Oregon Another Anti-gun Petition - Initiative 44

[alv7722]

While most of 44 is total horse-pucky, the underlying sentiment is something that I understand. Why wouldn't a responsible gun-owner want to make sure that a child could not easily get access to it for ANY reason (just being curious, not necessarily to kill someone), or to make it more difficult to steal if someone broke into the house?

My hope is that most gun owners do have a safe and they use it because it is the smart thing to do. But I have read too many tragic stories about kids shooting each other by accident just out of normal curiosity. As an adult, I would have a really hard time living with myself if that happened in my home.

AR15 gun control aside, these idiots who leave loaded guns unattended in their house and have some tragic accident occur with a child are irresponsible gun owners, they shouldn't have a gun to begin with, and make life harder for the rest of us that are responsible gun owners.

Yes gun ownership is a 2A right, but it comes with certain responsibilities IMHO. I look at it the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded building for jollies. That is not protected 1A speech. That person will be punished. So should anyone leaving a loaded gun unattended ANYWHERE.

Why shouldn't car owners be responsible for injuries or deaths if their car is stolen??????? This is just an excuse for warrantless searches of homeowners minding their own business!!

As far as children, the responsible thing to do is teach them proper respect and use of firearms. I have had access to firearms since age 7. I am now 71, and none of my firearms has ever injured anyone!!

 

[bolus]

Daniel Gibbs (listed as unemployed) has now donated $100,000 total. Wonder who he is and where that came from?

Does not look like the house of an un-employed. probably retired wealthy person who is the money behind the initiative. I wonder how he protects his $1.7 million dollar home?
Google Maps

Interesting that the $10,000 came from his neighbor who is a private investigator.
Google Maps

looks like she has ADT to protect her home.

(the only good part of Oregon government is how transparent they made the election process. All my personal information was posted online when we did the recall petition just like these guys).

 

[tourproto]

Why shouldn't car owners be responsible for injuries or deaths if their car is stolen??????? This is just an excuse for warrantless searches of homeowners minding their own business!!

As far as children, the responsible thing to do is teach them proper respect and use of firearms. I have had access to firearms since age 7. I am now 71, and none of my firearms has ever injured anyone!!

You're reading too much into my post. Do you leave your car unlocked when you go out somewhere? Worse do you leave your keys in the ignition? Of course not, the police would laugh at you when you file a stolen car report.

The same would happen, God forbid, if some child in your family picked up a loaded firearm in your house and killed someone. However it probably wouldn't be laughter from the police but something else.

Another poster in this thread says he has no kids and doesn't allow kids in his house and someone shouldn't be breaking into his house to get his guns. That thinking holds up until something unexpected happens. We don't live in a perfect world, not even close, and we can talk about "teaching kids firearms safety" until we are blue in the face, but it won't change much IMO because of where we are in society right now, where anything that goes wrong is someone else's fault.

I'm just saying I would not have a problem to require gun owners to have a safe before buying a gun. That's all. Most of us on this forum probably have one. I have 2. But I am sure there are many gun owners out there who don't, and the people sponsoring this bill have lost kids because of it. If you can't be a responsible gun owner, don't have a gun. and IMHO, a responsible gun owner has a safe.

 

[tiggers97]

Does not look like the house of an un-employed. probably retired wealthy person who is the money behind the initiative. I wonder how he protects his $1.7 million dollar home?
Google Maps

Interesting that the $10,000 came from his neighbor who is a private investigator.
Google Maps

looks like she has ADT to protect her home.

(the only good part of Oregon government is how transparent they made the election process. All my personal information was posted online when we did the recall petition just like these guys).

Seems to be a retired MD.

 

[3MTA3]

Too bad this initiative wasn't an incentive to offset the purchase of gun safes much like the subsidies Oregon has done for solar power and insulation. Same for funding trigger locks and funding NRA safety classes.

I think you could get both sides behind that and get more safes and lockable cabinets in homes that way. I mean, the spent half a billion dollars for a bridge that was never going to be built and a web site that never worked, a few million dollars of that for actual gun safety would have been much better spent.

Instead we get yet another "punish the responsible tax payer for what a criminal has done" legislation attempt.

Promote secure firearm storage and safe practices - yes, by all means.
Punish gun owners for the actions of criminals - no

We can get much more done pulling together than we can with one side perpetually pointing the finger at the other.

