Oregon SSB 554 - My Personal PARTIAL Analysis

[washagonian]

Just like when the crim boosts a car and T-bones a bus full of nuns - we DO NOT go after the owner of the car.

Do NOT mess with nuns.

 

[41mag]

.....don't want nun....don't bring nun...

 

[bbbass]

Yah, it's worth noting yet again that the laws are written purposefully to be ambiguously and hard to pin down or understand. Maybe the avg person just gives up.

 

[CRBMoA]

Yah, it's worth noting yet again that the laws are written purposefully to be ambiguously and hard to pin down or understand. Maybe the avg person just gives up.

True - But since, "shall not be infringed' seems to be too ambiguous for many, I have little hope we can achieve enlightenment.

 

[bbbass]

True - But since, "shall not be infringed' seems to be too ambiguous for many, I have little hope we can achieve enlightenment.

Oh, I figure they know exactly what that means but just think they can weasle-word around it.... so far it has worked great for them and infringements abound.

 

[The Heretic]

Yah, it's worth noting yet again that the laws are written purposefully to be ambiguously and hard to pin down or understand. Maybe the avg person just gives up.

The principle of an "ambiguous" (actually, generalized) law is to cover as many scenarios as possible. The more specific you make it, the more someone will work around it. That is why the Second Amendment says "arms" and not rifles or worse, muskets - because the more general terminology covers more ground. The laws are general, so the executive can make specific rules/regulations, and the judicial system can determine if the rules/regs and enforcement of them conform to the "spirit" of the law while staying within the letter of the law.

 

[bbbass]

The principle of an "ambiguous" (actually, generalized) law is to cover as many scenarios as possible. The more specific you make it, the more someone will work around it. That is why the Second Amendment says "arms" and not rifles or worse, muskets - because the more general terminology covers more ground. The laws are general, so the executive can make specific rules/regulations, and the judicial system can determine if the rules/regs and enforcement of them conform to the "spirit" of the law while staying within the letter of the law.

You slept at a Holiday Express last night???

What you said might have been true 50-100yrs ago. IMO, today, at least in Oregon, laws are written to obfuscate the true purpose and to give DAs wide discretion and wiggle room. Also, to create as many unknowing felons as possible because it's impossible not only to figure out what the law says/means and therefore to follow the law.

"Find me the man, and I will find you the crime" or let real crims go as desired.

 

[The Heretic]

You slept at a Holiday Express last night???

What you said might have been true 50-100yrs ago. IMO, today, at least in Oregon, laws are written to obfuscate the true purpose and to give DAs wide discretion and wiggle room. Also, to create as many unknowing felons as possible because it's impossible not only to figure out what the law says/means and therefore to follow the law.

"Find me the man, and I will find you the crime" or let real crims go as desired.

I've studied how and why legislation is written the way it is.

And indeed, one of the purposes of generalizing legislation is to not bind the judicial so much that a person could get away with breaking the law because the legislation was too narrow in its definitions of what was defined as illegal. This is what the ATF is struggling with right now and why there are "loopholes" like that of a Mossberg Shockwave.

 

[Rem725]

I would like to detail out the now needs for when we transport firearms to and from competitions and recreational shooting. Also hunting.

 

[washagonian]

I would like to detail out the now needs for when we transport firearms to and from competitions and recreational shooting. Also hunting

[I'm not a lawyer ... adnausium - you get the picture.]

And I'm just throwing out my perceptions for discussion's sake. The more we talk about this law, the better we will understand it - even if we disagree with it. Knowledge is power.

Here's my take on @Rem725 's question after studying SB 554 and ORS 166.345:

If I'm in my vehicle with my firearms, they do not have to be locked, because I am close enough to prevent an unauthorized person from accessing those firearms.

But, if I leave my vehicle with firearms in it, they must be locked and stored according the the law - because I'm not close enough to prevent unauthorized access. So, if I know I'm going to run some errands going to, or coming from, the range, I have trigger or cable locks on the firearms in my vehicle and handguns are also inside my range bag out of sight.

If I know I'm just going to and from the range with no stops where I'd leave the vehicle, I don't lock them.

If someone burgles me by reaching through my backseat window and grabbing my range bag / or robs me by smashing my rear window and grabbing my range bag. - I would not meet the liability requirements even if my firearms were not locked.

