Northwest Gun Stolen from Vehicle - is Owner Responsible for a Shooting?

[Black Dog]

Probably most of you are to young. But back in the 1950's my dads pick-up had a gun rack in the back window and it had a rifle or two in it. When we went to town we never locked the doors and some times didn't roll the windows up. Never lost a gun or anything else. In 1962 I got a pick-up and it came with a gun rack. Didn't lock the doors on it until about 1970. That's about when sticky fingers started to show up.
My point is that some people think it is easier to steal then work. Now the police can't keep up so Government is finding it easier to blame us instead of the thief. There for we have to keep the thief from becoming a criminal and us from be coming one. It's getting really hard to keep a thief at bay when Government won't put these people where they belong. No one should have to hide lock up there belongings everything should be safe from these people.
So until Government starts getting the law enforcement and courts to do there job we are screwed.
I guess you are only a responsible person when you are better at hiding and locking up your things then a thief can unlock or find your property. (B.S.) Put the Mo@$#%^& F&%$@ where they belong or put them in a hole behind the barn.

 

[RX-79G]

my troll radar is pegging too many catch phrases like "common sense"
" reasonable" " responsible" in the posts.

Those are legal terms, speaking about how the law works in a courtroom. And I used them to explain how the law already works, not what laws should exist.

Sounds like you're pegging wrong.

 

[RX-79G]

Probably most of you are to young. But back in the 1950's my dads pick-up had a gun rack in the back window and it had a rifle or two in it. When we went to town we never locked the doors and some times didn't roll the windows up. Never lost a gun or anything else. In 1962 I got a pick-up and it came with a gun rack. Didn't lock the doors on it until about 1970. That's about when sticky fingers started to show up.
My point is that some people think it is easier to steal then work. Now the police can't keep up so Government is finding it easier to blame us instead of the thief. There for we have to keep the thief from becoming a criminal and us from be coming one. It's getting really hard to keep a thief at bay when Government won't put these people where they belong. No one should have to hide lock up there belongings everything should be safe from these people.
So until Government starts getting the law enforcement and courts to do there job we are screwed.
I guess you are only a responsible person when you are better at hiding and locking up your things then a thief can unlock or find your property. (B.S.) Put the Mo@$#%^& F&%$@ where they belong or put them in a hole behind the barn.

One thing that happened in the 1980s was the mental hospitals across the US were shut down in large number and people that used to be institutionalized were put on the street, sometimes ending up in group homes, sometimes ending up nowhere. The kind of people that really screwed up society used to be locked up starting when they were teens. So now we have an awful number of mentally screwed up people all over who barely have any thoughts about consequences.

And people are freerer today to be awful. Look how air travel has gotten.

 

[Koda]

hes not a troll, this was a good conversation and its good that people discuss the subject. A lot of gun owners grapple with gun control when it comes to what should be considered responsibility. I dont expect people to see how the issues only affect the lawful gun owner without discussion.

 

[PiratePast40]

We're back to the same old argument about people wanting the government to dictate their moral behavior. The problem always turns up being that people soon determine that the government, and the government alone, sets the bar for moral beliefs and behavior. In other words, if the government doesn't specifically disallow certain behavior, then people come to believe that it must be OK.

 

[Koda]

One thing that happened in the 1980s was the mental hospitals across the US were shut down in large number and people that used to be institutionalized were put on the street, sometimes ending up in group homes, sometimes ending up nowhere. The kind of people that really screwed up society used to be locked up starting when they were teens. So now we have an awful number of mentally screwed up people all over who barely have any thoughts about consequences.

And people are freerer today to be awful. Look how air travel has gotten.

yup, this is what happened and is a big part of todays gun control politics. Along with de-institutionalizing America we simply overmedicate these people... then put them in society to manage their meds on their own. Charles Witman talked with his doctor about his meds, and his violent tendencies... they never did anything about it. They still arent today.
This is one reason why gun owners should not be held responsible for the actions of criminals.

