New Oregon law to take effect last Saturday

[AMT]

That's funny but true. I have heard several cases of somebody breaking into a haouse and got bit buy the family gaurd/dog and the person breaking in suid the home owner because the property was not posted with "Gaurd Dog on Duty". Unfortunately it is a law that you have to post your property that you have guard dogs to warn the cum that wants your wallet.

The neighbors that live up the road from me that have those signs posted and got sued by an intruder breaking into their backyard (even hit one of the dogs (Chocolate Labs) with a 2x4 numerous times), and admitted to the police that he was trying to break in through the back door to rob them so he jumped the fence.

The homeowner lost the lawsuit because the scum attorney for the urchin-thief twisted that they "knowingly had vicious dogs, posted signs on their property proving so, and the dogs were allowed to roam free. If they were locked up then my client wouldn't have gotten injured". Even though the scum jumped over the fence and broke his ankle, grabbed the 2x4 and was swinging it at the dogs, then crawled outside the gate (that he just jumped) while the dogs were barking the whole time.

The neighbor lost the lawsuit because of "unsafe conditions around the home" and a "vicious dog attack" by vicious dogs that were allowed to roam free. Even though there were no dog bites found on the urchin.

 

[bbbass]

The neighbors that live up the road from me that have those signs posted and got sued by an intruder breaking into their backyard (even hit one of the dogs (Chocolate Labs) with a 2x4 numerous times), and admitted to the police that he was trying to break in through the back door to rob them so he jumped the fence.

The homeowner lost the lawsuit because the scum attorney for the urchin-thief twisted that they "knowingly had vicious dogs, posted signs on their property proving so, and the dogs were allowed to roam free. If they were locked up then my client wouldn't have gotten injured". Even though the scum jumped over the fence and broke his ankle, grabbed the 2x4 and was swinging it at the dogs, then crawled outside the gate (that he just jumped) while the dogs were barking the whole time.

The neighbor lost the lawsuit because of "unsafe conditions around the home" and a "vicious dog attack" by vicious dogs that were allowed to roam free. Even though there were no dog bites found on the urchin.

I give up... just shoot me. Take me Lord, I'm ready to go. Either that or please drown all civil lawyers in a great flood!!!

 

[bbbass]

The point is the home is locked and secure.

If the state wants to mandate the use of lockable residential storage containers, then they'll need to provide one for every dwelling in the state. Kate better dig deep…

I'm not trading my safety for the price of a govt provided lockbox!!!

Reminds me of that meme floating around that asks, "If someone broke into your house and took what is on top of your fridge, what do they get?"

I never reply to those, but if I did, it would be along the lines of, "Someone's gonna get shot"

^^^THIS

 

[ScatPackLife]

Reminds me of that meme floating around that asks, "If someone broke into your house and took what is on top of your fridge, what do they get?"

sounds like a burglar casing online for joints to rob. If someone says something other that cereal he's gonna start asking for addresses, lol.

 

[CRBMoA]

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I had better change up my outfit if I want to visit my kid at college

 

[washagonian]

Can anyone tell me wtf this means (section 2, 10b)?
"Trigger or cable lock" means:
"A device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by any person not having access to the device."

As I studied the bill, my interpretation of this statement might best be explained using the following example:

If I have used the internal lock on my Taurus M85, or my Taurus PT111 G2 to lock the firearm, that internal locking mechanism is the "device". To have "access" to the device, means that one must have the key to the internal lock. If someone gets hold of this internally locked firearm they do NOT have access to the locking device because they do NOT have the key.

Thus, the device incorporated into the firearm prevents the operation of the firearm by any person not having the key (i.e., access) to the locking device.

They law isn't talking about access to the firearm. There is an assumption that an "unauthorized person" has already got hold of the firearm and is attempting to "operate" it. But if they don't have "access" to the internal locking device (because they don't have the key) and that locking device prevents operation in that instance, then that locking device meets the requirements of the law.

