I already told you that I do not have a gun and have never had a gun.

The problem I have is with the government coming into our homes.

On the other hand, there are civil 'remedies' in case someone in the family grabs a gun and shoots someone.

I wrote a long time ago about a five year old bringing a gun to school in his back pack.

The gun fell and went off.

And a baby was injured.

In that same blog I noted that the police arrested people elsewhere who had their guns just sitting all over the house including guns on their pool table.

And the other day I noted that some wonderful parents sent their eleven year-old to school with a gun for protection and the kid used it to comically assault his fellow students.

There must be consequences to our actions.

And therefore your idea of prosecuting people for leaving their weapons in plain sight is fine with me.

You cannot just let your vehicle rest anywhere you wish according to the laws of 50 states.

I am sure that had the Sandy elementary school massacre not been part of matricide, there would be suits against the owner of the weapons that caused the mass homicides.

There probably will be many suits any because attorneys salivate at these types of things.

I am not against new laws stressing that if one owns a weapon of mass destruction; that individual has taken on onerous responsibilities with regard to those weapons.

That's all I got unless I misunderstood your message.

What if the "biometric safe" was the gun itself? I.e., what if the gun used one of those palm-print detection mechanisms (or an RFID alternative) that only fired if the owner's hand was holding it? This would have at least two benefits:

1. People who don't have authority to fire the gun couldn't fire the gun
2. The police would be able to provide strong evidence as to who fired the gun if it were used in a crime

I don't have strong feelings about guns in general, but I do have strong feelings that there's a need for compromise.

Your proposal is a way of saying that a gun may not be kept for protection against intruders. Guns will be banned and confiscated before (some) gun owners will obey a law that says they have to keep their gun unloaded and the ammunition ten minutes away.. If you allow guns for protection it is  a pretty silly thing to ask.

The NRA has safety training programs, which strongly urges, that all firearms be stored properly

In a home, with the presence of guns and children, it is the parent’s obligation, to use a sensible way, to address the safety issues.

 "Not-so Safe-Storage Laws: The only ones 'safe' are the intruders,"

In truth, all states have reckless endangerment and negligence laws which apply to guns, drain cleaner, knives, vodka, or anything else that might cause injury in the hands of a small child. Even without an HCI-mandated gun-lock law, parents know plenty of ways to keep items away from children without using mechanical locks.

The significant danger of gun-storage laws was brought home in an August incident in Merced, California, where a pitchfork-wielding man attacked Jessica Carpenter's 7-year-old brother and 9-year-old sister. It's neither a surprise nor a coincidence that the cause of this tragedy went unreported by the national press.

Jessica's father had kept a gun in the home, and his children had learned how to fire it. Jessica, age 14, is a very good shot. But by California law, the gun had to be locked up when the parents weren't home. So, when the murderer attacked, Jessica wasn't able to retrieve the gun to save her siblings. She ran to a neighbor, and begged for help. By the time the police showed up, the 7-year-old boy and the 9-year-old girl had been stabbed to death with the pitchfork.

We are told that "reasonable" trigger-lock laws are the cure for firearm accidents and gun thefts. What we are not told is that trigger-locks won't stop 10-year-olds, who can pop them off with screwdrivers, or break them with hammers. Such locks certainly won't stop determined criminals. So just who is the target of these "reasonable" gun laws, and what's their real purpose?

“Rather than saving lives, could it be that trigger-lock laws are intended to condition Americans into believing that firearms aren't acceptable for self-defense, or worth the bother?"

Long ago, Sir Walter Raleigh wrote that the "sophisticated and subtle tyrant" will "unarm his people, and store up their weapons, under pretence of keeping them safe."