The media likes to call it “safe storage” or “Ethan’s Law” or some other euphemism designed to make it look like a safety measure. No matter how they cut it, though, mandatory storage is mandatory storage. There’s nothing inherently safe about it.

A few states have such laws, including Connecticut, where it’s actually called Ethan’s Law. It’s named after a kid who took his own life with a gun he found because an adult was irresponsible.

Yet a news story claims that there’s growing momentum for such mandatory storage laws in Washington, DC.

Connecticut lawmakers are seeking to reintroduce Ethan’s Law at the federal level.

Ethan’s Law was designed to make homes with firearms safer by requiring that weapons be stored and locked in a safe way.

Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy joined Rep. Rosa DeLauro and the family of Ethan Song for a news conference in New Haven to discuss the push:

…

“Safe gun storage is the least polarizing gun issue that exists today in America and it’s time for Americans to come together for community, for community gains chaos to give parents the freedom to see their kids grow up,” said Mike Song, Ethan’s father.

Ethan’s Law has already been discussed on the national scale in light of recent mass shootings.

President Joe Biden also referenced safe storage laws in a speech earlier this summer.

The new federal bill would carry strict penalties for those who do not safely store their weapons.

The legislation would also give individual states incentives to pass similar laws.

Except, there’s no growing momentum. President Biden hasn’t met a gun control law he wouldn’t support, for example, and Murphy and Blumenthal have always been anti-gunners as well.

All that’s happened is that they’ve introduced a bill replicating Connecticut’s law. That’s it.

The story suggesting this “growing momentum” provides no actual evidence other than two notorious anti-gunners have introduced an anti-gun law with the support of an anti-gun president.

And make no mistake, mandatory storage is anti-gun.

“But we’re not taking guns away from anyone!” proponents will cry, and they’re not wrong. They’re not taking guns away from anyone. What they are doing, though, is dictating decisions you make inside your own home impacting your ability to defend that home.

Look, I’m a proponent of securing your guns. I’ve railed at way too many people about not securing guns to be anything but.

However, this idea of forcing people to lock their guns up based on what lawmakers who know nothing about firearms, home defense, or anything akin to it think should be done is a huge problem. I mean, is Blumenthal’s non-experience during Vietnam playing a role in this? God, I hope not.

Especially since there are already too many laws on the books for people to keep up with all of them. Mandatory storage laws are just one more than people will, at least in time, become ignorant of and break without knowing they’re breaking it. If the goal isn’t to punish people but to keep folks safe, laws like this ain’t it.

Instead, things like tax credits for gun safe purchases and educational efforts are a far better use of Uncle Sam’s time and our tax dollars than yet another anti-gun law.