Anytime you advocate a new law, you are also advocating new state police powers to enforce that law

[bluestateguy]

And of course, sometimes that is necessary, particularly with regard to Wall Street and health insurance companies or payday loan stores.

But be careful about constant declarations that "there outta be a law". Then you are empowering police to enforce the said law, and they may have to use heavy-handed or intrusive means to do so. Furthermore, every law added to the books only gives cops more tools with which to harass and intimidate citizens that they don't like.

Think about that with regard to all the gun laws that the gun controllers advocate. Right now I'm not real comfortable with the police having new powers to get search warrants, conduct late night raids on houses on the basis of vague "weapons charges".

[NutmegYankee]

1. Searches for gun storage.

I've noticed a few people advocating that anyone owning a gun be required to let police inspect the storage in their home. That is of course a horrible violation of the 4th amendment as their is zero probable cause to justify a search. That has the potential to green light other searches and finish off the 4th for good.

I can see scenarios where a child for instance gets into cleaning supplies and is severely poisoned, prompting the town to pass a lock up requirement. Now most people do this anyway, but NOW that there is a law, it needs to be enforced! And if there is already one exception on the books, it's easier to justify another and another.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. There used to be a saying: "Don't make a federal case of it."

And then they went and did. I'm almost glad when Congress is gridlocked. At least they're not passing even more laws.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. What if its a law to demilitarize police? nt

[Prophet 451]

4. Of the few gun control measures I advocate

Only a couple would impact the gun owner and that's a requirement to pass a basic safety test before purchase. The idea is that you pass your test (don't care how you learn gun safety), you get a card that you have to show the vendor whenever you purchase a firearm. The cops have little additional power in that instance, it's up to the retailer to check your card prior to purchase. I worked out once that the cost for taking the test could be as little as $20 a head.

The only other measure that would affect the gun owner is a ban on manufacturing magazines larger than 15 rounds. No ban on the existing ones but as they age, they would gradually leave the market.

[NutmegYankee]

5. Both of which are very reasonable.

Anyone that buys a gun must be able to identify the basic safe handling rules. I take it the safety test is written or computer filled out much like a drivers test?

[Prophet 451]

6. Similar

It would be either written or computerized, depending on which method was cheaper (I'm anxious to not place an undue burden on firearms buyers). I don't think it's unreasonable either, for society to demand that, if you buy a gun, you know how to handle one safely. I would also think it comes under the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment.

[jmowreader]

7. The cheapest way would be to give the job of testing to the DMV

They're already set up to administer tests and to produce photo IDs.