JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So do I need to cable lock all my guns when going to the range? Or does having them in my range bag in my truck count as being in my possession?
More than likely an ultra-anal-retentive RSO or nosey neighbor two stalls down will make enough stink to drown out the smell of the gunpowder. Kind of like what they've accomplished with mask mandates: Threaten businesses so they will threaten customers. Except now they can screw over Oregonians with a law rather than an executive order.
 
gotta love that they use the two people killed in the Clackamas town center shooting for the bill, you know were the shooter was confronted by a guy with a gun who had a CHL and the shooter retreated and later shot himself.... but lets not get lost in facts...
I predict more lives will be lost or irreparably changed because of this bill than will be saved by it.

I'll just leave this here while people fumble around with their trigger locks and bow to the Brown skid mark in Salem:
  • According to a United States Department of Justice report:
    • 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
    • Over 2,000,000 homes will experience a break-in or burglary this year.
  • There are over 4,500 home burglaries per day in the United States.
  • The average number of home invasions per year was 1,030,000 between 1994 and 2010.
 
I predict more lives will be lost or irreparably changed because of this bill than will be saved by it.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I fail to see what the bill has to do with defending against a home invasion. A biometric or other high speed lock is not tough to get and one could make a reasonable case for most people using one already.
 
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I fail to see what the bill has to do with defending against a home invasion. A biometric or other high speed lock is not tough to get and one could make a reasonable case for most people using one already.
Factoring in that most current and new gun purchases will come with cable locks or padlocks and not biometrics, and that most will likely use what came with the gun (or whatever is cheapest), I would still maintain that more people will become victims of serious crime than the two victims cited in the bill as the primary reason this law "needed" to be passed. Not to mention the secondary group of victims and felons this law creates if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or can't properly decipher its intentional ambiguity.

Poorly written laws always have unintended consequences. I'm just not sure that these consequences are unintended.
 
Last Edited:
What I find funny is in the bill it list Living Residence of state officials as public buildings. Doesn't that mean it gives citizens the right to enter?

Yes and no. It depends on the definition of "public building"; the Pentagon is a "public building" in that it is owned and maintained by the "public", so are military bases, and CIA HQ, and the NSA - but it is not "public" in the sense that just anybody can walk into them.
 
Last Edited:
Factoring in that most current and new gun purchases will come with cable locks or padlocks and not biometrics, and that most will likely use what came with the gun (or whatever is cheapest), I would still maintain that more people will become victims of serious crime than the two victims cited in the bill as the primary reason this law "needed" to be passed.
Maybe. There are a whole lot of small numbers that get multiplied together in that chain of suppositions, which also assumes a person can afford a $600 firearm, training/practice, etc but can't afford a $100 lock. I hate this law but I'm not going to assert something this tough to prove. YMMV.
 
Maybe. There are a whole lot of small numbers that get multiplied together in that chain of suppositions, which also assumes a person can afford a $600 firearm, training/practice, etc but can't afford a $100 lock. I hate this law but I'm not going to assert something this tough to prove. YMMV.
You are going to assert that sheeple will NOT buy the cheapest lock available???

I'm out.
 
Have just perused the law; as others have said a steaming pile of crap and a continuation of Oregon's war against legal gun ownership.

A suggestion...
The law provides penalties for things that happen if a gun is lost or stolen, and not reported as such. What if we all report every single one of our guns as "lost", the day the law goes into effect? This could easily happen if, for example, your wife borrowed the gun and forgot to put it back into place. And there's no requirement that the gun, if found, be reported as found. So, you lose your gun on Monday and report it as so, find it on Tuesday, and back it goes into your gun safe/room. Results:
1) This will be seen as a big "F.U." to the law
2) Could clog up any systems used to report/record gun losses
3) In the unlikely event that something bad happens with your gun, you are free from any consequences of not having reported said gun lost or stolen.

IANAL - just throwing an idea out there for discussion.
You'd be filing a false police report. That's actually a crime.

Q: If you've read the statute, is there a criminal penalty for failure to comply, or just potential civil liability to victims of crimes a stolen firearm is used in?

Observation: Seems to me that disassembly is more effective and cheaper for most firearms owners. I have one AR and one bolt. Easier and cheaper for me to lock up the bolt than to buy a safe to hold the gun. That's also way more effective than an action trigger lock.

2nd Observation. This might be objectionable, but nowhere close to CA or NY.
 
You are going to assert that sheeple will NOT buy the cheapest lock available?
If they care about conforming to the law. I know I did.