 

[RX-79G]

But in Oregon, you are responsible for what happens with a stolen gun for Two years unless you can prove it was stored correctly and you have reported it to a law enforcement agency

I don't see the part about proving you stored it correctly in the text of the law:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2020R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4005/Introduced

It sounds like all you have to do is throw the gun in your trunk in a locked case OR with a trigger lock/cable. As long as you report it being out of sight and locked when it was stolen, there is nothing in the law that suggests you have to prove that is true.

I'm wondering if the only solution in Oregon, is if i'm going to the range and need to stop somewhere, like a store or gas station/ convenience store, Is to sling my scary black rifle across my chest when i exit my vehicle and stroll into the store.That would appear to keep within the compliance of the new Law, but would get a exciting visit from local. LEO

You could bring the case in the store with you. Some have nice backpack straps. But the law doesn't require any of that.

(3) If a lost or stolen firearm is used to injure a person or property and the person who owned, possessed or controlled the firearm at the time of the loss or theft did not report the loss or theft within the time period required by subsection (1) of this section, the person who owned, possessed or controlled the firearm at the time of the loss or theft is strictly liable for the injury for two years from the expiration of the time limit for reporting or until the loss or theft report is made, whichever occurs sooner.

 

[Flopsweat]

put them in a hole behind the barn.

Flat no. This is not OK.

 

[Koda]

I don't see the part about proving you stored it correctly in the text of the law:

its in the summary. There are two parts to the law... 1) safe storage requirement 2) criminal liability for the actions of the thief

 

[RX-79G]

its in the summary. There are two parts to the law... 1) safe storage requirement 2) criminal liability for the actions of the thief

Yeah, but I quoted the penalty part, and it only says that you have to report the loss in a timely manner to avoid liability. There is nothing in that reporting that demands you prove you were complying with the storage law. Most law assumes that you were otherwise in compliance.

Of course, you also have to not tell the cop taking the report that your gun was unsecured. That's called a confession:

Do you have any drugs in the car? No.
May we search the car? Yes.
But you had drugs in the car. And people say yes all the time.

 

[Koda]

Yeah, but I quoted the penalty part, and it only says that you have to report the loss in a timely manner to avoid liability. There is nothing in that reporting that demands you prove you were complying with the storage law. Most law assumes that you were otherwise in compliance.

Of course, you also have to not tell the cop taking the report that your gun was unsecured. That's called a confession:

Do you have any drugs in the car? No.
May we search the car? Yes.
But you had drugs in the car. And people say yes all the time.

true, but you would if say your kid found your unsecured gun and accidentally shot someone.

IMO,, The dems tacked on the criminal liability part cause they had the upper hand on passing a "safe storage" law which is easier to argue for.

 

[RX-79G]

true, but you would if say your kid found your unsecured gun and accidentally shot someone.

IMO,, The dems tacked on the criminal liability part cause they had the upper hand on passing a "safe storage" law which is easier to argue for.

Is it a liberal idea that if you let your 5 year old kill your 2 year old with the Glock you left out, maybe you deserve to be punished? I'm unsure why endangering others is a liberty I should value.

Or is that victim blaming, because you lost a child?

 

[Koda]

Is it a liberal idea that if you let your 5 year old kill your 2 year old with the Glock you left out, maybe you deserve to be punished?

no i said the Dems. Plenty of liberals are pro gun
Safe storage is another different subject. Im not certain punishing the parent will help since it after the matter. Im sympathetic to safe storage laws if they were left as is and not including things like criminal liability. But before I support any "common sense" responsibility law I want to know why the Democrats literally unanimously totally shot down a firearms safety bill proposed about 3 years ago (by Kids safe foundation)? If they are so much about gun safety they would have supported that 100% but their true prohibition shows. I asked an anti gun friend why they didnt support the bill and they said it was because it promoted gun culture.... totoal hoplophobia BS.

 

[billdeserthills]

Lets say the guy who stole the gun instead stole the car the gun was in & then he killed someone when he ran them down with the car-- Now would the agent still be responsible since he 'lost' his car?

 

[parallax]

I don't see the part about proving you stored it correctly in the text of the law:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2020R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4005/Introduced

It sounds like all you have to do is throw the gun in your trunk in a locked case OR with a trigger lock/cable. As long as you report it being out of sight and locked when it was stolen, there is nothing in the law that suggests you have to prove that is true.