Again just my interpretation and 2-cents worth.

Take what you like and leave the rest.

Cheers.

 

[rdb241]

The neighbors that live up the road from me that have those signs posted and got sued by an intruder breaking into their backyard (even hit one of the dogs (Chocolate Labs) with a 2x4 numerous times), and admitted to the police that he was trying to break in through the back door to rob them so he jumped the fence.

The homeowner lost the lawsuit because the scum attorney for the urchin-thief twisted that they "knowingly had vicious dogs, posted signs on their property proving so, and the dogs were allowed to roam free. If they were locked up then my client wouldn't have gotten injured". Even though the scum jumped over the fence and broke his ankle, grabbed the 2x4 and was swinging it at the dogs, then crawled outside the gate (that he just jumped) while the dogs were barking the whole time.

The neighbor lost the lawsuit because of "unsafe conditions around the home" and a "vicious dog attack" by vicious dogs that were allowed to roam free. Even though there were no dog bites found on the urchin.

A Labradore is a viscious dog? I think not.......and if the yard was fenced how can the dogs be free to roam?

 

[washagonian]

So if you give your kids permission to use your gun in SD it's all good right?

Here's the definition of "authorized person" from the law:

Section 2 (1): " 'Authorized person' means a person authorized by the owner or possessor of a firearm to temporarily carry or control the firearm while in the presence of the owner or possessor."

As it relates to children, there are Oregon statues that dictate limitations of controlling and/or carrying a firearm depending on the child's age (my kids are in their 30's, so there are no limitations based on age for them). If you kids are under 21 or 18, there are legal limitations regarding handguns and long guns - but I don't know the specifics (another member might be able to clarify). These current limitations have not changed.

From the way I read the law, the owner/possessor of the firearm (me) MUST be present if an authorized person has access to my firearm and is in "temporarily carry or control" of the firearm. Thus if I am NOT in the house, but my wife is, AND my son-in-law comes over to visit, my firearms need to be locked up because I would not be PRESENT if he grabbed on of my firearms to look at or work on it, etc. Technically my wife is NOT an owner or possessor of any of the firearms in our house.

This would be another esoteric reason to setup a gun trust (which I am thinking of doing). With my wife's name on the trust, there would be no doubt that she is an "possessor" of each firearm in the trust. So, if my son-in-law came over when I was NOT at home, he could still have access to my firearms because he would be temporarily in control of that firearm with my wife present and she would be one of the firearm's possessors.

If I put my son-in-law's name on the trust, he, too, is a possessor of the firearms in the trust. Thus, I would not have to be present if my son-in-law came over and needed access to a firearm when I would not be at home - because the trust would make him a legal "possessor" of that firearm.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is just my interpretation. 2-cents, for what it's worth.

Take what you like and leave the rest.

 

[washagonian]

Here's the definition of "authorized person" from the law:

Section 2 (1): " 'Authorized person' means a person authorized by the owner or possessor of a firearm to temporarily carry or control the firearm while in the presence of the owner or possessor."

This also brings up the questions my partner's access to my firearms (in my case, it's my wife).

When I'm home, my firearms don't need to be locked up because I am "present" and if my wife wanted or needed to temporarily control or carry one of the firearms that I am the owner/possessor of, then. I would be there to supervise. So, the way I read the new law, I don't have a problem with leaving my gun safe open during the day when I'm working on different firearms, or leaving firearms out on my work bench.

Now, if I leave the house, technically, my wife is NOT the owner/possessor of any of my firearms, so I would need to lock them up. Even though she is an "authorized person", the law says that I must be present if she is to control / carry one of my firearms. Legally, they are my firearms. I purchased them all my self, BGC's are all for me, etc.

 

[CRBMoA]

All I will say is if you do not have a functional, articulate and accurate definition of Trust, Trustee and Trustor that you can recite without looking it up, you need an attorney.

 

[Hueco]

This also brings up the questions my partner's access to my firearms (in my case, it's my wife).

