The Pacific Northwest sure looks like a beautiful place to be. All those trees, the perpetually damp weather that calls to a pluviophile (rain lover) such as myself, there’s just so much there that it would be really hard not to pack up all of my belongings and haul tail to the opposite corner of the nation. It would be hard, of course, except for the anti-gun nonsense that dominates so much of that part of the nation.
Among the latest stupidity is in Oregon. It seems activists are pushing for a mandatory storage bill.
A bill that would create a series of gun storage requirements drew hundreds of gun control activists to the Capitol Wednesday as lawmakers prepared for a public hearing on the bill later this week.
“Secure storage is a simple and common-sense way for gun owners to be responsible with their firearms,” said Hilary Uhlig, leader of the Oregon chapter of Moms Demand Action. “This bill will encourage responsible behavior and make sure people are held accountable.”
House Bill 4005 would require that when a gun is not being carried, it is secured with either a trigger or cable lock or in a locked container.
Firearms must be secured in a similar manner while being transferred.
If a gun is not stored in the manner described and later stolen and used to injure a person or property within two years, the gun owner is liable for that injury.
This is the kind of stupidity you see from people who know absolutely nothing about guns, personal defense, home defense, or anything else along those lines.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think guns not in use should be secured in some manner. Most gun owners I know advocate similarly.
The problem is, the law doesn’t understand the various ways a gun can be “in use.”
For example, a handgun in a nightstand is in use. It’s placed there for easy access in the event someone wants to break into your home and you need some way to respond and protect your family’s lives. To me, that’s in use.
The same is true of the shotgun in the closet or the AR-15 under the bed. The same can be said of the 1911 tucked into a recliner’s pocket.
All of these are “in use” simply because their purpose is to be available if they’re needed. Yet the laws being advocated for ignore that. They seek to punish the victim of a crime, blaming them for having their property stolen, then make them liable for the actions of a third party.
I wonder, do these same people want to punish folks whose cars are stolen for not having them locked up tight? Do they want these auto owners to be held liable for the car accidents that might result from that theft?
Of course not. Cars–something the ownership of which is not expressly protected by the Constitution–aren’t demonized like guns are.
My hope is that even anti-gun Oregon will see its way clear of not passing this particular brand of evil. And yes, it’s evil to try and punish the victims for the crimes committed with their stolen property while also making it more difficult to have a firearm on hand to protect your life and the lives of your loved one.