If you oppose mandatory gun lock up bill please send an email today Jan 14th or tomorrow Jan 15th explaining why.

[arakboss]

Where to send email, I suggest putting "Testimony for LC 38" in subject line: [email protected]

What is happening:

GUN LOCK DOWN LANGUAGE ANNOUNCED – Oregon Firearms Federation

www.oregonfirearms.org

Language in bill:

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019I1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/209058

Invited Guest are (nobody was invited to explain the dangers of not having access to firearm):
Review of Safe Storage Proposal (LC 38)
Rep. Rachel Prusak, House District 37
Rep. Janeen Sollman, House District 30
Dr. Dana Braner, Chair of Pediatrics and Physician in Chief, Doernbecher Children's Hospital
Greg Chaimov, Counsel, State of Safety

Read More

 

[arakboss]

One problem with this legislation that jumps out at me, is that the meat of it becomes effective on July 1, 2020, if passed. The legislation gives the Oregon Health Authority until that same date to come up with standards for locks and containers. Assuming the OHA didn't release standards prior to July 1, 2020 that doesn't give businesses and individuals any time to come up with solutions prior to the law potentially being enforced.

I don't support this law at all but I am even more frustrated that they are trying to push this through as an emergency bill. This has been a pattern that needs to stop.

 

[HappyChemtrail]

Email sent.

 

[arakboss]

Here is my email which I plan to send to the Anti Senators on Judiciary Committee. I will remove the first two paragraphs and modify the third paragraph to send to the testimony email address and to pro-gun Senators on the committee:

I do not support the idea that residents should be required by law to lock up their firearms in their own home, business or property under their control. The appropriate path for this piece of legislation is to be tossed in the trash bin. I believe Oregonians should have the freedom to manage their own lives including how they choose to store their firearms.

I understand that you have a different view about the State micromanaging Oregon residents lives and taking away their freedoms to manage their own lives in their own homes. This is a common thread among legislation that originates from Democrat Legislators in Salem.

One area we should be able to agree on is that Legislators should not pass a law that can be immediately enforced with out the public knowing how to comply with the law.

After reading through the Draft Summary of LC 38 that is clearly what would happen. The emergency clause and language in the legislation allows it to take effect on passage. Section 9 (1) states that the legislation would become operative on July 1, 2020. Section 7 gives the Oregon Health Authority until July 1, 2020 to come up with standards that will need to be met to comply with the legislation as written.

Having enforcement begin at the same time as compliance standards are issued dose not give the public a reasonable amount of time to learn about and come in to compliance with the legislation before being subject to violations. I urge you and your fellow legislators to remove the emergency clause from this legislation and move the operative date language to Jan 1, 2021 or later.

 

[arakboss]

Anti Senators email addresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


Pro-gun (or wishy-washy pro gun) Senators:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[arakboss]

I added this opening paragraph to the letter I sent to the testimony email address:

I believe this proposed legislation should be scrapped. Oregonian firearm owners don't need or want the State intruding in to our homes and telling us how or where to store our firearms. Each Oregonian can best make the decision on how to keep their families and themselves safe and protected based on their individual circumstances.

 

[Roundball58]

E-mail sent.

 

[titsonritz]

Here's mine...

Dear Senator F' face,

I oppose locking up my guns in the event I need to shoot commie a'holes thinking they taking them and putting me into a reeducation gulag.

Truly yours,

A red blooded American.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Thank you for posting. Emails sent yesterday.

I just watched the hearing live. Two representatives, a Doc and a lawyer all in favor. No opposing opinions were allowed to speak.

 

[Hueco]

I'm new to the state. What does emailing your testimony to this address actually do? Do they read it in close or open session? Does it make the record somewhere?

The part that grinds my gears is being liable for injuries caused if:
- I sell the gun without a lock (You mean to tell me, that once another person has legally taken possession...that because I didn't include a lock, I'm now liable? Hell no, it's their gun now!)
- If I don't have a lock on the gun or have the key nearby and someone steals the gun from within my home. (You mean to tell me, that because someone already broke into my home, stole my things...that I'm liable simply because I keep the gun key in a location where my wife and I can easily get to it [but toddler can't]!?)

I'm all for voting this crap down, and sent my email...just looking to learn if other things can be done.

 

[Hueco]

Hello,

I'm writing to let my opinion be known about the upcoming LC38 bill...In summary, that this bill SHOULD NOT be passed.

I am most perturbed by the points in the bill that make me liable for injuries caused after having sold a firearm to another adult if that sale does not include a cable lock.

So, what you're saying is, that this other adult must be legally able to buy the weapon, pass the background check, pay the fees, have their fingerprints recorded by the state, and then be fully responsible for the weapon they just purchased...but because I sold it without a lock, I am actually responsible for any injuries they cause?

Does that really seem right to you?

Additionally, my arms are kept secure - primarily because I have a toddler. The key to the cabinet is in easy reach for myself or my wife in case, God forbid, we ever need to retrieve a firearm promptly. So, you mean to tell me, that after a felon has already broken into my house and stolen my things, that because that key was in a place of utility for myself and my wife, that I will be held liable for that thief's actions?

Does that really seem right to you?

