Originally posted by GtoRA2
I really need a safe. The good ones are to heavy for someone who does not own their home though. 
A good safe has to be anchored into a concrete floor, preferably incorporated into the design of a new house or the addition to an existing house. It must be hidden from sight of a casual observer. Thieves can just steal the whole safe and open it at their leisure if it's not anchored down.
Had a party one time at my house, and one of my intoxicated guests was working the combination of a small refrigerator I had that looked like a safe...had his ear up to the door and everything. You shoulda seen the look on his face when I said "excuse me" and opened the refrigerator to retrieve a beer. He was very confused, almost to the point that I was wondering if he was genuinely interested in opening that "safe."
Far as gun locks go, they are ineffective at preventing children from removing them, so they serve no purpose there. Imo, it's a law that is designed to help prosecute citizens who use firearms in self defense, that being a stepping stone toward a future requirement that firearms require locks on them at all times. So, even if you carry, you must first remove the lock if you need to use a firearm.
That's not practical, and everyone knows it. Probably won't be long before all new firearms have computer chips, with the user having a chip implanted (most extreme case) or more likely a ring or special watch with a chip that enables the weapon. Of course, pre-chip weapons still would have to use the trigger lock.
I believe that's where all this lock business is leading, though I hope I'm wrong. If it does get to that point, it will be in the future, but I believe the technology is in place right now for that.
Rpm371 interesting idea, of course, with a smart chip, I suppose those firearms could somehow be disabled at the whim of some central computer operator, or even possibly a hacker. A large EMP (electromagnetic pulse) could also disable. Not to mention the expense involved, so people without means couldn't afford firearms unless they were resolved to use trigger locks within the future (hypothetical) law. Something to think about. Dunno. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me for those reasons. Besides, I don't see how it could be done without permanent registration of some kind, which is currently not the law of the land. Firearms registration records must be destroyed by the Feds after a short period (the background check.)
Les
Sorry GTO, kinda used your quote to address Laz's thread topic and rpm's handprint idea.