When I'm home, my firearms don't need to be locked up because I am "present" and if my wife wanted or needed to temporarily control or carry one of the firearms that I am the owner/possessor of, then. I would be there to supervise. So, the way I read the new law, I don't have a problem with leaving my gun safe open during the day when I'm working on different firearms, or leaving firearms out on my work bench.

Now, if I leave the house, technically, my wife is NOT the owner/possessor of any of my firearms, so I would need to lock them up. Even though she is an "authorized person", the law says that I must be present if she is to control / carry one of my firearms. Legally, they are my firearms. I purchased them all my self, BGC's are all for me, etc.

I'm no lawyer…but seems to me you can give a gun to your immediate family without going through the background check process…

So it's your gun when needed…hers when needed…problem solved.

 

[Rkangel]

I dislike this law almost as much as I dislike stupid gun-owners. Because it is the stupid gun owners that keep bringing us to these types of situations. And it is stupid gun owners that are responsible for perpetuating the stereotype that all gun owners are stupid. Let me explain with a coupe of examples. I have probably used them before but they bear repeating.

A tale of two idiots:

"Idiot One" is the the out, loud, and proud 2A larper with gun stickers and slogans all over his car and truck. Well last year his truck wasn't as "protected by Smith & Wesson" as he thought. Thieves broke in to his truck, bashed all the windows, and stole his Smith & Wesson along with other firearms.

"Idiot Two" is the alcoholic trailer park transplant who frequently combines his booze with driving and shooting. This winner regularly leaves his guns hanging unsecured and unattended on full display in his garage with the garage door open as kids, including his own, play on the street and any number of potential thieves case his place.

Morons like these are a large reason why we have to constantly fight stupid laws.

Word of advice: Don't advertise your stuff and if you aren't smart enough to drive or shoot sober, you probably shouldn't own a gun (or a car). We already have to stay vigilant and continuously fight to keep our rights. It is oxymoronic when gun owners rightfully complain about registration and police departments doxing CCW holders because it exposes them to theft, but then turn around and advertise to the universe that they have guns or leave them easily accessible to thieves.

 

[ma96782]

Thou shall not.....Steal and/or Commit Murder.

Isn't that enough? If not.....why not?

Cause......people don't seem to get actually get punished for the Evil that they did.

And soooo, who's FAULT is that?

Rrrrright.....we need to make new laws, in order to blame the gun owner.

Aloha, Mark

 

[saxon]

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities

 

[Member 52301]

Ha, ha, ha, ha…

On top of the fridge you'll get expired vitamins and enough dust to choke Lawrence of Arabia….

LOL

Dang! Good one! Thank you.

My husband cleaned - washed thoroughly the TOP of our refrigerator so I would not have to use a small step stool. He did this BEFORE our guest arrived a couple of weeks ago.

Costco size of Nature Valley oatmeal bars for hunting and emergency - weather related incidents.

HIS one snack - open chip bag.

ONE open box of crackers.

I never put a handgun on top of the refrigerator. He never did that. My late husband never did that.

Cate

 

[Member 52301]

Thou shall not.....Steal and/or Commit Murder.

Isn't that enough? If not.....why not?

Cause......people don't seem to get actually get punished for the Evil that they did.

And soooo, who's FAULT is that?

Rrrrright.....we need to make new laws, in order to blame the gun owner.

Aloha, Mark

Thank you!

Cate

 

[uberguy]

I dislike this law almost as much as I dislike stupid gun-owners. Because it is the stupid gun owners that keep bringing us to these types of situations. And it is stupid gun owners that are responsible for perpetuating the stereotype that all gun owners are stupid.

Morons like these are a large reason why we have to constantly fight stupid laws.

Actually, no it isn't. While responsible gun ownership and handling is of paramount importance, the examples of moronic behaviors you cite are comparatively rare and of trivial statistical significance in regards to firearm deaths and accidents, versus criminal use and misuse of firearms resulting in intentional harm.

