Oregon HB 4005 - "Requires owner of possessor of firearm to secure with trigger or cable lock or in locked container"

[Helocat]

HB 4005 is in the "House Committee on Rules" right now. GO HERE: Oregon State Legislature to find who your representative is for your district, contact them!

HB4005 2020 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

Requires owner or possessor of firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock, in locked container or in gun room except in specified circumstances. Punishes violation by maximum of $500 fine. If minor obtains unsecured firearm as result of violation, punishes by maximum of $2,000 fine. Provides that person who does not secure firearm as required is strictly liable for injury to person or property within two years after violation. Specifies exceptions to liability. Requires owner or possessor of firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container when transferring firearm under circumstances requiring criminal background check, except in specified circumstances. Punishes violation by maximum of $500 fine. Provides that person who transfers firearm without securing firearm is strictly liable for injury to person or property within two years after violation. Specifies exceptions to liability. Requires person to report loss or theft of firearm within 72 hours of time person knew or reasonably should have known of loss or theft. Punishes violation of requirement by maximum of $1,000 fine. Requires person transferring firearm to minor to directly supervise minor's use of firearm unless minor is owner of firearm]. Provides that person who does not supervise minor as required is strictly liable for injury to person or property caused by minor's use of firearm. Authorizes person to transfer supervisory duty and liability to another person. Specifies exceptions to supervision requirement and liability. Directs Oregon Health Authority to specify by rule minimum specifications for trigger and cable locks and locked containers required by Act. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Read More

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

dumb

 

[Xrperry]

Ok robber, thug,home invader hold it right there so I can unlock my gun in the mean time help yourself to a beer

 

[Stomper]

It'll never hold up in court as it'd be the same as you being liable for the damages caused by someone stealing your car and using it in the commission of a crime, or just playing "mow the man down"....

I'm not even a lawyer and I could destroy those charges with a flick of my middle finger in front of a jury.

 

[2A2Dend]

It'll never hold up in court

Nope

 

[Jonnyuma]

Two things I didn't know about this garbage bill:

Directs Oregon Health Authority to specify by rule minimum specifications for trigger and cable locks and locked containers required by Act.

Oregon freakin' HEALTH AUTHORITY? WtF is that about? Wanna know about vaccinations? Okay.
For locks and metallurgy go talk to Bob down at Ace Hardware.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Same BS as SB941... Prozanski still a free man, still in office. 0 repurcussions.

The rest is equally stupid... but these two items are news to me.

 

[Hueco]

I don't understand the point of this?

First part, sounds like "they" want to hold parents liable when little Jimmy shoots up a school. Funny thing is, parents are already financially liable for their kids in civil court. So, "they're" saying that they want to hold parents criminally liable for their kid's actions? I have a big problem with that, as should anyone who thinks we are each responsible for our own actions with regard to criminal law.

So, I just don't get it. Little Jimmy shoots up the school and pops himself at the end - the parents already get to be sued into bankruptcy, in addition to losing their child. Now the state gets to toss on some financial burden that, if not met, comes with jail time? Eff-Off State.

And that last part about firearms transfers:

Provides that person who transfers firearm without securing firearm is strictly liable for injury to person or property within two years after violation.

So if I sell a gun to Joe Schmoe without including a locked container or cable lock in the deal, I'm responsible for up to 2 years misbehavior by Joe or anyone who might happen to steal the gun from Joe? What the hell problem is this supposed to solve? Seriously; what is going through the minds of the people proposing this to where they think, "yep, this will solve a problem." What bloody effing problem????

 

[Jonnyuma]

Isn't it already a legal requirement to provide a lock with a transferred gun?
It's really the only reason I keep the useless "free" locks provided with almost all (maybe ALL) new guns.

 

[Hueco]

Isn't it already a legal requirement to provide a lock with a transferred gun?
It's really the only reason I keep the useless "free" locks provided with almost all (maybe ALL) new guns.

Hell, I throw them away. The gun cabinet is locked and that's good enough for me.

If it is a law to transfer all guns with a cable lock, I've never been told about it having both sold and purchased weapons in Oregon, all without. If it were a legal requirement, I figure the pawn shops would keep a basketful of 10-cent locks they'll gladly sell you for $5.00 if you need it.

