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

[arakboss]

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.

My understanding is it's only required for FFLs to provide locks with handguns.

 

[jayR]

morning venting for my house rep.

 

[TC64]

The politicians might be smarter than we think. They know they can't take guns away without violating the Constitution, so they pass law after law that eventually drives the citizens to not even pursue gun ownership, or make the gun owners guilty of one of the laws and then they can take the gun legally. Socialism has always taken over the rights of the people deceptively.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

The anti-gun bill that is still in play in the House, HB 4005, the gun lock down bill, could still pass the House if the House Republicans don't walk out. But it cannot become law unless it passes the Senate and it can't pass the Senate if the Republicans are not there.

Consider writing the Oregon Senate Republicans to thank them for walking out, even if hindering the progress of HB 4005 is only a side benefit of stopping the dangerous cap-and-trade bill SB 1530. You may want to thank them for the latter as well.

The R’s Have Left the Building. (Most of them.) – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[TC64]

Democratic Socialism is definately a mental disease......

 

[spookshack]

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

Same thing happened to me. Totally spaced it and forgot to bring my own pos lock. The kicker is you don't have to actually install it, it just has to be provided.

So I buy one for $7.50 and then tell my buddy with whom I was doing the transfer with, to go back in when the transfer was complete and tell them you want to pawn the lock.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Is this bill in it's current form better than the IP Mark Knutson wants to send to the voters?

 

[Jonnyuma]

Same thing happened to me. Totally spaced it and forgot to bring my own pos lock. The kicker is you don't have to actually install it, it just has to be provided.

So I buy one for $7.50 and then tell my buddy with whom I was doing the transfer with, to go back in when the transfer was complete and tell them you want to pawn the lock.

I did the same thing a couple of wks ago .. trade pardner had no lock, I did.

Didn't think about pawning the lock... get anything for it? Maybe enough for a Big Gulp for the drive home... ?

Point is, it's a stupid, and disfunctional, ineffectual law. WHY we don't require a sunset clause to PROVE a new law's efficacy or let it expire (such as the impotent and retarded AWB '94) as well as unbiased proof of a specific problem to be "solved" by said law is beyond me. We need to work harder to require legislators to require proof-of-proof for any proposed legislation.

The Political Class has been spoon-fed and reared to believe that they are rulers and leaders vs serving at the consent of the voters.

A good "leader" is rare and, if legitimate, can and will write their own ticket.

Unfortunately, charismatic and inspirational "leaders" of the past are mostly limited to fascist a-holes with a gift that tends towards manipulation and, eventually, violence-backed compliance.

That is, also unfortunately, precisely what the overwrought attempts at overregulation to the extent of confinement, fines, and felony charges for simple possession of unregistered and/or non-compliant consumer products amounts to with our current crop of political-class dumasses.

As much as I believe in the "consent of the governed" idiom, it's past time for the affected governed to step up or step off. There is NO halfway in this fight.

Put another way: He who gets eaten last (looking at YOU, Fudds), still gets eaten.

 

[War Bird Radio]

"Isn't it already a legal requirement to provide a lock with a transferred gun?"

Can you please give citation and reference to this assertion?

I see no reference in ORS 166.435, "Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons" that require a lock to be given with the firearm to be transferred. ORS 166.435 - Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
Maybe the FFL says it's required to sell you the cheap lock?

 

[Jcon268]

"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."

So what are the implications of shopping for a firearms at a LGS? What specified circumstances allow a customer to handle a gun/several guns before making a purchase? Same question pertaining to private sales done inside an FFL establishment... if I am selling a gun to someone, are they going to be able to examine the gun first? These bills serve no purpose other than to confuse gun owners and make them wonder if they're following the law when doing things that are normal for a gun owner to do.