http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rose ... 42783.html

The Seven...

Go to the link for more info.

OK, I'll bite. While #s 1, 4, 5, and 7 are truly odious, #2 is not so, IMHO, and #s 3 and 6 are not so on the surface- though they may well be in their implementation. Discuss.

Riiight...

Oops. There's some negative impact already.

Aahh. Both of those will likely have negative impact on legal owners too.

There already is an incentive... money! There are plenty of custom shops out there vying to personalize your gun to the amount you can afford.

Tested and proven! Snort. Of those seven, every one has either never yet been implemented or has done nothing to affect crime statistics.

Define "responsible" and "safe"... Maybe it means firearm and ammo locked in separate cases, like California requires for transport in cars? Maybe it requires safe storage in a locker at your local police department. Some European locales require safe and responsible storage, in a locker, at a shooting club.

#3..."maintain" as I understand it requires a form of keeping records of who owns the guns. #6 would allow a government bureaucracy to regulate firearms in the name of consumer safety, in an manner that would reduce how much danger the item poses to the user and others.

As with all things, the 'devil is in the details'. I'm only discussing #2 here...

#1. What exactly does "in the owner's direct control" mean? The gun in my hand clearly qualifies, but does the gun leaning against the wall 4 feet from my bed qualify? Even when I'm in bed, but still awake, it is out of my reach. What about when I'm asleep? Or when I'm in the bathroom? Or when I'm downstairs? Or when I'm in the backyard (i.e. still home, but doors unlocked and not inside)? What about when I've left the house and locked it up??? (The house, that is.)

#2. The only people living in my house are me and my wife. My wife is almost as competent with the firearms we own as I am (and likely more accurate). We don't have many visitors, and whenever we do, all weapons are either on our hips or locked into a bedroom no visitor will enter. While I want to own a safe, I don't currently. I will be getting one in the not-too-distant future, but I haven't yet done so. Does this mean I am an irresponsible gun owner? The better question is:

#3. Does this make me a criminal? If you believe it should, than you and I see the world differently.

I understand all the reasons to own a safe, and as I said above, I'll be getting one once I can afford to do so. You could call me a 'pro safe' guy. But my not having one, in my particular situation, does not make me an irresponsible gun owner, and it definitely is none of the government's damned business.

Regarding numbers 2, 3 and 6, I don't support those either.

Remember, at one point in my life, 10 years ago or so, I absolutely did support "assault weapons" bans and gun storage laws and "common sense" laws regarding gun control. I kinda flipped on that one, huh? What I've found, at this point, is that we have good policies in some few areas, and a lot of really, really over-restrictive policies. These over-restrictive policies were led into by well intentioned people doing the wrong things for the right reasons, and then built upon by later generations of policy makers. What is "reasonable" becomes more and more restrictive. At this point, what that means is that we must not give an inch. That inch opens the door to miles of regulation.

Specifically to the issues.

#2: What is "reasonable" changes a lot, and it is ambiguous. In Washington DC it was only reasonable to have a trigger lock on the gun or have it disassembled. When someone is trying to get in, that doesn't seem so reasonable. Fortunately, gun owners tend to have a terrific ability to self-regulate and determine for their own situation what is reasonable. Reasonable storage depends on the individual owner's situation and should not be determined by some guy somewhere, or by the police coming in and seeing your "unreasonable" storage practices.

#3: This has been abused before, it will be abused again, and if we make it legal it will be abused even more. This falls under the category of "if we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it."

#6: I really, really, really, REALLY don't like, even hate, administrative law. They are allowed to violate constitutional rights to enforce their "laws," and they act as legislature, judge, jury and cop in doing so. Really bad medicine.

#2 is a camel's nose. The intention is to go from the perfectly reasonable notion that gun owners ought to store guns safely (not exactly controversial -- anybody in favor of storing guns so unauthorized people can easily access them and do bad stuff with them?) to inspection of government-specified (read: very expensive) gun safes.

#3 we already have -- as long as they're doing so to investigate actual crimes (gun trace data actually being useful, though, is very, very rare), not for prurient curiousity, nor to assist in nuisance suits (read: Bloomberg) intended to shut gun dealers and manufacturers down.

As to #6 . . . do you really think that the antis are in favor of actually making guns safer to use?

Of course if these measures don't reduce firearms related deaths to a fraction of current numbers. They will automatically be repealed. Right? If not, can I see the list of the next seven?

I agree gunflint.......and the next seven.......and the next seven........on and on

Good points, all.

Personally, my own guess is they're all bad news, for most/all of the reasons given. In the cases of #s 2, 3, and 6, as with all things, the devil is truly in the details- and the devil's against us on this one. The others... [shudders]

I'm glad that the people who responded to the article on the huffington's website had good things to say. maybe... just maybe someone will read them.