I am concerned that the average gun owner reads HB 63 and sees the affirmative defense terms (storage in a safe etc) of the bill as an exception to the unsafe storage mandates of the bill. The only method of compliance with HB 63 is "when the firearm is carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully-authorized user". Or when the "firearm was manufactured in or before 1899..." All of the other safe storage apparent exceptions (storage in a safe, trigger locks and unlawful entry) are included under the affirmative defense provision of HB 63. An affirmative defense can be raised after you have been arrested for unsafe storage, are charged, hired a lawyer (spend a low of money), plead not guilty and you go to trial where you get to admit to the court that you did store the firearm in an unsafe manner so that you can assert your affirmative defense. To top it off if you seek a CCW permit or try to renew one, your record of arrest for unsafe storage will likely come into play as the reason for denial of the CCW. In the end maybe the AG will offer a plea deal or decline to press charges but that is not what is included in the text of HB 63. Amendments need to be attached to this bill that change the affirmative defense language to exceptions from unsafe storage that include storage in a locked container, storage in a safe, trigger locks, unlawful entry to home, vehicle or other structures, medical and fire emergency. I sat through the House debate and vote on HB 63 and it became evident to me during the debate that the purpose of this bill is to punish gun owners with crimes and monetary expense no matter how a firearm ended up in a prohibited persons hands. Any argument from those that support HB 63 that this is a safe storage bill is false, such language does not exist in the current bill.