Proposed Legislation or Initiatives To Incentivize Safe Firearm Storage

[3MTA3]

One of the reasons we as responsible gun owners are losing the battle is that we have either been passive or reactive. If we want to preserve our civil right to keep and bear arms we need to take the initiative. Who ever won a fight by letting the other side throw every punch? Nobody, that's who.

I'd like to propose that we as a group get the ball rolling among our state legislatures to pass legislation in Oregon and Washington (or elsewhere) to incentivize safe firearm storage. I think we all agree that safes, trigger locks, etc. are good things even though they can't guarantee that firearms won't be stolen or otherwise misused.

What follows is far more lengthy than I had intended, so here is a summary:

• We gun owners in Oregon and Washington work with legislators on legislation to provide incentives to purchase gun safes, trigger locks, etc., and to restrict the liabilities of firearm owners who use them, including civil cases.
  
  
• If the state legislatures are unwilling or unable to pass such legislation in the sessions starting 2019, then we prepare initiative campaigns to pass the legislation ourselves.

IMO this is a far better plan that will be more successful than IP 44 in increasing firearm safety. I also think this would be difficult to not get bipartisan support and I think we can get sponsorship from both major parties.

It will also help to show that firearm owners are responsible members of the community that are concerned with safety. Do not underestimate this point - the other side has been doing everything they can to promote a negative stereotype of us to further their support from the undecided voters and to reinforce these beliefs within their ranks

Usually if you want to discourage behavior you fine and penalize the activity. This is why Oregon IP 44 is really an attempt to reduce firearm ownership - it's full of nothing but penalties: the expense of safes and trigger locks; improper storage becoming crimes with financial and other penalties, and making the victim of a firearm theft responsible for the actions of the thief for five years. There is not a single positive in this Initiative for gun owners thus it's entire existence is an effort to punish us.

On the other hand if you want to encourage behavior you use incentives. An example are the rebates and discounts you see for installing solar power or making your home more energy efficient.

Note the difference between the two approaches - the stick and the carrot. Would you rather be punished or would you rather be rewarded? Which in your opinion would be the best way to achieving more safe firearm storage? Fear or reward?

If we truly want people to have safes, trigger locks, and other ways to ensure that they are not improperly accessed we need to use incentives just like the other programs I've mentioned above. To me the proper way to incentivize safe/safer storage is to provide rebates and discounts for these devices.

I'd like to see the following proposed in Oregon and Washington:

1. Funding for rebates and other cost incentives to purchase new firearm safes, vaults, cabinets, and other enclosures.
2. Funding to provide free trigger locks at police and fire stations, firearm and sporting goods stores, and hunter and other firearm safety classes.
3. Funding to provide or reduce the cost of hunting and firearm safety classes.
   
4. Limits on the liability of a firearm owner who properly uses these devices including civil suits

There will be opposition because this is the carrot and not the stick. Do not think for one second that safety or the reduction of shooting has anything whatsoever to do with Oregon IP43 and IP 44. "Safety" and "Children" are their emotional motivators to get votes and to motivate the useful idiots to work to destroy our civil rights.

The opposition will tell you that the State just doesn't have the money. At this point we have several options, both emotional and rational:

• This is for the safety of children and others. In this case the emotional argument is also rational. Why do we all of the sudden don't have the money for this?
• Oregon, in particular had no problem dealing with spending $500,000,000 on a website that didn't work and $500,000,000 to plan a bridge that never got built and if it did would not have been an improvement over the existing one. Why do we have money for this type of nonsense, but not a single dime for firearm safety?

The above is a starting point only to get this process moving. I have no idea how or who to approach in the State legislatures and I sure as hell can't get this done alone.

Throwing this out to everyone:

• What else needs to be in this legislation?
  
• What needs to be removed?
  
• How do we get the language properly framed?
• How do we get the ball rolling internally?
• How do we get the ball rolling with the legislature?

Read More

 

[Mikej]

I agree with you, but....The left won't have it because what you are suggesting does't go nearly far enough. I can't say, specifically, what that is, it's just that it's the left! Nothing is far enough for them. Then there's the right, they won't have any such thing. The never give an inch crowd. Then there's the money factor. The party in charge in oregon won't cough up anything that would benefit fire arms owners. Oh, if you want to take $300,000.00 to put up lawn signs and speed limit signs, to slow Portland down to 20mph, from pot taxes? Here's you check!