 

[tiggers97]

Too bad this initiative wasn't an incentive to offset the purchase of gun safes much like the subsidies Oregon has done for solar power and insulation. Same for funding trigger locks and funding NRA safety classes.

Education over regulation.

FYI; deaths due to gun accidents are down 75% since the 1990s in both Oregon and the USA per the CDC data.

 

[alv7722]

You're reading too much into my post. Do you leave your car unlocked when you go out somewhere? Worse do you leave your keys in the ignition? Of course not, the police would laugh at you when you file a stolen car report.

The same would happen, God forbid, if some child in your family picked up a loaded firearm in your house and killed someone. However it probably wouldn't be laughter from the police but something else.

Another poster in this thread says he has no kids and doesn't allow kids in his house and someone shouldn't be breaking into his house to get his guns. That thinking holds up until something unexpected happens. We don't live in a perfect world, not even close, and we can talk about "teaching kids firearms safety" until we are blue in the face, but it won't change much IMO because of where we are in society right now, where anything that goes wrong is someone else's fault.

I'm just saying I would not have a problem to require gun owners to have a safe before buying a gun. That's all. Most of us on this forum probably have one. I have 2. But I am sure there are many gun owners out there who don't, and the people sponsoring this bill have lost kids because of it. If you can't be a responsible gun owner, don't have a gun. and IMHO, a responsible gun owner has a safe.

Sooooo. Do an advertising campaign about safe storage!! Not another damn law!! I have a safe, and keep most of my firearms in it. I also have several defensive arms that I keep loaded and accessible! It is nobody's business what I have in my home, or in my vehicle. Trigger locks would prevent timely access if I need to have one of my guns to protect myself, or my home/family?? Are you able to manage your firearms to your satisfaction without another damn law?? Then why push it on others in the form of a law, that would be open to abuse by government?? If a firearm is stolen, the trigger lock can be removed with a hammer and cold chisel in a matter of a minute or so.

This is just another of the "thousand cuts" to remove or infringe on our God given Civil Rights!!

 

[tourproto]

Sooooo. Do an advertising campaign about safe storage!! Not another damn law!! I have a safe, and keep most of my firearms in it. I also have several defensive arms that I keep loaded and accessible! It is nobody's business what I have in my home, or in my vehicle. Trigger locks would prevent timely access if I need to have one of my guns to protect myself, or my home/family?? Are you able to manage your firearms to your satisfaction without another damn law?? Then why push it on others in the form of a law, that would be open to abuse by government?? If a firearm is stolen, the trigger lock can be removed with a hammer and cold chisel in a matter of a minute or so.

This is just another of the "thousand cuts" to remove or infringe on our God given Civil Rights!!

100% agree on trigger locks, pretty much a stupid waste of time and a hazard for anything needed for defensive purposes.

But when it comes to laws in general, you and I have a difference of opinion. We do have a lot of laws on the books regarding guns in general that are just not enforced well or at all, making them meaningless. Look at the situation in FL. 39 visits from police and the nutjob still can get a gun? Total shame event that should have been prevented.

But new laws come into existence because people do stupid things and to force a change in behavior.

I would be for a gun safe law, the same as I was for a seat belt law. It was a "who cares" law for me because I always wore one. It was just a smart, responsible thing to do. If they removed the law I would still wear a seat belt every time I drive. A gun safe law would have no impact on me because I use one for any gun that is not under my control.

There are morons out there and if this helps save lives, I'm all for it because it would have zero or negligible impact for me or other responsible gun owners.

Again I am NOT for 44 in its current form (that may have been lost in this thread) and I would not vote for it in its current form. But separate from 44, I would be in support of a law that required gun safes for anyone who wants to own a gun.

 

[alv7722]

100% agree on trigger locks, pretty much a stupid waste of time and a hazard for anything needed for defensive purposes.

But when it comes to laws in general, you and I have a difference of opinion. We do have a lot of laws on the books regarding guns in general that are just not enforced well or at all, making them meaningless. Look at the situation in FL. 39 visits from police and the nutjob still can get a gun? Total shame event that should have been prevented.

But new laws come into existence because people do stupid things and to force a change in behavior.

I would be for a gun safe law, the same as I was for a seat belt law. It was a "who cares" law for me because I always wore one. It was just a smart, responsible thing to do. If they removed the law I would still wear a seat belt every time I drive. A gun safe law would have no impact on me because I use one for any gun that is not under my control.

