	California is actually widely considered the top state for gun violence prevention, requiring all sales to be made through a licensed dealer after a thorough background check, maintaining a clear permanent record of firearm sales, and carrying a mandatory, impenetrable ten day minimum waiting period before a firearm is able to be sold or traded. California citizens additionally are able to purchase only one firearm per month, and all firearm purchasers are required to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, which is only available after passing a written test. These are huge strides in the correct direction, but California’s child access prevention laws are not quite as stringent as Minnesota’s, the difference being that California’s child access prevention laws do not cover what happens if a child obtains a firearm that is not loaded or stored properly.
	We must now analyze the efficacy of this policy, and whether or not it is tenable in this current state with the current US population. This policy change is fairly cost effective – it would not cost lawmakers, nor would it cost citizens, much to enact the policy changes. In fact, the fines incurred would possibly help by going into other high-need areas, such as interstate repair or parks and recreation. Similar child access prevention laws exist in a handful of states other than Minnesota and California, including the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas. These are laws that are becoming more tolerated and widespread, especially as the Dickey Amendment loses its power over time and more research is done to feed into letting the public know the dangers of unlocked, loaded guns being made available to children. The issue, rather, with enacting this policy nationwide lies more in its scope and willingness to be accepted. 
	Many American citizens hold their second amendment rights very close to their hearts, and feel infringed upon when they perceive them to be threatened, even if that is not the case. There could be issues politically in some states getting this approved, particularly in more “red” areas where the political climate is more conservative and less likely to willingly accept firearm legislation that restricts their abilities to carry and use them at will. This is a large risk for this particular policy proposal: kickback from oppositional groups presents a very real possibility, and could even go as far as to be considered neither a consensual nor a contentious policy analysis, but even a radical one, utilizing approaches that require a major change in the viewpoint and belief system of the American people. We have seen what happens when the National Rifle Association gets wind of research that might prevent the sale and trade of firearms – a chokehold amendment such as the Dickey Amendment could easily be enacted or tied to further federal funding with strings making more research impossible, so these think tanks and public interest groups must be treated with kid gloves in many ways to prevent these groups from becoming heated and withdrawing all together.