It's basically the same as when anti-firearm activists use suicide numbers as part of their crusade to ban guns, but conflating separate gun issues (suicides/negligence/accidents) in with criminal assaults and homicides, to falsely convince a gullible public that gun-control, restrictions and bans are the solution, when these impositions never actually prevent or solve the issues of public concern - so called 'gun violence' and threats to public safety.

We need to stay focused: the goal is to ban firearms, period, not to reduce crime, accidents or suicides.

 

[Rkangel]

Actually, no it isn't. While responsible gun ownership and handling is of paramount importance, the examples of moronic behaviors you cite are comparatively rare and of trivial statistical significance in regards to firearm deaths and accidents, versus criminal use and misuse of firearms resulting in intentional harm.

It's basically the same as when anti-firearm activists use suicide numbers as part of their crusade to ban guns, but conflating separate gun issues (suicides/negligence/accidents) in with criminal assaults and homicides, to falsely convince a gullible public that gun-control, restrictions and bans are the solution, when these impositions never actually prevent or solve the issues of public concern - so called 'gun violence' and threats to public safety.

We need to stay focused: the goal is to ban firearms, period, not to reduce crime, accidents or suicides.

I am absolutely against this law.
I'm not saying the morons are intentionally contributing to the "gun violence" statistics (although I doubt the guns stolen from the neighbor's truck are currently being used for legal purposes). I'm saying that the pushers of these bills are citing these types of moronic behaviors, rare or not, as justification for said bills. Our anti-gun and anti-constitution adversaries are waging a well planned and well organized PR war against gun owners, while we sit on our hands arguing among ourselves about Fudds vs Tacticool, which caliber is better, the merits of SBRs vs Pistols, and humming the mantra "mmmm...it doesn't affect meeee...mmmmm". We can't seem to keep our poop in a group. Meanwhile, the opposition is vigilantly watching for any gun owner to stub his or her toe. And what they can't dig up, they make up. Surely we don't need to be shooting ourselves in the foot, too. Giving the opposition free negative publicity is as foolish as leaving our guns available to be stolen while advertising that we have them. Not learning from that was an even bigger mistake. And here we are with another overreaching nanny-state law. We are better than this and need to be holding ourselves to a higher standard in a society that seems to highlight and advance the foolish for its own agenda.

 

[Hueco]

I am absolutely against this law.
I'm not saying the morons are intentionally contributing to the "gun violence" statistics (although I doubt the guns stolen from the neighbor's truck are currently being used for legal purposes). I'm saying that the pushers of these bills are citing these types of moronic behaviors, rare or not, as justification for said bills. Our anti-gun and anti-constitution adversaries are waging a well planned and well organized PR war against gun owners, while we sit on our hands arguing among ourselves about Fudds vs Tacticool, which caliber is better, the merits of SBRs vs Pistols, and humming the mantra "mmmm...it doesn't affect meeee...mmmmm". We can't seem to keep our poop in a group. Meanwhile, the opposition is vigilantly watching for any gun owner to stub his or her toe. And what they can't dig up, they make up. Surely we don't need to be shooting ourselves in the foot, too. Giving the opposition free negative publicity is as foolish as leaving our guns available to be stolen while advertising that we have them. Not learning from that was an even bigger mistake. And here we are with another overreaching nanny-state law. We are better than this and need to be holding ourselves to a higher standard in a society that seems to highlight and advance the foolish for its own agenda.

I don't disagree with you, just wanted to add: the rationale for this law was in the bill, or at least the first few drafts.

The primary concern was theft of a weapon followed by a mass shooting. We got this law because some gun owners didn't lock up their stuff in such a way as to keep it out of their kid's hands (and weren't paying enough attention to their kid to notice their declining mental state).

Again, I don't disagree with you. Your drunk idiot wasn't the impetus for this one though - tragedies like Newtown were.