Exactly all the points cited. Unfortunately, all of this sounds like "common sense" to people who don't know anything about guns, gun laws, or home protection. It is similar to telling people to keep their fire extinguishers in a locked safe at all times. Would that make sense? Absolutely not! Allowing a minor to access a loaded gun is already a crime!
The cost of safes is not a minor point at all. Any additional cost that could lead to making guns prohibitively expensive is a win in these politicians' books.
In NYC, if I remember correctly, not locking your guns correctly can carry a jail sentence of 30 days. Meanwhile I've seen people let out of central booking with essentially a "stay out of trouble" for carrying guns illegally.
I remember once some family members were attacked in NY and called the police. The police told them it's a good thing they didn't fight back or they'd get arrested too! That is exactly what would happen here. The DA would say, "Well, you had all the time in the world to unlock your gun and your ammo, so your life was NOT in danger." On the chance that you do survive a violent home invasion.
Oh it make me sick to my stomach.
Frankly, the DELAY that all of these new roadblocks would cause if someone was smashing through your front door is the most egregious part of this. As @45Doll alluded, it's like they actually WANT to protect the criminals breaking into people's homes even if it means that the innocent home owners die as a result (as they're scrambling to try to protect themselves and their families). That's just sick. And I say that with no hyperbole. These folks aren't proposing this bill out of ignorance. They're not doing it because they don't understand, for instance, how home invasions happen in only seconds. I used to think it was ignorance - I afforded them the benefit of the doubt. But, after years of watching stupid bill after stupid bill - all targeting the law-abiding gun owner and never targeting the criminals - I've regrettably come to the conclusion that they propose these things because they hate gun owners and what they represent, plain and simple.
So, in light of that, I hesitate to focus on this next admittedly more minor point... but I didn't see it mentioned in the ANJRPC write-ups, so I'll throw it out there. The bill is talking about "firearms" in general, so both handguns and long guns. Well, how many people can afford locked gun safes/containers that are sized for long guns? That's why many people avail themselves of various types of locking devices - like cable locks, trigger locks and similar (including those wall-mounted locks that clamp around the trigger). Well, I'm pretty sure those would not qualify as a "safe" or a "container" which is the wording specified in the bill. So, therefore, this bill also seems to eradicate entire classes of locking devices, doesn't it? The most affordable types, too! It seems like it's clearly discriminating against a gun owner of lesser economic means. Yet another aspect of this bill that seems ridiculously punitive towards the law-abiding gun owner.
These people have lost their minds. There needs to be another lawsuit obviously.
I planned on purchasing 3 field grade garands from CMP. waited for 6 months. Finally received email. all field grade sold out, do you want to upgrade to service grade? More cash, but agreed.
Meanwhile I had been getting rebuild parts together. Criterian barrels, 1 new 30-06 and 1 new in 308.
Received garands and they are fantastic with original barrels! 1 has a 43 barrel gauges new!
So, I guess the criterians will be going!
To my eyes, it didn't seem to apply to that... but then I read Nappen's more detailed explanation (linked in the orig post) - he argued that it would indeed interfere with carry at your home or business!