Oregon SB945

[blarby]

So, another wammy upon us- SB945

With all of the attention and recall efforts over 941, 945 is creeping under the radar.

945 is listed here :

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB945/Introduced

In letter of law, making you a criminal if a minor comes to have possession of your weapon.


For example :

I'm a father, and my son has a sleepover with his best friend.

His best friend steals my shotgun during this sleepover, and leaves the house with it before I awaken.


I can now be charged with a crime for providing access to that minor of a firearm.


Not the only example, but one I can surely envision.


While it does absolve me of liability if the weapon is stolen during a forced entry burglary thats the only "grace".


Thoughts ?

What would be the best way to fight this- especially given all the heat over our other ongoing scheme ?

 

[JSH1]

First this law isn't what it has been made out to be. This isn't mandatory safe storage. Nothing in the bill requires a gun owner to lock up their guns. What it does do is set criminal penalties if you do not lock up your guns AND a minor accesses one without your authorization. I have no problem with that. As a gun owner it is my responsibility to secure my guns and keep them out of the hands of minors.

In blarby's example of the sleepover he could be found guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor unless he locked the shotgun in a safe or vault or had a trigger lock or other similar device on it that makes it inoperable.

I think this is a well written bill.

 

[hso]

If your firearms are secured with a lock, safe, closet, cable, etc., are the provisions of the bill met? Sounds like what we preach as responsible gun owner behavior, secure your firearms agains theft and mischief.

 

[Crayfish]

I think this bill may be important but, the least of your worries with another anti-constitution AG that is about to go full retard on the second amendment thanks to the 10 rino's in the senate and anti freedom trolls like JSH1.

 

[blarby]

The exception , Hso, would be the "behind the door/bedside" armaments.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Better lock up your golf clubs, liquor bottles and car keys too.

So if a bad teenager brakes into your house, steals your lock box to smash open later and get the pistol inside, you have to prove to the state that you had the lock box in the first place or you get victimized a second time with a $6250 fine.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

What Elizabeth Steiner Hayward Said About 2A Should Scare You!

"For better or for worse, that's what our Constitution, sort of, says" states Oregon senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, in reference to firearm rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joyb-mloUz4

Yeah, she is another one in Oregon that needs to be recalled.

 

[jamesinalaska]

I don't have a problem with 945 either, responsibility and gun ownership go together. I do have a problem with politicians and activist judicial figures who "interpret" law or add to original law their personal biases or intentions to disarm citizens.

Times change. People don't. Control and conquest of citizenry has always been the goal.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I seriously do not understand this liberal mentality (I am not referring to a specific member). For years liberals have cried "Keep Government out of our bedrooms", but now SB945 invites them right on in. Sure "common sense" laws like these may seem like a good idea, but they will soon lead to incidents like this http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html

 

[JSH1]

If your firearms are secured with a lock, safe, closet, cable, etc., are the provisions of the bill met? Sounds like what we preach as responsible gun owner behavior, secure your firearms agains theft and mischief.

Yes, all of those methods are acceptable with the possible exception of the closet. If the closet is locked then yes.

So if a bad teenager brakes into your house, steals your lock box to smash open later and get the pistol inside, you have to prove to the state that you had the lock box in the first place or you get victimized a second time with a $6250 fine.

No. If a teenager breaks into your home, you are not liable. If a minor breaks into a safe, cuts a lock, etc; you are not liable.

If SB 945 passes, Oregonians well be liable if a minor that is invited into or lives in their home gets access to unlocked guns.

 

[JSH1]

I seriously do not understand this liberal mentality (I am not referring to a specific member). For years liberals have cried "Keep Government out of our bedrooms", but now SB945 invites them right on in. Sure "common sense" laws like these may seem like a good idea, but they will soon lead to incidents like this http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html

Raided? I know that is what the title of the article says but it doesn't sound like any "raid" I've heard of. Sounds like they never entered the house and left when told they couldn't enter without a warrant. That is not a raid.

Someone calling child protective services about a kid holding a gun is over the top. However, if the agency is required to follow up on every complaint that is what they have to do, bogus or not.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

SB945 puts the burden of proving you are innocent on the firearm owner with language such as "should have" known.