There are morons out there and if this helps save lives, I'm all for it because it would have zero or negligible impact for me or other responsible gun owners.

Again I am NOT for 44 in its current form (that may have been lost in this thread) and I would not vote for it in its current form. But separate from 44, I would be in support of a law that required gun safes for anyone who wants to own a gun.

No additional laws are required!!!!!! If someone gains access to one of my firearms, they have already broken one or more EXISTING LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!!!! Pass more laws because they would not impact you personally?? That's the kind of thinking behind IP43, no one needs a semi-auto firearm!! They are right. I have a 45-70 levo that I am perfectly capable of defending myself with. If the anti's win, that will be on the eventual chopping block along with "scoped sniper rifles". I live in a rural area where LE response is usually greater than 40 mins. away. I need my firearms to be accessible as I see fit. It is nobody else's business!

Back in the 50's, they had an advertising campaign against littering. They no longer do, and instead have myriad laws against littering. In reality, the advertising campaign was more effective than the laws we have now.

Seat belt laws are discriminatory against fat people!!

 

[alv7722]

Actually, no argument or justification is required!! What part of .................."Shall not be infringed", do you not understand???????

 

[tourproto]

No additional laws are required!!!!!! If someone gains access to one of my firearms, they have already broken one or more EXISTING LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!!!!

Seat belt laws are discriminatory against fat people!!

The law isn't about putting people in jail for committing crimes (burglary) it is about changing behavior from the owners perspective. Yes, it is about as stupid as a law requiring people to lock their car doors when parking in public. Who leaves their car door unlocked? It is pretty stupid and unless you live in BFE, you would always lock your door, certainly in downtown portland. No need to change behavior there. But obviously more than a few people leave guns lying around loaded and bad things happen. This is about changing behavior of gun owners. If you disagree with needing to do that, that's fine.

But your argument about there being laws against stealing your gun being enough, you are missing the point. Having a safe in this context isn't to prevent stealing (although it would certainly help). It is to stop the idiots who leave a guns out, unattended, and something bad happens. Yes, others on this site talk about "education", but that obviously isn't working with these buffoons, so yes, I am in favor of a gun safe law

<broken link removed>

Russian Jack boy, 5, kills himself with parents' gun

Boy, 4, dies after accidentally shooting himself; father charged

There are a lot of stories like this. Yes the parents are idiots and probably never should have had a gun in the first place, even if they were forced to buy a gun safe, they may choose not to use it, but SOME WILL and some lives will be saved by a law that dictates a more responsible course of action.

I have not suffered such a loss, and get as much irritated as I feel sorrow for when I read about it. Common sense isn't working with these Darwinian families, and I much as I like to make fun of "allowing some people to remove themselves from the gene pool", something more needs to be done to direct more responsible gun ownership.

 

[alv7722]

"shall not be infringed". It is part of the Bill of Rights! You either believe in the Constitution, or you do not! Like the "lesson of the lamb" you gotta eat the whole thing.

Anything less is a slippery slope to tyranny.

 

[tourproto]

Actually, no argument or justification is required!! What part of .................."Shall not be infringed", do you not understand???????

Alv7722, you have your

"shall not be infringed". It is part of the Bill of Rights! You either believe in the Constitution, or you do not! Like the "lesson of the lamb" you gotta eat the whole thing.

Anything less is a slippery slope to tyranny.

Dude, don't have an aneurysm over this its a discussion and we disagree.

I do believe in the Constitution, but I am not an absolutist. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that has had ebbs and flows over time. If you want to get "absolute" on the Constitution, then by your definition a 10 year old should be able to buy a 1911. Have that conversation with some other folks and see how that goes.

The government (state and federal) has been "infringing" on our gun rights for years, so you waving that "flag" in front of me isn't an insult that means anything, as my rights have already been "infringed" long before this conversation started and will continue to be long into the future.

I love my guns and the 2nd amendment, and the Constitution, but I also am a pragmatist when it comes to gun ownership. Sorry if we disagree.

 

[JavaDude]

Common sense isn't working with these Darwinian families, and I much as I like to make fun of "allowing some people to remove themselves from the gene pool", something more needs to be done to direct more responsible gun ownership.