Basically because the law provides for the firearm owner to NOT assume liability if firearms are stolen or taken unlawfully as long as the owner/possessor was following SB 554: 1.). in "control" of the firearms. OR. 2. if not in control of them, then the firearms were stored/locked according to SB554. AND 3.) and the owner/possessor reports the theft within 72 hours.

EXPLANATION OF MY PERCEPTIONS

[Again, I am now a lawyer - take what you like and leave the rest.]

In Section 2(3)(a) there is a definition of control: " 'Control' means, in relation to the 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..."

So, for me, if the firearm is in my vehicle, I am close enough to prevent an unauthorized person from obtaining the firearm. So I will NOT be locking up my firearms when I'm transporting them to the range, competition, hunting etc. (if I'm not going to leave them in the vehicle without me present).

Someone brought up a scenario earlier about having their pistols in their range bag in the back seat, then a bad guy comes up and smashes their window and grabs the bag. If the pistols were not "locked" is the owner liable.

My perception (again, I am not a lawyer) is that if someone takes my firearms by force (i.e. committing a crime, like burglary or robbery), I would not be liable; for two reasons. 1.) In that specific situation I met the definition of being "in control" of my firearms, and 2.) if someone tries to burgle / rob me I would make an attempt to stop them from unauthorized access to my firearms. It might only be a verbal attempt because I'm in fear of grave bodily harm or death, but in the end, those firearms were taken by force.

My perception is that IF ONE OF MY FIREARMS IS IN MY VEHICLE AND I AM NOT IN THE VEHICLE - then it has to be secured as per the law:

• Long guns have to have a trigger or cable lock or in a locked case
• Handguns not only have to be locked - BUT ALSO HAVE TO BE OUT OF SIGHT [Section 3 (1)(B)]

If I leave one of my firearms in my vehicle when I exit the vehicle to do something, like stop and go into 7-11 on my way to or from the range, then I am NOT in "control" of my firearm. If someone takes it from my vehicle while I'm in the store and the firearm was NOT locked (and handguns must be locked AND stored out of sight), then I would be liable.

I would even suggest that I would be liable even if there was another adult sitting in the vehicle while I'm in 7-11, and the firearm was stolen. An example would be me and my son-in-law returning from a trip to the range. I go in 7-11 to get coffee and son-in-law is in the vehicle. Guy smashes and grabs my range bag with unlocked pistols. Because my son-in-law is not the owner/possessor of the firearms, even if he tries to stop the perpetrator, I would still be liable because I was not close enough to prevent unauthorized access. I am the owner/possessor - not him. And in that situation my son-in-law is NOT in "control or carrying" those weapons as an "authorized person", because I am NOT PRESENT.

Here is the rationale for this perception: Section 2 (1) of the law defines "authorized person": " '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 [emphasis added]."

To that end I read the law as saying that if I authorized another person to control / carry one of MY firearms, I MUST BE PRESENT. If I'm in the 7/11 - the robber grabs my range bag with unlocked pistols in it, even with my son-in-law (who I consider an authorized person) in the car - I am in violation of SB 554 and I'm liable if these firearms are used to injure a person or property within two years. Reason being that technically - in that exact situation - my son-in-law is not an authorized person to carry or control any of those firearms BECAUSE I AM NOT PRESENT. In that circumstance, I have not secured the firearms according to SB 554.


TAKING THE DISCUSSION BEYOND @Rem725 'S QUESTION

Regarding Theft of Firearm From Home

As I read SB 554, it is designed to mitigate the firearm owner/possessor's liability IF the firearm is secured and stored according to the law and in spite of that, the firearm is taken unlawfully.

It goes further to provide consideration for the firearm owner/possessor if an UNSECURED firearm is taken unlawful form that persons home/dwelling. Section 3 (4)(b) indicates that the firearm owner/possessor would NOT be held liable if, "the UNSECURED {emphasis added} firearm was obtained by a person as a result of the person entraining or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling as those terms are defined in ORS 164.205".

This part of law would probably benefit from a lawyer's analysis, but it seems to say that if I have an unsecured firearm in my home and no one is present and that firearm is obtained by someone entering or remaining unlawfully, then I'm not liable for it's use to injure property or people. Someone ENTERING unlawfully will certainly fit theft or burglary. But again I think I would ask a lawyer for an interpretation of this specific aspect of the law.

An example of someone REMAINING unlawfully might include telling your drug addicted son (daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grand-child, etc.) to leave the premises. If they don't leave and eventually obtain possession of your UNSECURED firearm without your CONSENT, then you would not assume liability.