 

[JSH1]

SB945 puts the burden of proving you are innocent on the firearm owner with language such as "should have" known.

No it doesn't. If you keep reading to subsection 2 you will find that "Should know" only applies to firearms that are not locked up:

SECTION 1. (1) A person commits the crime of endangering a minor by allowing access
to a firearm if:
(a) The person possesses an operable firearm within premises under the person’s control;
(b) The firearm is in a location where the person knows or reasonably should know that
a minor could gain access to the firearm; and(c) A minor obtains the firearm without the consent of the person or the minor’s parent
or legal guardian.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The minor obtains the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry into the premises
by any person;
(b) The firearm is located in a locked container;
(c) The firearm is locked with a device that:
(A) Is designed to prevent unauthorized users of the firearm from firing the firearm; and
(B) Has rendered the firearm temporarily inoperable; or
(d) The person is a peace officer or a servicemember as defined in ORS 135.881 and the
minor obtains the firearm during or incidental to the performance of the person’s duties as
a peace officer or servicemember.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB945/Introduced

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Your kid's one "idiot" friend

Every group of kids seems to have that one "idiot" friend who tags along to your house to play xBox after school or hang out while you are at work. This idiot minor did not break in so no protection from this law for the homeowner there. Let's say that you keep your home defense pistol loaded in a lock box in your nightstand drawer. So idiot boy says he has to use the bathroom, goes snooping in your bedroom and slips the lockbox into his backpack. It is not a $250 Fort Knox so a two story drop snaps the lid off.

Later that day idiot boy decides to shoot birds down by the river and gets arrested. Now you may face a $6250 fine it a judge decides that you reasonably should have known that one of your kids friends was and idiot.

 

[JSH1]

Every group of kids seems to have that one "idiot" friend who tags along to your house to play xBox after school or hang out while you are at work. This idiot minor did not break in so no protection from this law for the homeowner there. Let's say that you keep your home defense pistol loaded in a lock box in your nightstand drawer. So idiot boy says he has to use the bathroom, goes snooping in your bedroom and slips the lockbox into his backpack. It is not a $250 Fort Knox so a two story drop snaps the lid off.

Later that day idiot boy decides to shoot birds down by the river and gets arrested. Now you may face a $6250 fine it a judge decides that you reasonably should have known that one of your kids friends was and idiot.

Again, NO:

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The minor obtains the firearm as the result of an unlawful entry into the premises
by any person;
(b) The firearm is located in a locked container;

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

You are not listening. I now have to prove that my pistol was in fact in a lock box.

 

[hso]

JSH1,

A locked closet does not automatically qualify as a locked container since a closet isn't a container. There's a serious flaw in that language when it does not include closets or rooms or other structures along with containers that may be in them or in your vehicle or other property.

 

[blarby]

945 Did not pass committee, and will not progress any further as a flawed law.

 

[bikemutt]

As a WA resident who frequents the Beaver State, and holds a CHL there, I'm green with envy. You all did what we could not. Congrats!

 

[hso]

Which Committee and where do we send the flowers and chocolate?

It would be good to know what the reasons were for the Committee to have killed it. I'd be surprised if they acknowledged the myth behind the claimed motive for UBCs (crime reduction), but it would be refreshing if they did.

 

[Swing]

945 Did not pass committee

Good. Have a link to the news?

In recent years, the antis have shifted their focus to the states, so we all have to be vigilant.

It would be good to know what the reasons were for the Committee to have killed it. I'd be surprised if they acknowledged the myth behind the claimed motive for UBCs (crime reduction), but it would be refreshing if they did.

Isn't 945 the firearm lock up one not the background check one?

 

[JSH1]

Isn't 945 the firearm lock up one not the background check one?

SB 945 sets legal penalties for allowing an unlocked firearm get into the hands of a minor.

 

[blarby]

No articles yet, and I doubt there will be before the Friday late nite.... Bills not passing even committee isn't really news except to us.

It will make filler in the article about 941, when we get that info.

SB 945 WOULD HAVE made you a criminal for being the victim of theft, and had serious DV riders which were, according to those close to the committee, the deal breaker.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

No votes yet.

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/SB945/

 

[hso]

myth behind the claimed motive for UBCs (crime reduction)

Oops, my confusion.