https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2018/12/11/25143372/gun-storage-bill-heads-to-the-oregon-legislature

A bill that would tighten storage requirements for Oregon’s gun owners is headed to the Oregon State Legislature in 2019.

Titled the Cindy Yuille and Steve Forsyth Act, this bill would require gun owners to safely store and lock a firearm when it is not in use, and when it is being transferred to another person; report a lost or stolen gun with 24 hours; supervise children under 18 at all times when they are handling firearms; and use locks and containers approved by the state attorney general. Failing to follow these rules would result in a fine.

The legislation, which is sponsored by State Representative Barbara Smith Warner and State Senator James Manning, would also impose a “strict liability” on gun owners who failed to follow these measures. That means that if someone failed to properly secure their gun, and that gun was then used by someone else to commit a crime, the gun owner could be held liable by the victims.

The bill is named for two victims in the Clackamas Town Center shooting, which occurred exactly six years ago. Cindy Yuille’s daughter, Jenna Yuille, spoke at a press conference announcing the bill Tuesday morning at the Portland Association of Teachers office.

“I wanted to make sure that [my mother’s] death wasn’t for nothing,” Yuille said. “This is the only true form of justice that I could find, which is working to make a difference in gun safety on her behalf. … We still have not passed any laws in Oregon that still might actually prevent a shooting like the one that happened at the Clackamas Town Center.”

Earlier this year, Yuille was part of the effort to get two initiatives on the November ballot that would have accomplished many of the same goals as the new bill. The National Rifle Association and two local Oregon firearms groups opposed putting the measures on the ballot, and the Oregon Supreme Court ended up blocking them, saying that they needed to be reworded so as to not potentially violate the Second Amendment.

Backers of those ballots later formed the nonprofit State of Safety Action. The group said that in addition to supporting this legislation, it plans to put another measure on the 2020 ballot.

In addition to preventing mass shootings and accidental deaths, this bill could also help to reduce underage suicides in Oregon. According to State of Safety Action, 14 children and teens committed suicide using firearms in Oregon last year. Lisa Reynolds, a pediatrician and board chair for the nonprofit, said that having a gun available makes a person much more likely to act on a suicidal impulse.

“We know that if these kids had not had access to a gun—almost always a gun in their own home—they would likely be alive today,” Reynolds said at the press conference.

Smith Warner, a Democrat, hinted at the press conference that she hopes for the bill to have bipartisan support in the legislature, calling it “the kind of bill that is reasonable, commonsense gun legislation, [and] can and should be supported by gun owners and non-gun owners alike.” But Democrats will have a strong majority in both houses in the 2019 session, meaning they won’t necessarily need Republican support to pass this bill.

It seems to me that Heller v. DC answers the "safe storage" requirement as violating the Second Amendment, because the gun is not ready for immediate self defense inside the home.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738

DC had a requirement that the gun be disassembled or have a trigger lock.  The Supreme Court struck down that requirement because the trigger lock renders the gun inoperable for "immediate" self defense.

Here is the language the court used:

"We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Also:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

So why would a safe storage law even be on the table?

And what does a teacher's union have to do with it?

Well, the public employee unions pretty much run Oregon.

I completely agree with this post.  Unfortunately, Salem always knows what is "best" for Oregonians and will impose its will knowing any challenges will be tied up in court forever while the constitution-violating law remains in force.

Qft. You only think you have a choice. Government is the largest employer in Oregon. They pay their employees not to think, only to do as they say.

I work for the state. I can tell you, as employee you, don't have much choice in the matter. You can be right...it matters not.

Another news story on the same bill.

https://www.dailyastorian.com/news/gun-safety-legislation-on-the-agenda-in-salem/article_51c43678-0587-11e9-b190-a7058454f8af.html

Under the gun storage legislation, owners would face a fine of up to $2,000. The average fine would be about $165 – about the same as fines for driving 11 to 20 mph over the speed limit.

The fine could increase to $2,000 if the gun owner knew that a child could reach the firearm, proponents said.

The law also makes the gun owner civilly liable if someone uses an unsecured gun to shoot another person or property.

Among other proposals mentioned in the same story:

• Handguns in public buildings — Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, proposes closing a loophole that allows people to take concealed handguns into public buildings.

“A number of public entities would like to have the option to keep anyone with a gun off the grounds,” Burdick said.

Those entities include schools, universities and the Port of Portland, she said.

Yipes!  Do you think that has a chance?

What I do in my own home, and how I do it, is of NO business to anyone other than myself.

Anyone thinking differently can:

A - Fuck off.

B - Eat a bag of dicks.

C - Come and try to get me to comply.

If you make it to option C, you better bring some friends, a lot of ammo, and probably a fucking lunch.

Because I promise that it's gonna be a long fucking day.

I like how you roll, bro.

After I posted Heller's ruling on a trigger lock requirement, I recalled that the Ninth Circuit upheld a San Francisco trigger lock requirement.  The Supreme Court did not accept cert., which seems like a dereliction of its duty to enforce its prior ruling, since the Ninth Circuit opinion was in direct conflict with it.

Oregon is in the Ninth Circuit.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf
Here is a copy of the opinion.

I think perhaps it survived constitutional scrutiny because it made an exception for when firearms are "on the person."  If anybody cares, I will try to give it a more thoughtful analysis in the future, but for now the opinion is there in the link if you wish to read it.

I think even an exception for "on the person" is too narrow.  My wife frequently keeps one (or more,  ) at home out of reach of the little ones, but not on her, where she can access it quickly if needed.  It seems odd to prosecute her for that, as the gun or guns are being made available immediately for self defense.  Not many keep an AR15 or shotgun "on the person" when at home doing the laundry.