Wow, and the Elitists rear their ugly head. What's next, citizens are not allowed the same rights if they don't have a high enough IQ, credit score, financial resources? This is the same smug attitude the socialists left is using because they think they are so damn superior and how they know what is best for all of us. Let's be brutally honest here, the battle lines have been drawn and these people will not stop until they control every facet of our lives. It isn't about saving lives at all. It 's all about CONTROL! Most of us on the right believe that all of our rights should be intact and not just for the privileged but for everybody regardless of our social status. Most of us strongly agree in promoting gun safety, safety education, controlling access to firearms, etc… But we don't believe in giving away our rights.

You claim to be a supporter of the second amendment but it is beliefs like yours that will be our downfall. Thanks!

 

[tourproto]

Wow, and the Elitists rear their ugly head. What's next, citizens are not allowed the same rights if they don't have a high enough IQ, credit score, financial resources? This is the same smug attitude the socialists left is using because they think they are so damn superior and how they know what is best for all of us. Let be brutally honest here, the battle lines have been drawn and these people will not stop until they control every facet of our lives. It isn't about saving lives at all. It 's all about CONTROL! Most of us on the right believe that all of our rights should be intact and not just for the privileged but for everybody regardless of our social status. Most strongly agree in promoting gun safety, safety education, controlling access to firearms, etc… But we don't believe in giving away our rights.

You claim to be a supporter of the second amendment but it is beliefs like yours that will be our downfall. Thanks!

Sorry you feel that way. I disagree with your last statement.

43 is about control and I am against that in totality. I also disagree with 44 in its current form but, as I stated in my original post, I would be OK with requiring gun safes as I think that is prudent.

I don't think banning AR15s or 30 bullet magazines is prudent (or practical) and will in no way make people safer. Bad guys will still find a way to get whatever gun they want.

Irresponsible gun owners aren't the same type of "bad guy", they don't have ill intent to do harm, they are just stupid and make bad choices and I think certain laws can train them into better and safer behaviors. If you think that is eliteist. Fine.

I've been on lots of discussion boards and have been called worse things. I don't take things personally from someone on a keyboard. I've put forth my honest thoughts on the matter. If you want to disagree with me, fine. Adding insults is your choice, but it doesn't change my thoughts on the subject any more than David Hogg calling me a child killer for having Vanguard stock will make me sell it.

 

[alv7722]

Alv7722, you have your


Dude, don't have an aneurysm over this its a discussion and we disagree.

I do believe in the Constitution, but I am not an absolutist. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that has had ebbs and flows over time. If you want to get "absolute" on the Constitution, then by your definition a 10 year old should be able to buy a 1911. Have that conversation with some other folks and see how that goes.

The government (state and federal) has been "infringing" on our gun rights for years, so you waving that "flag" in front of me isn't an insult that means anything, as my rights have already been "infringed" long before this conversation started and will continue to be long into the future.

I love my guns and the 2nd amendment, and the Constitution, but I also am a pragmatist when it comes to gun ownership. Sorry if we disagree.

As a matter of fact, when I was 10, I had no problem walking into Simms Hardware and buying black powder, for .99 cents a pound, and no one is dead because of it. My Uncle had me shoot a 1911 when I was 8. (boy, was that exciting)

The Constitution was NOT intended to be a "living, breathing document". It only "ebbs and flows" one way, that is loss of Civil Rights. (Unless you are a illegal, or some other favored minority) I don't know how old you are, but our children's children, and their children may someday need the Civil Rights we so cavalierly give away. Just as I am sure they will appreciate the debt we have saddled them with! You care about children? Protect their rights!

You are the exact reason the Bill of Rights was created! Well intentioned, but misguided.

No personal disrespect. You are just another symptom of what is wrong.

 

[alv7722]

This is the ultimate result of "compromising" your rights!!

 

[bolus]

The law isn't about putting people in jail for committing crimes (burglary) it is about changing behavior from the owners perspective. Yes, it is about as stupid as a law requiring people to lock their car doors when parking in public. Who leaves their car door unlocked? It is pretty stupid and unless you live in BFE, you would always lock your door, certainly in downtown portland. No need to change behavior there. But obviously more than a few people leave guns lying around loaded and bad things happen. This is about changing behavior of gun owners. If you disagree with needing to do that, that's fine.

I'd be concerned that if someone with a weapon broke into your house and you shot them the police arrested you for not having the gun locked up in the first place. Especially in places like Portland who love to make examples of gun owners.

We all know that the scrutiny is at the gun owner victim, not the criminal breaking into the house, if there is a gun used for self defense.