 

[Koda]

I don't understand the point of this?

First part, sounds like "they" want to hold parents liable when little Jimmy shoots up a school. Funny thing is, parents are already financially liable for their kids in civil court. So, "they're" saying that they want to hold parents criminally liable for their kid's actions? I have a big problem with that, as should anyone who thinks we are each responsible for our own actions with regard to criminal law.

So, I just don't get it. Little Jimmy shoots up the school and pops himself at the end - the parents already get to be sued into bankruptcy, in addition to losing their child. Now the state gets to toss on some financial burden that, if not met, comes with jail time? Eff-Off State.

And that last part about firearms transfers:



So if I sell a gun to Joe Schmoe without including a locked container or cable lock in the deal, I'm responsible for up to 2 years misbehavior by Joe or anyone who might happen to steal the gun from Joe? What the hell problem is this supposed to solve? Seriously; what is going through the minds of the people proposing this to where they think, "yep, this will solve a problem." What bloody effing problem????

^^this^^ is pretty much exactly how I feel about safe storage laws. The problem here is its only enforceable after the matter, there is nothing in the law that is an incentive for those parents who don't already lock up their gun... you cant legislate common sense.

Ive always felt that safe storage laws were/are inevitable, but as long as they make the gun owner liable for the criminal actions of others there is a huge huge overreach here. This is essentially making the victim of a crime (theft) responsible for the actions of a criminal.

The overreach here is unbelievable.

 

[Koda]

Hell, I throw them away. The gun cabinet is locked and that's good enough for me.

If it is a law to transfer all guns with a cable lock, I've never been told about it having both sold and purchased weapons in Oregon, all without. If it were a legal requirement, I figure the pawn shops would keep a basketful of 10-cent locks they'll gladly sell you for $5.00 if you need it.

my guess is if this law passes then those cheap 10-cent cable locks will become 10, 20 dollar locks.... another hit on the sale price tax.

 

[Helocat]

Well I sent my Representative and email of non support.

 

[Jonnyuma]

If it is a law to transfer all guns with a cable lock, I've never been told about it having both sold and purchased weapons in Oregon, all without. If it were a legal requirement, I figure the pawn shops would keep a basketful of 10-cent locks they'll gladly sell you for $5.00 if you need it.

They do... $7.50 actually.
I ran into it doing a trade in Tigard just a couple of weeks ago.
I was previously unaware.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Utterly idiotic.

 

[Helocat]

Hell, I throw them away. The gun cabinet is locked and that's good enough for me.

If it is a law to transfer all guns with a cable lock, I've never been told about it having both sold and purchased weapons in Oregon, all without. If it were a legal requirement, I figure the pawn shops would keep a basketful of 10-cent locks they'll gladly sell you for $5.00 if you need it.

I have a box with a few doz in there. Few HK branded ones are cool the rest are the cheapest locks made. Hell the "Keys" look like bent 2 cent washers.

 

[Helocat]

Rules House 2020 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System

olis.oregonlegislature.gov

Look at all the supporting testimony to NOT pass this, yet they are moving it along and passed the committee by one vote. Their amendment of
:

"(b) That a person is in the person's residence with the firearm, either alone or only with authorized persons who also live in the residence and who are not minors, and the doors and windows of the residence are closed and locked.".

So I violate State law since my 2nd-floor bathroom window is unlocked and my G17 is magnetically mounted under my desk in my home office.

 

[Reacher120]

It's way past time to get something on the ballot to hold any and all Politician's responsible that voted to:
Make Oregon a sanctuary state,
Decriminalize public camping,
Stop enforcement for car theft and other property crimes, etc.
Let's hold them liable for actions by others for at least two years...

 

[HA556]

I've got two words for those morons!

Toilet Paper!

 

[2A2Dend]

Plopper Topic

BTW @Joe Link
The forum needs a Thumbs-Up and Thumbs-Down smiley

 

[WoodsPlinker]

I emailed my rep, then spent the rest of the day gunsmithing on things they hate.

I procrastinated on this project just so I could be defiant during the short session.