I think the way they are talking about the law, it will be enforced mainly after somebody steals it and does something bad with it, or a child gets his hands on it and accidentally shoots another kid, that sort of thing.   In other words, it is not like somebody is going to be going around searching homes looking for unsecured guns or knocking on your door to ask if they are all locked up.

Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. Politicians rarely ever talk about the true intent of the law.

Let’s say my son has a friend over while I am getting ready for a shoot and he sees some guns. He goes home and innocently says to his parents, “you should see all of Mr Whites guns.” Parents freak out and callchild protective services. CPS shows up with a police officer in tow.

Whether you have a lock on the gun or not this is just the beginning of your troubles. Whether I was getting ready for a shoot or not will not matter to CPS. They are a state agency and and they do as they are told.

No, this potential legislation is so much more than what is written. It will be used as a lever to give politicians more power.

It will be enforced in whatever arbitrary manner the automatons at whichever state agency is involved, feel like enforcing it that day.

Odds of passage, for those of you more intimately familiar with the Oregon legislative process than I am?

High. Supermajority in state house and senate, with good ole Kate in the governor's seat.

Our best bets are OFF and showing up at the capitol.

So tell me about activism in this state on the right to bear arms.  I have seen the OFF web site.  Appears to be just one guy?  Is this the only activist group?  What else is there?  I am intending to move to Oregon from Georgia, a state where I helped found a group that has been extremely successful in improving the gun laws, GeorgiaCarry.Org, by involving membership actively in the process developing relationships with the legislators, in addition to lawsuits when needed and lots of education efforts.

Please tell me a little about what goes on in the legislative session in Oregon and how activists help out.  I am a firm believer in citizens being very involved, and I would like to hit the ground running when I get out there.  Any resources to which you can point me would be very helpful.

Groups

Web sites

Persons (effective citizen activists)

Activism?  Pretty thin.  OFF is probably the biggest game in town.  Kevin's a good guy... he rubs some people the wrong way but there are plenty of us who donate to OFF, and his legislative alerts are invaluable.  His sister, Mary, is a county commissioner in Yamhill Co... just a county position but she's on our side, too.

Some 1500+ comments were submitted on the issues with the titles for IP43 and IP44, which came as a huge surprise to the SoS' office and the AG, who is responsible for formulating the language.  Those two initiatives basically got stopped in their tracks by good old grass-roots letter-writing.  OFF certainly deserves a lot of credit for helping get the word out.  But, the sponsors of those initiatives also understood that even if they didn't make the ballot, there was a high likelihood that the legislature would flip to a D-supermajority, and they'd get what they want anyway.

I've met the local NRA-ILA guy a few times... I'm blanking on his name right now.  I'll just be kind and say that he seems like he has too much on his plate.  It's obvious Oregon isn't a priority for the NRA, but he doesn't have to spend as much time as he does bashing OFF, especially if the NRA isn't going to step up.  I know there are some other local NRA folks, but you never seem to see or hear from them.

Local representation... totally depends on where you live.  You have mentioned in other posts that you're thinking of moving to the Salem area; if you wind up in Bill Post's district, he's always been a staunch supporter.  Ditto for Kim Thatcher.  I have communicated with both of them a few times, even though they're not my district.  My local reps are Brian Boquist and Ron Noble.  Ron is a Republican with a good voting record but has been very quiet about 2A stuff, and I've tried to engage with him several times.  Boquist stepped in it big-time with Oregon's "boyfriend bill" (red-flag law), but I later had a very pleasant conversation with him about IP's 43 and 44 that indicated he was still very much on our side... just very sensitive to that one issue.

You should be aware of Sen. Betsy Johnson from the St. Helens area.  She's a Democrat, but has typically been pro-2A.  Kind of an Oregon oddity, but hey, whatever.

What else... OASR, Oregon Association of Shooting Ranges, is a group that coordinates between the various shooting ranges in the state.  There are a few notable ranges that aren't OASR members but most are.  They have a very good relationship with ODFW.  ODFW has typically been "on our side" as much as a state agency can be, because they intrinsically understand that threats to gun owners are also threats to hunters, and without hunters they lose revenue.  OHA seems to do a good job of bridging the FUDD-divide.

But the D-supermajority and a D in the governor's mansion... there's really very little to stop the legislature from passing whatever they want in 2019.  It's possible a few Democrats may vote against a very extreme bill, to avoid alienating the rural elements of their districts.  It's also possible that some R's may vote for gun control, to seem like they're aligned with their increasingly-urbanized districts.  Rich Vial from Sherwood was an example... kind of a RINO and he still lost to a Democrat.

So assuming a big bill comes down in 2019 and it passes, it'll have to go to the courts.  Meaning lawsuits.  One way or another, OFF is going to be involved with that, so I would start with Kevin.

ETA:  Maybe you've figured this out, and maybe you haven't:  Oregon is a BIG state with a fairly small population (4M).  Large swaths of the East Side of the state won't really give a shit about whatever Salem passes... consequently, it can be hard to get them engaged with the political process out here.  That portion of Oregon that's on Mountain Time... yeah, they pretty much think of themselves as Idahoans with Oregon license plates. (I mean this respectfully... and don't blame them)

I donate as often as I can. OFF is the only game in town as stated above. I know a lot of people that have too much faith in the courts, they all tell me; the courts will throw out any unconstitutional laws. I tell them look around, look to the south and north to see what coming... people just think our system will work. These folks are not gun people but middle of the road that believe specifically SB 501 is wrong.

One thing about off that's kinda weird is they don't really keep in touch with contributors very well. I've sent them money before and they never send out any requests or anything. I think maybe once a year I get something telling me about a new bill and an e mail now and then. They should just make it a membership group like nra where you pay every year. So people remember to contribute.