The gun “issue” apparently needs to be discussed by physicians with their patients. At lest that’s what reporting insinuates when discussing a “statistic” in a “study”. It all came about when a UC Davis study found that 2/3rds of California residents (that live with children) do not store them locked up and unloaded. The tap dancing around this topic really needs to be closely looked at. Frist, for the good people at UC Davis, let’s pull up the California law(s) on firearm storage.  They talk about “recommended” storage practices, but they don’t talk about mandated storage practices.

From California Law, CHAPTER 2. Criminal Storage of Firearm [25100 – 25140]:

(a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree” if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The person keeps any firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control.

(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, or that a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm.

(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or any other person.

(b) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree” if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The person keeps any firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control.

(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, or that a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm.

(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to themselves or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.

(c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree” if the person keeps any firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.

Further, there is a section of law pertaining to whether or not a child gains access of a firearm and takes it off premises. Some of the pertinent language there:

(a) If all of the following conditions are satisfied, a person shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine:

(1) The person keeps a firearm, loaded or unloaded, within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control.

I find the language of the survey to be nuanced. Read the statutes on your own and then let’s look at what the report had to say:

At home, the risk of death or injury can be reduced for children by properly storing firearms so they are inaccessible. Methods include keeping firearms unloaded and locked up with a gun safe, lockbox or cable lock.

A new study of California adults published in JAMA Network Open from the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis Health reveals that nearly two-thirds of people who have guns and live with children do not store all firearms locked up and unloaded.

The very simple answer to the quandary that was brought up can be in the following question; do you store your firearm locked up and loaded? Many people do in fact store their firearms locked up and loaded. Remember, the language of the law reads “…reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access…” (in both 25100 and 25200). As a matter of many people’s opinion across America, a locked quick access storage box could fulfill the need to remove likely access. Not being a lawyer, sure, there is no way to give legal advice, however looking at the wording of the explanation of the survey does make eye brows go up a little.

But that is okay. The good people of UC Davis have the solution buried in the answer to another one of their survey results:

Although many participants did not store firearms locked up and unloaded, the study found support among both firearm owners and non-owners for adopting or discussing pediatric injury prevention strategies.

Most respondents, approximately 78%, were supportive of health care providers talking with patients about safe firearm practices when there were children or teens in the home.

Our good friends over at the Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) have a thing or two to say about that. One of the most compelling things they note, among many other excellent points is:

• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.

I took the chance to catch up with Dr. Robert B. Young, MD, the editor at DRGO and he had something quite similar to say:

Doctors SHOULD stay in their lane. Physicians are experts on medical care and researching medical interventions–not on firearm use, crime, or social justice.

He further expanded on discussing what are real “epidemics” in the United States, with his last point having what I’d consider extreme relevance to this conversation:

What is epidemic in the United States?
— The frightening acceleration of drug abuse deaths from about 10,000 in the 2000’s to over 70,000 in 2018 & 2019.
— The COVID pandemic.
— Obesity related health problems.
— And, 400,000 deaths (give or take 200,000) yearly due to health care provider mistakes, and countless more injuries. This is what the medical profession should be laser focused on, not the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment. ‘Hypocrite, first cast out that beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’ (Matt 7:5)

Emphasis added on “due to health care provider mistakes”. Dr. Young get’s it. That number is more than all the deaths attributed to firearms per year, including the completion of suicides. Not to be coy (okay maybe to be coy),  perhaps it’s time we have doctor control talks? Or mandate that firearm dealers have to talk to customers about the perils of medical care provider mistakes being potentially deadly.

This involving a doctor in such matters begs to question if insurance carriers of the physicians are prepared for doctors to discuss firearms with their patients. On what authoritative grounds do physicians have to bring up gun safety? None is the answer to that. Now, should insurance carriers require doctors to have mandatory firearm training included in their studies when they are working on their MD, then perhaps then we can have a chat about physicians talking about guns. Bring on the NRA mandated training!

It’s important to note there are plenty of gun friendly doctors out there and discussing firearms with them in a casual manner is one thing, but being intrusive and making it a clinical thing, no thank you. You know your doctor, or at least you should, and you should be able to sense where a line of questioning is going. That ability to “sense” things however, Rocco Pallin, a data analyst at VPRP and lead author for the study, does not think people really have:

“Some California adults may not be aware of the increased risk of injury when firearms are kept in homes where children live. We found broad support for conversations between health care providers and patients, as well as between parents and caregivers, about steps people can take to reduce children’s access to guns kept in the home,” Pallin said.

Pallin believes that “some California adults” are not smart enough to know there are risks to firearm ownership, therefore doctors need to discuss this. What’s that say about what UC Davis thinks about the public at large? “We done do things and have guns N’ stuff no infringe my bang bang.” Yeah, the unwashed masses gets it Rocco.

Here is the thing, firearm storage is a personal topic and there are a two considerations:

1. There may be statutory responsibilities on how one shall store a firearm. California is a perfect example.
2. There are moral responsibilities on how one should store a firearm.

The law is the law. Whatever that may be in your jurisdiction, that’s on you to follow. The moral obligations here are to keep firearms out of the hands of children and the unauthorized. This is a prime example of how there is a law or mandate on something and yet, that is not “good enough” for some people. There are countless devices and methods to fulfill both moral and legal obligations to firearm storage. That does not mean they have to be “locked up and unloaded” in every single instance. What works for one gun owner may not work for another. This is something that involves personal thought and consideration. Not some poindexter telling us about their opinion on a subject they themselves probably have very little knowledge on.

What we’re actually looking at is the pushing of an agenda. If people are writing about this, “studying” this, and talking about this in California, you can bet someone is looking to mandate it. Let’s not be surprised if a proposed law pops up in the Golden State that requires doctors to talk to people about guns. What their insurance carriers have to say about that is going to be great, but California is not one to care about what is practical or legal for that matter. As for now, California residents and residents elsewhere, do what you do. Be responsible. Store your guns in a manner that works for your household and needs. Follow the laws in your jurisdiction, and yes do keep those firearms from being accessible to those that should not be able to get their hands on them. We’re a smart community, even though the progressives think otherwise.

Be safe out there and think before you do!