Personally, My fire arms are secured. I consider any one living in areas that my be prone to burglaries and thievery, are irresponsible if they don't keep their arms secured. It's a "No-Brainer".

 

[11Charlie]

My guess is, that the responsible fire arm owners already have there guns locked up. Don't get me wrong I am all for incentives to help the people who can't afford a safe. I think things like this would be a great way to get people to realize that not all gun owners are bad people.

Devils advocate in me also says that if you can afford a gun then you can afford to lock the dang thing up. It doesn't have to be a $1000 dollar safe. They make cheap safes for a couple hundred dollars or you can buy a lock box and cable for $50

I am all for helping the less fortunate and making things safer. If incentives will help then I would lend a helping hand.

 

[Martini_Up]

I believe there is law currently which requires locks be provided with new firearms.

And anti-2a are exactly that. They are also liars. They'll say they support the 2a but in same breath talk about common sense and reasonable. But they also say it doesn't go far enough and that it will reduce. What they mean is they want all firearms out of civilian ownership. And make no mistake. After that is done then they'll start on sharp pointy things.

I say no compromise. Want my firearms? FOAD. Come and get them.

I'm tired of this million paper cuts to my rights. What we really need is a leader, not more legislation.

 

[3MTA3]

My guess is, that the responsible fire arm owners already have there guns locked up. Don't get me wrong I am all for incentives to help the people who can't afford a safe. I think things like this would be a great way to get people to realize that not all gun owners are bad people.

Devils advocate in me also says that if you can afford a gun then you can afford to lock the dang thing up. It doesn't have to be a $1000 dollar safe. They make cheap safes for a couple hundred dollars or you can buy a lock box and cable for $50

I am all for helping the less fortunate and making things safer. If incentives will help then I would lend a helping hand.

Good observation and one that opponents will make. My thoughts are to remind people about the truly enormous amounts of money wasted on projects that were never completed vs money that could be put to good use that could actually save lives.

My thoughts are that if we don't get proactive and start to push solutions then we will continue to be on the defensive. If you fight all your battles 100% defensively you might survive a few of them but over time you will lose the war. We ARE losing the war and we need to change tactics and strategy.

This isn't just about the incentives for storage, it's also about funding safety classes. You are also correct that it's about changing the perception of gun owners by the general public.

 

[SUPER X]

I just seen the ip43 on the fox 12 news . They only mention certion weapons and showed ar15s of coarse .there are millions of everyday rifles that fall under the wording like the sub 2000. . So they want us to go register and go through a back ground that was already done when the rifle was purchase.

 

[11Charlie]

it's also about funding safety classes.

This would be a great idea along with the incentives for storage. I know I would buy another safe or two if they were cheaper. I think classes are important. I will keep an eye on this thread brother and if this goes somewhere you can count on my help.

Maybe one of our local resident lawyers would have an idea how to get this started.

 

[3MTA3]

This would be a great idea along with the incentives for storage. I know I would buy another safe or two if they were cheaper. I think classes are important. I will keep an eye on this thread brother and if this goes somewhere you can count on my help.

Maybe one of our local resident lawyers would have an idea how to get this started.

Thanks for the feedback, and I'm also hoping a lawyer or two will help out. This needs to be a team effort and I'm hoping we can get some momentum going and be ready for the next legislative sessions and failing to get support launch initiatives.

 

[tourproto]

I am for this as well, but got shouted down in another thread on IP 44. I agree with your premise and like the "carrot" part of the approach as well, but as already seen in this thread, there are many folks who refuse to give one more inch in the 2A battle and to them this is still giving another "inch" to the other side.

I am afraid that with the current wording on IP 43, and assuming that it clears all the legal hurdles in time to gather signatures, that it will pass at the ballot in November and we will end up in a protracted legal battle that will take at least a year to sort out, eventually going to SCOTUS.

I think it may be too late to do something proactive for this year. Maybe if 43 and 44 miss the signature deadline due to the legal hurdles, that this may be something to consider for the next ballot in 2020.

 

[etrain16]

I'll have to look this over more closely later when I have more time, but in general, I like the idea. I've said numerous times before that no one in Oregon is being proactive with pro-gun legislation - if we can do that (or help someone that's in a place to make it happen do their part), then we help shape the narrative. And, if we can demonstrate that the anti's are unwilling to 'compromise' on some very 'common sense' ideas, we may win more support to our side.