Of course, you'd have to spend a chit-load of money in court trying to prove that - be that as it may.

IN THE END ....

I'm not saying I agree with this law. I don't.

But it exists and I, personally, want to make sure I'm in compliance. I don't want some zealous presecutor deciding I'm gonna be made the example if one of my firearms gets stolen and used to injure property or a person. It happens, probably more often in 2A situations, than not. It's the HUGE financial hit that scares me - to defend myself against a politically motivated prosecution.

That being said, a lot of folks say things about this law as if those statements are fact. Some are accurate and some are inaccurate. And it's human nature when we disagree with something to fall victim of confirmation bias and start making unwise decisions based on bad information.

If you are interested in the law, you can access the text here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/sb554/Enrolled

It's only 14 pages and worth the read.

There is a quote by Herbert Spencer (an English sociologist and philosopher) I have ascribed to for a long time.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Keep shooting and stay safe.

 

[kmk1012]

Funny that a cable lock puts you into compliance with this silly law. If they have the tools to break into your car or home then they have the capacity to remove a weak cable lock. I mounted one of those in a vise, put a screwdriver in it and twisted it, the lock gave up surprisingly easy.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Funny that a cable lock puts you into compliance with this silly law. If they have the tools to break into your car or home then they have the capacity to remove a weak cable lock. I mounted one of those in a vise, put a screwdriver in it and twisted it, the lock gave up surprisingly easy.

SB554 was never about effective locks, but was Paul Kemp's Revenge. He wanted to sue the guy whos had an AR stolen for the death of his brother-in-law. The killer was already dead, but Paul wanted to blame someone, so now you get to be at fault if your guns gets stolen and the criminal does something bad with them.

The second part of SB554 was Ginny Burdick's crowning achievement. See, she does not like guns and hates rough looking men who open carry. Also, she said that one of her Teacher constituents did not want parents with a CHL to be able to carry at parent/teacher conferences. So the no firearms in the Capitol or schools was tacked on.

 

[BrandonOR]

So do we get a map of where is okay to carry and not? If it's policy for some places can't they change it whenever?

It includes properties owned by university too. Willamette University owns a lot of small properties around Salem and the Hospital leaving a huge hole of possible non travel.

What about pepper spray and mace for protecting campus from assault? Now illegal if they say so?

This seems so ridiculously arbitrary, it really seems to hurt pedestrians who carry and need it as a necessity being out on the streets constantly.

How about a Google map overlay or something? I don't like the idea of having to comb through pages of policy each time I want to visit a place and also need to check every place I'm traveling through as well. That's stupid

 

[Rem725]

Let's call these bills what they are. The you can't stop the mall/school/capital shooter bills.

 

[Aero Denezol]

SB554 was never about effective locks, but was Paul Kemp's Revenge. He wanted to sue the guy whos had an AR stolen for the death of his brother-in-law. The killer was already dead, but Paul wanted to blame someone, so now you get to be at fault if your guns gets stolen and the criminal does something bad with them.

The second part of SB554 was Ginny Burdick's crowning achievement. See, she does not like guns and hates rough looking men who open carry. Also, she said that one of her Teacher constituents did not want parents with a CHL to be able to carry at parent/teacher conferences. So the no firearms in the Capitol or schools was tacked on.

^^^100%

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

So do we get a map of where is okay to carry and not? If it's policy for some places can't they change it whenever?

It includes properties owned by university too. Willamette University owns a lot of small properties around Salem and the Hospital leaving a huge hole of possible non travel.

What about pepper spray and mace for protecting campus from assault? Now illegal if they say so?

This seems so ridiculously arbitrary, it really seems to hurt pedestrians who carry and need it as a necessity being out on the streets constantly.

How about a Google map overlay or something? I don't like the idea of having to comb through pages of policy each time I want to visit a place and also need to check every place I'm traveling through as well. That's stupid

In the SB554 committee meetings, they took "grounds" out, but some Karen gave testimony that there were too many gang shootings at High School sportsball games, so "grounds" was snuck back in. Because CHL holders were the ones doing the shootings Adding grounds" really does turn Portland or other college towns into a rats maze and makes parents with kids in school second class citizens.

No you can't drive through the pick-up line to get your kid after school, or even turn around in the school lot, you have to park on the street you heathen.

Even Washington State allows for school drop-off and pick-up while carrying. I have not seen any maps, but I say "No sign, no law".