Lock required on firearms taken into a Gunshop

[joken]

I was at Tick Licker in Corvallis yesterday and found this out. Maybe I'm not the only one that didn't know.

Read More

 

[fstdraw]

I did a private transfer today and no one had trigger locks. This was at the Salem Tick Licker.

 

[joken]

I did a private transfer today and no one had trigger locks. This was at the Salem Tick Licker.

I was told that it is the law now, not TL policy.

 

[fstdraw]

Hmm...

 

[ma96782]

Yeah.....


Aloha, Mark

 

[Gbirk]

I keep a cheap trigger lock in my glovebox just for cases like this. I bought an AR pistol once and the manufacturer did not include a lock in the box. Had to buy one to leave with the gun. Now I just keep a cheap lock in the car all the time.

 

[fstdraw]

"What the world needs now is more laws sweet laws"

 

[CountryGent]

 

[Hueco]

I was laughing at this with @LuckySG when I went to pick up my sig p365 fcu. Still haven't found a way to lock up that "firearm"

 

[WillametteWill]

FYI, from the enrolled law SB554

SECTION 4. (1) If a person transfers a firearm and a criminal background check under ORS 166.435 is required prior to the transfer, the person shall transfer the firearm: (a) With an engaged trigger or cable lock; or (b) In a locked container.
(2)(a) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class C violation. (b) Each firearm transferred in violation of subsection (1) of this section constitutes a separate violation.
(3) If a firearm transferred in a manner that violates subsection (1) of this section is used to injure a person or property within two years of the violation, in an action against the transferor to recover damages for the injury, the violation of subsection (1) of this section constitutes per se negligence, and the presumption of negligence may not be overcome by a showing that the transferor acted reasonably.
(4) Subsection (3) of this section does not apply if the injury results from a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(5) This section does not apply to: (a) The transfer of a firearm made inoperable for the specific purpose of being used as a prop in the making of a motion picture or a television, digital or similar production. (b) A transfer that occurs when a firearm is taken from the owner or possessor of the firearm by force.

 

[Gbirk]

FYI, from the enrolled law SB554

SECTION 4. (1) If a person transfers a firearm and a criminal background check under ORS 166.435 is required prior to the transfer, the person shall transfer the firearm: (a) With an engaged trigger or cable lock; or (b) In a locked container.
(2)(a) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class C violation. (b) Each firearm transferred in violation of subsection (1) of this section constitutes a separate violation.
(3) If a firearm transferred in a manner that violates subsection (1) of this section is used to injure a person or property within two years of the violation, in an action against the transferor to recover damages for the injury, the violation of subsection (1) of this section constitutes per se negligence, and the presumption of negligence may not be overcome by a showing that the transferor acted reasonably.
(4) Subsection (3) of this section does not apply if the injury results from a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(5) This section does not apply to: (a) The transfer of a firearm made inoperable for the specific purpose of being used as a prop in the making of a motion picture or a television, digital or similar production. (b) A transfer that occurs when a firearm is taken from the owner or possessor of the firearm by force.

I am actually suprised to see (5)b. I would have guessed I would have found guilty if my carry gun was taken from me before I had a chance to put a lock on it for the thief. Seems as a gun owner I am responsible for all criminal acts done by others lately.

 

[Koda]

Seems as a gun owner I am responsible for all criminal acts done by others lately.

this is by design to make gun ownership a liability to discourage ownership. It is one of the most egregrious forms of manipulation the gun control community imposes, a type of "political gaslighting"... make the crime victim the reason for the theft because they were a gun owner.

 

[Koda]

(5) This section does not apply to: (a) The transfer of a firearm made inoperable for the specific purpose of being used as a prop in the making of a motion picture or a television, digital or similar production. (b) A transfer that occurs when a firearm is taken from the owner or possessor of the firearm by force.

so let me get this straight, a law abiding citizen is liable under this law when lawfully selling a gun, but a criminal actually stealing a gun by force is not?

 

[BanjoGeek]

so let me get this straight, a law abiding citizen is liable under this law when lawfully selling a gun, but a criminal actually stealing a gun by force is not?

I think you're starting to get the picture.

 

[Koda]

I think you're starting to get the picture.

oh I got the picture a long time ago, not surprised by this at all.

 

[ob1]

So what we need now is a law holding dingbats liable for voting even bigger dingbats into office. ..
Mandatory loss of voting rights for life.

See post # 5

 

[WillametteWill]

so let me get this straight, a law abiding citizen is liable under this law when lawfully selling a gun, but a criminal actually stealing a gun by force is not?

Sorry...just the messenger.

 

[Xmark1]

so let me get this straight, a law abiding citizen is liable under this law when lawfully selling a gun, but a criminal actually stealing a gun by force is not?

If a criminal takes my firearm by force?

I suspect some criminals know what a bolt cutter is. Or perhaps a hack saw or grinding stone?

 

[Koda]

If a criminal takes my firearm by force?

I suspect some criminals know what a bolt cutter is. Or perhaps a hack saw or grinding stone?

Well my guess is that "by force" means a physical confrontation of sorts not using a bolt cutter etc. when the gun owner isnt home. After all, the whole point of the law makes the crime victim liable for that actions of the thief if the victim doesn't report his gun stolen in time, so my guess was 4(5)(b) was referring to a physical confrontation.

 

[arakboss]

Wouldn't this require all firearms to be locked up once they enter our State?

Tigard Pawn is going to be excited, now they can sell locks to everyone. Crazy times we are living in.