JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
To me an "In Service" firearm is one that is actively ready for defense (not just your carry gun), like the loaded ready to go handgun that is in your nightstand or the loaded ready to go shotgun in your pop-up coffee table.

Nowhere in the bill does the phrase "in service" come up. Your definition of any term mentioned in the bill is largely irrelevant. The bill states:
SECTION 3. (1)(a) An owner or possessor of a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the owner, possessor or authorized person, secure the firearm:

And, the definition of Control is:
(3) "Control" means, in relation to a firearm:
(a) That the owner or possessor of the firearm is close enough to the firearm to prevent another person who is not an authorized person from obtaining the firearm; or
(b) That the owner or possessor of the firearm is in the person's own residence, either alone or with only authorized persons who also live in the residence and who are not minors, and the residence is secure.
So, the nightstand gun would work for some people, not others, and not all people at all times.

I think if you were to look under the definition of GUN, it would say something like it is immediately avaialble to shoot or something like that, so under maintenance, it really isn't a firearm. Maybe, I dunno.

Following your logic, a serialized Glock frame would not be a "firearm" since it is just a hunk of plastic and in no way immediately available to shoot.

We know this to be incorrect. That frame is a firearm whether it's built into a fully functioning handgun or not.

The spirit of this law is to ensure that firearms not currently being used are made inoperable by various locks. I would think that a torn apart receiver, even sitting out in the open, would meet the law at this level - but I don't for one second think that an overzealous DA wouldn't try to prosecute otherwise. I prefer legislation to be spelled out in advance, not determined by the whim of a court later.

at the end of the day tho this is a tack on crime. So if they police unlawfully enter your home they can take your guns for not being secured

I'm guessing that you haven't heard the phrase, fruit of the poisonous tree, before? You're right that this is a "tack on" law. Charges will get leveled at a parent, now, if their child goes off the rails and uses an unsecured firearm...but the state would only ever by privy to this knowledge while investigating the child's crime, for example, not before.
 
90 days after she signs it.

Kate making criminals.jpg
 
So according to OLIS, Brown hasn't signed this yet. As far as I know, she has to take action on it within five days of it arriving at her doorstep. It's been more than five days. What happens now? The legislative website is unclear on that, maybe it just becomes law anyway?

That's funny, I understand it to be 30 days, not 5. Am I reading it wrong?
 
Statescape.com says below. This suggests it automatically becomes law if not signed, since they are still in session. It does not appear that there is a pocket veto by not signing it.

OregonDuring Session: The governor must sign or veto legislation within 5 days of transmittal (excluding Saturday and Sunday), or it becomes law without his/her signature. Post Session: For legislation transmitted to the governor within the last 5 days of the session, the governor must act within 30 days of adjournment (excluding Saturdays and Sundays), or the legislation becomes law without being signed
 
Her lawyers &advisors probably advised her to let it become law without her signature so that when its inevitably challenged in court ; she can claim either way in order to stay governess :rolleyes: like "I had nothing to do with this "unconstitutional law" " or "I fully supported this law", without actually signing it.
 
Statescape.com says below. This suggests it automatically becomes law if not signed, since they are still in session. It does not appear that there is a pocket veto by not signing it.

OregonDuring Session: The governor must sign or veto legislation within 5 days of transmittal (excluding Saturday and Sunday), or it becomes law without his/her signature. Post Session: For legislation transmitted to the governor within the last 5 days of the session, the governor must act within 30 days of adjournment (excluding Saturdays and Sundays), or the legislation becomes law without being signed
I don't know enough about state politics to know if this is normal or not...even so, this has got to be the dumbest crock of B.S. that I think I've heard this month. I'm sure that, at some point in the past, some governor simply refused to sign a law and so they passed this law-without-a-signature process...what they should have done is pass a law saying the governor had 5 days to make a decision or be immediately recalled for dereliction of duty. This plus the whole mayor == police commissioner is making me think this state has been high on its own supply for a long, long time.
 
Anyone know what exactly the procedures are if any, on removing State laws that were passed with "Emergency Clause" written in them??? SB941 is one such law.
It is my understanding that only the Legislature can remove laws with an emergency clause. Without the clause Oregon voters and/or the Legislature can remove the law.
 
So according to OLIS, Brown hasn't signed this yet. As far as I know, she has to take action on it within five days of it arriving at her doorstep. It's been more than five days. What happens now? The legislative website is unclear on that, maybe it just becomes law anyway?


& here I always thought it went like this:

 
Unfortunately, Oregon 554 passed today. So, assuming KB signs it, 90 days after the legislative session ends:
All firearms whether in-service or not will need to be locked.
Trigger locks or locked box when transporting firearms are required
CHL costs go to $115 ($100 to the county, $15 to the state police)

I think there are some other things hidden in there as well (link SB 554)
Don't comply 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
It is my understanding that only the Legislature can remove laws with an emergency clause. Without the clause Oregon voters and/or the Legislature can remove the law.
Pretty sure it can be changed with a ballot measure like any other law. You just can't stop it from becoming law by collecting signatures and getting it on the next ballot like you can with any bill that doesn't have the emergency clause.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top