Oregon’s SB 978 – if at first your anti-gun bill dies, try, try again

 In 2nd Amendment

Previously, we reported on the Oregon attempt to ban most handguns and any gun that shot more than 5 rounds in SB 501. That bill has died in committee. But with the old adage of “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” they’ve come up with a new one: SB 978.

KATU reported,

Senate Bill 978 seeks to make sweeping changes to current regulations. The proposals include requiring safe gun storage, allowing retailers to set higher minimum purchasing age restrictions and placing liability on gun owners if their gun is stolen and used in a crime. The bill outlaws untraceable and undetectable firearms, grants local authorities the power to regulate firearm access in public buildings and asks hospitals to provide firearm injury data to the state.

The 44-page bill was released late last week.

The bill looks to make changes to gun storage, requiring owners to keep guns locked and in a secure container or safe in the home.

SB 978 is one of those “gun safety” laws that force people to “lock up their weapons.” They must use a cable lock, a trigger lock, be hidden away in a gun room or locked up in a safe. And they must report them stolen within 24 hours or it punishes gun owners for criminal use of their guns if they were stolen.

SB 978: “If a lost or stolen firearm is used to injure a person or property and the person who owned, possessed or controlled the firearm at the time of the loss or theft did not report the loss or theft within the time period required by subsection (1) of this section, the person who owned, possessed or controlled the firearm at the time of the loss or theft is strictly liable for the injury for two years from the expiration of the time limit for reporting or until the loss or theft report is made, whichever occurs sooner.”

It contains provisions banning “undetectable guns” – it’s just full of things that are every gun grabbers fantasy just shot of gun confiscation and bans. The outright ban died in committee, thank goodness. The requirement to grant local authorities the ability to stop gun owners from access to certain buildings is unnecessary, since concealed carriers are already barred from government buildings. Not that it helps when criminals are around. They don’t seem to be able to read “No firearms allowed” signs.

If you have several children who could get to the guns when they shouldn’t, then by all means, keep guns away from them. Or train them at an early age so they aren’t as apt to do anything. But the fact is, if I’m home alone and my gun is locked up somewhere outside of my control, I might not be able to defend myself against a home invasion… or defend anyone else when I’m out and about. Fortunately, my state doesn’t require such things. At least yet.

Learning about guns at an early age makes liberals crazy, but it’s important. I lived in a home with loaded shotguns and rifles, one of which hung over the front door on pegs. Never once shot anyone with them. I knew that they weren’t play toys because my Dad instilled that in me.

Point is, the gun bill will do nothing to stop gun violence. “Gun control” bills only target law abiding gun owners, not the criminals. Making the gun owner liable if someone uses their gun in the commission of a crime is downright ludicrous.

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search

dry fire pro timermissouri senate