I think the same could go for proposing safe schools legislation as well. All the anti's want to do is ban, ban, ban, and they reject making our schools safer. Again, proposing pro-safety, pro-child legislation is going to be harder for them to shoot down without facing potential backlash at the ballot box.

Fighting and reacting isn't working, hasn't worked for years. A new tactic is a refreshing idea.

 

[3MTA3]

I am for this as well, but got shouted down in another thread on IP 44. I agree with your premise and like the "carrot" part of the approach as well, but as already seen in this thread, there are many folks who refuse to give one more inch in the 2A battle and to them this is still giving another "inch" to the other side.

I am afraid that with the current wording on IP 43, and assuming that it clears all the legal hurdles in time to gather signatures, that it will pass at the ballot in November and we will end up in a protracted legal battle that will take at least a year to sort out, eventually going to SCOTUS.

I think it may be too late to do something proactive for this year. Maybe if 43 and 44 miss the signature deadline due to the legal hurdles, that this may be something to consider for the next ballot in 2020.

It is too late to attempt this in the current year. The soonest is the 2019 legislative sessions followed by the next general elections if we need to resort to the initiative approach.

There is no compromise in this proposal. It is making an incentive to purchase secure storage, incentives for safety education and limitation of liability including civil suits. There is no giving up of any of out rights within what I have proposed and the passage IP 43 and/or IP 44 would not prevent it.

 

[No_Regerts]

Oddly enough, WA already has an incentive program for gunsafes. They are exempt from sales tax. WA state laws also already protect people who use force in self defense. There is no civil liability once its determined the act was out of self defense.

 

[titsonritz]

There is no dealing with these people, compromise is always in one direction, kiss your 2A rights goodbye or be prepared for a civil war. It may not be this time or even next time, but there it is.

 

[mkwerx]

I made a similar proposal in another thread, and it went sideways quick.

If there is one crafted with no additional penalties, but gives benefits for voluntary action, I'd be for it.

Instead of making it a crime to not lock up guns (which Heller already addressed anyway, and such a law has already been deemed unconstitutional) - give gun owners a complete exemption from civil or criminal prosecution if a gun they had secured is stolen and improperly used.

And add specific exemptions for lawful use by minors in the care or custody of the owner such and sporting and self defense - so a 16 or 17 year old could hunt or target shoot, or defend himself or his family without facing prosecution.

And the furthest I would go toward a subsidizing of a safe would be a tax credit upto say, $500 - not a refund or check sent to you from the state, just a one time tax write off. And I would not mandate the storage device be a safe, but any cabinet or device that secures an arm against unauthorized access. It could be a simple stack on cabinet, a Tactical Walls box, or any of the furniture with hidden gun storage etc. Anything that places a barrier of sorts between the gun and the person attempting to gain access. Stuffing a gun behind your wife's shoe rack in the closet doesn't cut it, but a gun rack bolted to the wall above your door may, if it puts the gun out of reach of the children in your house. Theres a lot of fine details about what sort of storage would qualify to be worked out.

I would like to see the state preemption law strengthened as well, making it flatly illegal for any subdivision of the state to enact ordinances regulating the sale, transport, carrying, or use of firearms with no exception. No more city by city open carry bans, no cities passing "assault weapon" bans (you know they will try) no more publuc universities or schools prohibiting carry by students or staff.

Another would be mandatory reciprocity where we honor the carry permit from every other state, which could open up agreements for other states to honor ours.

And if we cannot ditch UBC, we should be allowed to call in for backgrounds ourselves instead of the FFL transfer mandate, just like at gunshows.

 

[3MTA3]

I made a similar proposal in another thread, and it went sideways quick.

If there is one crafted with no additional penalties, but gives benefits for voluntary action, I'd be for it.

Instead of making it a crime to not lock up guns (which Heller already addressed anyway, and such a law has already been deemed unconstitutional) - give gun owners a complete exemption from civil or criminal prosecution if a gun they had secured is stolen and improperly used.

And add specific exemptions for lawful use by minors in the care or custody of the owner such and sporting and self defense - so a 16 or 17 year old could hunt or target shoot, or defend himself or his family without facing prosecution.