It is clear as day that this bill seeks to place additional financial burdens on gun owners for actions not even committed by them, in the hopes of simply creating less gun owners. Why else would you burden a person for another's actions? We don't do this when it comes to driving, drinking, or the sale, use, or theft of any other thing because a person, at the end of the day, is responsible for their own actions. Period.

When you want to get serious about this issue from a non political perspective, you'll invite witness testimony for both sides of the debate and attempt to get at a real solution. Does creating a Democratic sponsored bill and then only hearing from Democrats really seem fair to you? If your son and daughter got in a fight, would you only let your daughter speak her side of the story?

Everything about this is simply unfair, from the process to the words of the bill laying blame for actions uncommitted by a citizen acting in full accordance with the law.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you ever decide to be fair and bring witness testimony from the other side, I would be more than happy to volunteer.

Sincerely,

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I'm new to the state. What does emailing your testimony to this address actually do? Do they read it in close or open session? Does it make the record somewhere?

The part that grinds my gears is being liable for injuries caused if:
- I sell the gun without a lock (You mean to tell me, that once another person has legally taken possession...that because I didn't include a lock, I'm now liable? Hell no, it's their gun now!)
- If I don't have a lock on the gun or have the key nearby and someone steals the gun from within my home. (You mean to tell me, that because someone already broke into my home, stole my things...that I'm liable simply because I keep the gun key in a location where my wife and I can easily get to it [but toddler can't]!?)

I'm all for voting this crap down, and sent my email...just looking to learn if other things can be done.

You don't get to vote, only the elected representatives.

 

[arakboss]

I'm new to the state. What does emailing your testimony to this address actually do? Do they read it in close or open session? Does it make the record somewhere?

The part that grinds my gears is being liable for injuries caused if:
- I sell the gun without a lock (You mean to tell me, that once another person has legally taken possession...that because I didn't include a lock, I'm now liable? Hell no, it's their gun now!)
- If I don't have a lock on the gun or have the key nearby and someone steals the gun from within my home. (You mean to tell me, that because someone already broke into my home, stole my things...that I'm liable simply because I keep the gun key in a location where my wife and I can easily get to it [but toddler can't]!?)

I'm all for voting this crap down, and sent my email...just looking to learn if other things can be done.

"I'm new to the state. What does emailing your testimony to this address actually do? Do they read it in close or open session? Does it make the record somewhere?"
Your testimony will go on the record. They are suppose to read them but not in open session.

I agree with you on all the points you made about being held responsible after the gun has been sold or stolen. These antis are out of their minds and are eager to punish firearm owners any which way they can.

 

[arakboss]

Hello,

I'm writing to let my opinion be known about the upcoming LC38 bill...In summary, that this bill SHOULD NOT be passed.

I am most perturbed by the points in the bill that make me liable for injuries caused after having sold a firearm to another adult if that sale does not include a cable lock.

So, what you're saying is, that this other adult must be legally able to buy the weapon, pass the background check, pay the fees, have their fingerprints recorded by the state, and then be fully responsible for the weapon they just purchased...but because I sold it without a lock, I am actually responsible for any injuries they cause?

Does that really seem right to you?

Additionally, my arms are kept secure - primarily because I have a toddler. The key to the cabinet is in easy reach for myself or my wife in case, God forbid, we ever need to retrieve a firearm promptly. So, you mean to tell me, that after a felon has already broken into my house and stolen my things, that because that key was in a place of utility for myself and my wife, that I will be held liable for that thief's actions?

Does that really seem right to you?

It is clear as day that this bill seeks to place additional financial burdens on gun owners for actions not even committed by them, in the hopes of simply creating less gun owners. Why else would you burden a person for another's actions? We don't do this when it comes to driving, drinking, or the sale, use, or theft of any other thing because a person, at the end of the day, is responsible for their own actions. Period.

When you want to get serious about this issue from a non political perspective, you'll invite witness testimony for both sides of the debate and attempt to get at a real solution. Does creating a Democratic sponsored bill and then only hearing from Democrats really seem fair to you? If your son and daughter got in a fight, would you only let your daughter speak her side of the story?

Everything about this is simply unfair, from the process to the words of the bill laying blame for actions uncommitted by a citizen acting in full accordance with the law.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

If you ever decide to be fair and bring witness testimony from the other side, I would be more than happy to volunteer.

Sincerely,

Great letter!

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Info from GGWG:

We had really excellent turnout at the LC38 (gun lock up bill) hearing at the Salem Capital today. There were about 15 Moms Demand busy bodies and about 75 pro 2A patriots!! Great job!! There were so many pro 2A guys they filled the overflow room (which I didn't even know until I got home)!! The gun grabbing politicians looked out into a packed room full of people opposing the BS and knew there was another roomful!!

 

[arakboss]

Info from GGWG:

That's awesome.

 

[Pete F]

Email sent yesterday as soon as I heard from OFF. We can't count on another Republican walkout to stop this BS.

 

[arakboss]

Info from GGWG:

What is GGWG?

Never mind, I am not sure how I missed this group.

 

[arakboss]

Email sent yesterday as soon as I heard from OFF. We can't count on another Republican walkout to stop this BS.

I agree but another walkout is possible: Oregon GOP Senate leader says climate bill could trigger another walkout

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I agree but another walkout is possible: Oregon GOP Senate leader says climate bill could trigger another walkout

How about a walkout to stop a constutional amendment to prevent walkouts?