An actual real compromise that benefits both sides, and helps to reduce a real problem.

[JoeT]

Massachusetts has such a law. A buddy of mine's father had a heart attack, wife calls 911 and police and ambulance come, take him to hospital, police see an 870 behind the door (home defense gun) police arrest 70 year old wife who's husband is in the ambulance for "unsafe storage"

case was dismissed, but cost her thousands in legal fees. Husband lives, but looses all guns (as Mass has another law that requires all gun owners to have a license- and the chief of police decided he was unsuitable because of his unsafe storage ). he transfers his collection to his son (my buddy) but because he has no license (and even if he did the state only allows 4 FTF transactions a year) is required to have FFL transfer them at a discounted rate of $20 per.

AND NOW THERE'S A 75 YEAR OLD WOMAN, AND HER 80 YEAR OLD HUSBAND WHO HAVE NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CASE OF ROBBERY OR HOME INVASION.

all because of a safe storage law....

oh, the law also states that if you don't have direct control (on your person) the gun must be locked in a secure container or with a trigger lock. So a LAW ABIDING citizen who gets his home broken into in the middle of the night , gets woken from a dead sleep, has to get to his safe, fumble with the combination (most likely in the dark) before he can defend his life or the life of his children

say no to safe storage laws (and any compromise)