home.

BUT when one reads the entire section of the ruling, the issue was not about storage, but how rendering a firearm inoperable infringes on ones right to self defense (p.64).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
The underlined part is important wording so it does not hinder a legal gun owner from self defense.

It's unclear where you stand on the matter, but I think its safe to assume that you (and most others here) are responsible gun owners and don't have an issue with safe storage. It's part NRA's Gun Safety Rules:

I still don't agree with it. People need to take the responsibility on their own. A law does not need to be put in place for it. There are enough gun laws as it is, and it just gives police one more thing to tag you for if they are ever over for whatever reason.  Yes I agree with safe storage. I have an entire vault room of machine guns, but I shouldn't be concerned of breaking the law if I leave MY gun out in MY HOUSE.  Do you really think the LA government will really stop there anyways? Of course not! It's just one more step taken in the direction they want, and it's always about "protecting the children" when it's not.  People complying with stuff like this is now why there are so many pointless gun laws in California, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, etc. 

This law doesn't affect me here in Texas YET, but it's still crap that my fellow Americans shouldn't have to put up with.

I still don't agree with it. People need to take the responsibility on their own. A law does not need to be put in place for it. There are enough gun laws as it is, and it just gives police one more thing to tag you for if they are ever over for whatever reason.  Yes I agree with safe storage. I have an entire vault room of machine guns, but I shouldn't be concerned of breaking the law if I leave MY gun out in MY HOUSE.  Do you really think the LA government will really stop there anyways? Of course not! It's just one more step taken in the direction they want, and it's always about "protecting the children" when it's not.  People complying with stuff like this is now why there are so many pointless gun laws in California, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, etc. 

This law doesn't affect me here in Texas YET, but it's still crap that my fellow Americans shouldn't have to put up with.

First off, nothing in my statement implied that I support or oppose that law (or any other relating to firearms). It's was for clarification (or to educate), about two posts that might cause confusion. So tone it down or read more carefully before trying to start an argument when there is none.

When I read your post, I get: 1) You don't agree with that particular law, 2) you don't like laws, 3) you agree with safe storage, and 4) it doesn't matter you're in Texas...the rest is rhetoric. I agree with point 1) because the 4th Amendment essentially makes it unenforceable until something happens, 3) because we're responsible gun owners and 4) LA county laws amount to squat in Texas (I have dual residency and just got back 4 months ago). 

But as for 2...That's a personal issue, just know that, like it or not we are a nation of laws and have been since its founding.  BUT you are free to decide for yourself what laws (that apply) you like and want to obey.  Personally, I choose to abide by laws regardless how I might feel about it. Why? Because it's the cornerstone of every pro-2A argument made, which is: We gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. That is what gives us the high ground when countering the idiotic fear mongering statements like "do it for the children" or "keeping guns from criminals". It's really something to think about before making statements or suggesting people disobey a law in an public forum.