I suspect the two most likely results for "nightstand guns" will be (1) no change (people just ignore this application of the law) and (2) people who are serious about HD and being conformant with the law will get decent locks. I can't see a scenario where very many people who would have had a firearm readily available before will now stop doing so.
 
Isn't the "free" cable lock sufficient for the law here?
From the little I've read It is, but it's almost as bad as nothing from the theft perspective. That doesn't solve the problem the law intends to address except for denying access to kids who can't use hand tools. My problem with those from the quick access perspectve is one has to have a key available. I won't buy any locking device that isn't operated by code, biometrics, or combination. I've looked online for cable gun locks with combinations and I haven't found one.
 
My problem with those from the quick access perspectve is one has to have a key available. I won't buy any locking device that isn't operated by code, biometrics, or combination.
How many HD guns do you intend to keep at the ready?

I personally keep most firearms in a safe someplace, but a cable lock in the closet and locking the ammo in a filing cabinet should do it from a legal and practical standpoint for the rest. Treat yourself to one or two good high speed access locks, and done.

The transportation aspects are far more onerous IMO but at least it won't vary by locale within the state AFAIK.
 
How many HD guns do you intend to keep at the ready?

I personally keep most firearms in a safe someplace, but a cable lock in the closet and locking the ammo in a filing cabinet should do it from a legal and practical standpoint for the rest. Treat yourself to one or two good high speed access locks, and done.

The transportation aspects are far more onerous IMO but at least it won't vary by locale within the state AFAIK.
Wait..did I miss something? Does our ammo need to be locked up too?
 
How many HD guns do you intend to keep at the ready?

I personally keep most firearms in a safe someplace, but a cable lock in the closet and locking the ammo in a filing cabinet should do it from a legal and practical standpoint for the rest. Treat yourself to one or two good high speed access locks, and done.

The transportation aspects are far more onerous IMO but at least it won't vary by locale within the state AFAIK.
I haven't sprung for a safe. For a variety of reasons, mostly size...and a safe suggests to a bad person that there is something to steal. I opt for locked action and unusual hiding places for rifles and secured quick access safes for handguns. I suppose if I get more rifles a safe might be in order.
 
Wait..did I miss something? Does our ammo need to be locked up too?
Not that I know of, but most of mine is in a locking cabinet. Just because. There is what the law requires and there is what morality and safety suggest, and it's good to conform w/ both IMO. For me, if the kid is capable and willing to break a cable lock, a typical 'safe' won't slow them down much either.

If I'm honest, I never locked up the 50 yet because I'm still building up the cabinet that's big enough for it. I keep the ammo in a lockable cabinet and really ... the rifle weighs almost 40 pounds and is over 4' long. No one of normal size is going to be waving it around - even use as a club would take a good sized man.
 
Taking a picture of my house revolver with cable lock attached, serial number shown. Putting it back in its spot as usual without the lock. Should it ever be stolen, the police report will state it had a lock on it. Should it ever be used in a crime, it will be my word as a law biding citizen, photo, and police report vs that of a criminal as to whether it had a lock on it or not when stolen.
 
You'd be filing a false police report. That's actually a crime.

Q: If you've read the statute, is there a criminal penalty for failure to comply, or just potential civil liability to victims of crimes a stolen firearm is used in?

Observation: Seems to me that disassembly is more effective and cheaper for most firearms owners. I have one AR and one bolt. Easier and cheaper for me to lock up the bolt than to buy a safe to hold the gun. That's also way more effective than an action trigger lock.

2nd Observation. This might be objectionable, but nowhere close to CA or NY.

It is the death by a thousand cuts. Soon enough it will be closer and closer to CA & NY. It wasn't that long ago that CA had relatively lax gun laws compared to what they have now. I can remember a time when I could go into CA without having to lookup their gun laws to be sure I would not windup in prison.
 
Taking a picture of my house revolver with cable lock attached, serial number shown. Putting it back in its spot as usual without the lock. Should it ever be stolen, the police report will state it had a lock on it. Should it ever be used in a crime, it will be my word as a law biding citizen, photo, and police report vs that of a criminal as to whether it had a lock on it or not when stolen.

Except you just posted on a public forum your plan...
 
I'm a law biding citizen. I would never do such a thing.
Ummmm....you just said and I quote "Taking a picture of my house revolver with a cable lock attached, serial number shown. Putting it back in its spot as usual without the lock" Your plan of "my word against a criminals" kinda falls apart when you just snitched on yourself in this forum. The internet isn't as anonymous as you may think.

Personally, I couldn't care less what you do. But if that's your plan it's probably not a good idea to broadcast it out on the internet.
 

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