If you follow the law and leave your guns locked up at all times, then what is the point of having them for self defense. Have someone in your family wake you up at a random time at night and practice getting a gun unlocked and ready and time yourself.

We are on the path to England, where they throw 70 year olds in jail for defending themselves in their own homes.

I for one am tired of having to follow laws that are made for idiots. I'd much rather than you not allow the idiots to reproduce than to make me follow a law because they are too stupid to keep their kids safe. If they get to say that I have to drastically change my behavior so they can pump out unlimited amount of children, I should have a say if they get to have kids in the first place.

 

[tourproto]

I'd be concerned that if someone with a weapon broke into your house and you shot them the police arrested you for not having the gun locked up in the first place. Especially in places like Portland who love to make examples of gun owners.

We all know that the scrutiny is at the gun owner victim, not the criminal breaking into the house, if there is a gun used for self defense.

If you follow the law and leave your guns locked up at all times, then what is the point of having them for self defense. Have someone in your family wake you up at a random time at night and practice getting a gun unlocked and ready and time yourself.

We are on the path to England, where they throw 70 year olds in jail for defending themselves in their own homes.

I for one am tired of having to follow laws that are made for idiots. I'd much rather than you not allow the idiots to reproduce than to make me follow a law because they are too stupid to keep their kids safe. If they get to say that I have to drastically change my behavior so they can pump out unlimited amount of children, I should have a say if they get to have kids in the first place.

Boy, some of you guys really go to the extremes on these examples?

I have NO PROBLEM with guns around the house, locked up or otherwise when you are at home. I have a defensive gun available 99% of the time when I am at home, locked and loaded. But if I have anyone over at my house? That gun goes on my hip or in the safe, it is not left "out" EVER.

While I don't have multiple defensive guns out of my safe, unless cleaning them, if I did, when I left home, I would have my EDC on me and the rest go back into the safe. Every time. There is nothing left out for someone to "pick up", child or robber. Yeah, people should stay out of your house (burglers) but they don't and I would not think much of someone who lost a gun left in a bedside drawer in a robbery. It's just stupid IMO. Also my wife brings people to the house when I am not home (working or travelling), I don't know what those people are going to do, so my guns are locked up.

The example you stated above. I have NEVER said that defensive guns should be locked up (safe or trigger lock) all the time. Just when they are not in your (reasonably) immediate control. To me a gun in your bedroom and your hip when you are at home is fine. I have zero issues with that and have never stated otherwise. You leave the house and leave a gun in a nightstand drawer? Irresponsible. Again, IMHO.

For me this is just responsible gun ownership. I would prefer we not need a law about this (and we probably won't have one anyways as 44 as it is currently written is a violation of Heller as far as I can tell). But I am not so Pollyanna as to hide behind a "people should stay out of my house" thought process to rationalize away a law requiring a gunsafe when I believe it would be a good thing to do. And IMO it is pretty far away from gun banning, registration or confiscation, all of which I am firmly against.

There are morons out there and yes, the 2nd amendment allows morons to have guns too, but I won't have a problem if we are all required to have a gun safe. Heck, because they are idiots, they probably won't use it anyways, but now it's on them. And if the unthinkable happens, I want that person in jail and throw away the key. If those on this forum feel/believe/think that this is government overstepping, that's fine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[bolus]

There are morons out there and yes, the 2nd amendment allows morons to have guns too, but I won't have a problem if we are all required to have a gun safe. Heck, because they are idiots, they probably won't use it anyways, but now it's on them. And if the unthinkable happens, I want that person in jail and throw away the key. If those on this forum feel/believe/think that this is government overstepping, that's fine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

We will have to disagree. I have seen and discussed many examples of unintended consequences of "common sense" laws like this on the forum to know that they do not play out like people think they will. Personally have been effected by it and have met people personally effected by it.

I dont think if a firearm is stolen the owner should have to be responsible for what is done with that stolen firearm. Its a trend of removing any responsibility of action from any one person. Locked up or not.

Transferring a firearm without a trigger lock engaged is dumb because I have seen trigger locks personally that will engage the trigger when installed. Requiring the use of a poorly made device to give the illusion of safety is a poor excuse for a law. Can you find some examples of people shot during the transfer of a firearm that require it to be codified into law? Is that really an important enough issue

I dont like the face that the chief petitioner does not live in Oregon. I dont live in Oregon anymore, but my son does. I still would not start a petition in oregon though.