And the furthest I would go toward a subsidizing of a safe would be a tax credit upto say, $500 - not a refund or check sent to you from the state, just a one time tax write off. And I would not mandate the storage device be a safe, but any cabinet or device that secures an arm against unauthorized access. It could be a simple stack on cabinet, a Tactical Walls box, or any of the furniture with hidden gun storage etc. Anything that places a barrier of sorts between the gun and the person attempting to gain access. Stuffing a gun behind your wife's shoe rack in the closet doesn't cut it, but a gun rack bolted to the wall above your door may, if it puts the gun out of reach of the children in your house. Theres a lot of fine details about what sort of storage would qualify to be worked out.

I would like to see the state preemption law strengthened as well, making it flatly illegal for any subdivision of the state to enact ordinances regulating the sale, transport, carrying, or use of firearms with no exception. No more city by city open carry bans, no cities passing "assault weapon" bans (you know they will try) no more publuc universities or schools prohibiting carry by students or staff.

Another would be mandatory reciprocity where we honor the carry permit from every other state, which could open up agreements for other states to honor ours.

And if we cannot ditch UBC, we should be allowed to call in for backgrounds ourselves instead of the FFL transfer mandate, just like at gunshows.

To be clear the proposal in the OP is not to mandate anything. It is to promote the use of safe storage devices and education as well as to prevent liability for those who use such devices even in civil suits.

I like the tax credit idea and had also thought a $500 maximum was a good number. I had thought perhaps a 10 or 20% incentive.

You are also very correct in that we need to define what we mean safe storage. For me it includes safes, lockable cabinets and cases, vaults or secure construction with a vault doorway, and trigger locks. I'm not sure what other devices exist.

 

[3MTA3]

I also think this is as doable as we can get action on in the left coast. I see it as a building block that can eventually get us some of the other things expressed by @mkwerx above. You eat an elephant one bite at a time, and I'm hoping this is the first bite. That strategy has been successfully leveraged over and over by the left for every agenda they have and it works. We need to use what works as well.

 

[mkwerx]

If we could get a pro gun dem (Betsy) or a republican (Post, McLane?) To sponsor the bill it would either make the dems look terrible if they don't join and give lots of ammo for future races (Rep XXX says they are for common sense gun laws, but refused to work to pass a law encouraging secure storage of firearms. Rep XXX just gives lip service to you and really does want to take guns, and they hate children except dead ones that fit their agenda!) , or it would pass - both wins of a sort, and a start to gaining ground.

 

[3MTA3]

If we could get a pro gun dem (Betsy) or a republican (Post, McLane?) To sponsor the bill it would either make the dems look terrible if they don't join and give lots of ammo for future races (Rep XXX says they are for common sense gun laws, but refused to work to pass a law encouraging secure storage of firearms. Rep XXX just gives lip service to you and really does want to take guns, and they hate children except dead ones that fit their agenda!) , or it would pass - both wins of a sort, and a start to gaining ground.

You are reading my mind again! Betsy Johnson was my first thought on the Democrat side, but I'm so disillusioned by the Republicans I don't know who to trust to champion this.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I'll have to look this over more closely later when I have more time, but in general, I like the idea. I've said numerous times before that no one in Oregon is being proactive with pro-gun legislation - if we can do that (or help someone that's in a place to make it happen do their part), then we help shape the narrative. And, if we can demonstrate that the anti's are unwilling to 'compromise' on some very 'common sense' ideas, we may win more support to our side.

I think the same could go for proposing safe schools legislation as well. All the anti's want to do is ban, ban, ban, and they reject making our schools safer. Again, proposing pro-safety, pro-child legislation is going to be harder for them to shoot down without facing potential backlash at the ballot box.

Fighting and reacting isn't working, hasn't worked for years. A new tactic is a refreshing idea.

I disagree with any additional power granted to the State, so this is going to be difficult position to move forward. I believe and understand what this is and attempts to do, but I would push hard to keep it out of the States power circles.

I do agree with part of what @etrain16 proposes, and to my mind, this is what needs to be pushed hard, protecting our schools and our children! I don't know why this hasn't become the most central and most vociferously fought for legislation in all areas of this country , but the facts remain, no one is actively doing any thing to push for protections of our children! To me, this is nothing short of a travesty, a absolute failure to act in a decisively and productive manor to ensure the safety of our most cherished children! This cannot be allowed to stand, and I submit we unite to put our full weight and strength toward this goal firstly over any thing else! I also submit th at we need to push for serious mental health reform, and that we demand action in both fronts at the soonest!

 

[mkwerx]

The reason to go to the state vs local is to avoid the patchwork approach to laws that just winds up screwing people instead of helping them