Oregon Looks To Make Firearms For Law Abiding Citizens Worthless For Home Defense

The very same people who are protected by armed police officers, some all the time, look to take away the ability to defend your home and and loved ones. Think criminals won’t be looking at this law gleefully? (via Dana Pico)

Oregon gun storage law would be among the toughest in the US

A proposed gun storage law that would be among the toughest in the U.S. is headed for a vote in the Oregon Legislature, with backers saying it will save lives and opponents contending it could lead to deaths.

Meanwhile, in Colorado, a less sweeping gun storage bill was signed into law Monday by Gov. Jared Polis., who said: “It’s a sensible measure to help avoid immeasurable heartbreak.”

Colorado’s new law creates the offense of unlawful storage of a firearm if a person stores a gun knowing that a juvenile could access it without permission or if a resident of the premises is ineligible to possess a firearm.

Oregon’s bill generated testimony from hundreds of people, mostly in writing because there wasn’t enough time to take all the oral testimony.

A vote in Oregon’s House of Representatives on the bill, initially scheduled for Monday, was pushed back by a week to enable Democratic representatives to work with the Senate “to guarantee the bill is on track to pass and be enacted,” said Hannah Kurowski, spokeswoman for the majority House Democrats.

One person testified on a gun being stolen and used for a mass shooting in Portland back in 2012…I though Portland was a Liberal Utopia? Others had different things to say

But opponents say forcing people to keep guns locked up could waste precious moments if they need to defend themselves against armed intruders.

Jim Mischel, of Sheridan, Oregon, described how his wife woke up when he was away one night in 1981. She heard a noise, went to investigate and saw that a man had broken into their home.

She returned to the bedroom and tried to get to a pistol that was in a locked gun box in the nightstand.

“She was unable to get the box unlocked and the pistol out before he got into the bedroom and threatened her with his gun,” Mischel said. “She has never recovered.”

Criminals will know this. They will know that lots of people will comply (why do Dem voters even have guns in places like Portland? Aren’t they anti-gun? Or just anti-gun for Other People?). Law abiding citizens will have a choice: lock the guns up making them almost worthless for home defense, or be a criminal by making sure they are handy. I wonder how much influence the gun storage industry has on this, and other similar, bills.

Oregon’s bill mandates that gun owners secure unattended weapons with trigger locks or in locked compartments. Those who don’t would be strictly liable for any injuries or property damage. If a minor gets ahold of an unsecured firearm, the gun’s owner would face a maximum $2,000 fine.

What kind of safe do you get? A biometric would seem the smartest, giving access to only a few people, but, does your fingerprint work perfectly on your phone every time? What if it is cold? Doesn’t work that well. The fingerprint reader at work will often fail when your finger is too cold or sweaty. Having to carry a key around all the time just in case? What if you drop it? A code? Now trying to put it in when you are freaking out over criminals breaking in.

The idea here is simply to make them worthless for law abiding citizens.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Oregon Looks To Make Firearms For Law Abiding Citizens Worthless For Home Defense”

  1. Professor hale says:

    They aren’t trying to make guns worthless for home defense. They have a long strayegy to disarm americans by making guns too expensive for new owners and making existing owners into instant felons.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Here’s what gunnists always omit when reporting on these proposed bills:

    SECTION 3. (1)(a) A person who owns or possesses a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the person or an authorized person, secure the firearm:…

    So if you or someone authorized by you is carrying or have the weapon “under control” you’re OK.
    Under your pillow or on your headboard on next to your bed at night, you’re OK. In your Barcalounger watching Tucker with your AR-15 across your lap, OK. Carrying down the street, OK. You don’t have to keep your gun locked up or locked down while you’re there.

    Just when you don’t have control of the weapon, e.g., you’re out of the house, you should have it blocked with trigger or cable lock (deters your kids from killing each other) or in a tamper proof box or a tamper proof safe. If you’re worried that a bad guy will follow you into your house so you won’t have time to unlock your peacemaker, just carry with you at all times.

    • ruralcounsel says:

      Define “someone authorized by you.” Those kind of vague undefined terms have no business being in legal code. I authorize every member of my household, and I decide what constitutes “authorization.” There, solved that problem.

      If your alternative is “carry it at all times,” then I read that as to invalidate all legal need for concealed carry permits. Carry open, carry concealed, your choice and no permission from government required.

      Bottom line, it isn’t the government’s business in any way what and how you keep a firearm in your home. No matter what rationalization you come up with.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Just another irrational rationalization from Rimjob.

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 9259 access attempts in the last 7 days.