You could bring the case in the store with you. Some have nice backpack straps. But the law doesn't require any of that.

When you say that a gun case has straps, I'm seriously suspicious that you may be a troll, I've never seen a gun case with straps. you may in fact no nothing about firearms, or gun cases. and as always no disrespect intended.

 

[RX-79G]

When you say that a gun case has straps, I'm seriously suspicious that you may be a troll, I've never seen a gun case with straps. you may in fact no nothing about firearms, or gun cases. and as always no disrespect intended.

Combined with a trigger lock, these would comply with Oregon law.
Funny you haven't seen these. Are you a bot? No disrespect intended.

Lets say the guy who stole the gun instead stole the car the gun was in & then he killed someone when he ran them down with the car-- Now would the agent still be responsible since he 'lost' his car?

Lets say someone stole your gun and used it only for target shooting, would you be responsible if he won a match?

Which is a funny way of pointing out that guns are primarily for one thing and cars primarily for another. The law only punishes for both the worst and most obvious use a of a gun. People who steal cars are much less interested in using the car as a weapon than as transportation. And while that may seem unfair, it probably wouldn't be that way if homicides were distributed across more means. But the reality is that American murderers prefer guns for killing spouses, strangers, friends and rivals. Leading to efforts to decrease those homicides.

Is it the right way? Probably not. But we don't know how to stop people from being evil.

 

[Koda]

the old car analogy.
...except that "car violence" kills more people than violent crime committed with guns. (see what I did there...). Yet, somehow nobodys wanting to ban cars... or alcohol. Oh wait, they also own cars and drink booze. If death by an inanimate object is a public health issue, "car violence" should be higher up the list than guns. Certainly people can take public transit... nobody "needs" to own a car.

 

[Flopsweat]

the old car analogy.
...except that "car violence" kills more people than violent crime committed with guns. (see what I did there...). Yet, somehow nobodys wanting to ban cars... or alcohol. Oh wait, they also own cars and drink booze. If death by an inanimate object is a public health issue, "car violence" should be higher up the list than guns. Certainly people can take public transit... nobody "needs" to own a car.

If you lock your Antifa in the car and someone breaks them out and they burn a building down, are you liable?

 

[RX-79G]

the old car analogy.
...except that "car violence" kills more people than violent crime committed with guns. (see what I did there...). Yet, somehow nobodys wanting to ban cars... or alcohol. Oh wait, they also own cars and drink booze. If death by an inanimate object is a public health issue, "car violence" should be higher up the list than guns. Certainly people can take public transit... nobody "needs" to own a car.

The car analogy is tired because we largely don't use guns for everyday tasks.

Not only that, but the safety of something is best represented by the amount of use vs. the instances of death or injury. Guns don't get used for much of anything everyday, unless you count passively carrying them. So when you compare millions of hours of transportation time vs maybe thousands of hours of target shooting/hunting/policing time, the deaths per hour are probably not so great sounding for guns vs cars.

So most people are not going to buy the idea that cars are more dangerous in use than guns.

That's reality. We shouldn't apologize for guns being deadly when misused. They are deadly weapons for good reason.

 

[Cavedweller]

One thing that happened in the 1980s was the mental hospitals across the US were shut down in large number and people that used to be institutionalized were put on the street, sometimes ending up in group homes, sometimes ending up nowhere. The kind of people that really screwed up society used to be locked up starting when they were teens. So now we have an awful number of mentally screwed up people all over who barely have any thoughts about consequences.

And people are freerer today to be awful. Look how air travel has gotten.

For once I agree with you. And we can thank the ACLU et al. who sued on behalf of such people and made it nearly impossible to commit them involuntarily, as well as the various courts that decided their "rights" superseded the general welfare.

In other words, if the government doesn't specifically disallow certain behavior, then people come to believe that it must be OK.

Some people do. Those who are raised without a moral compass. On the other hand, there are some people who are raised believing there is a higher power than government, and do not look to government to dictate their morals.