HB 2505 Requires locked container or trigger locks on firearms

HB 2505 VOTE:NO – Died In Committee

Status (overview) of bill:https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB2505
Committee assigned to bill:https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Committees/HJUD/Overview

This bill requires owner or possessor of firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container except when carried or otherwise ‘under control of,’ requires reporting of theft, liability for others’ use of stolen firearms for four years, liability for minor’s use of firearm.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
This bill significantly impacts personal choice and responsibility by requiring all firearms owners and possessors to secure the firearm with a trigger lock or other storage device, without regard to whether the premises itself is secured or where it is. As written, this could apply to gun stores. Legal: In DC v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that trigger lock requirements are unconstitutional because they are so intrusive into ones personal home and natural right to defend themselves. In the majority opinion, it is written “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Limited Government
There are many existing laws on the books that are used to hold negligent persons accountable. For example, the tragedy in Baker County where a 2 year old toddler gained access to a firearm and fatally shot himself resulted in criminal charges against the parents. No additional fee or fine would have prevented this tragedy.

Local Control
This measure applies statewide. There are no controls for local provisions.

This bill is the same as SB 275.


  1. Donald Reynolds says:

    This bill is illegal! Since we are no longer a nation of laws, (sanctuary state) my response to this situation is that we get to “pick and choose” which laws we want to comply with. Maybe the sponsors of these bills should get certified in gun safety to at LEAST be familiar with firearms before developing bills like this one out of ignorance.

    BJ says:
    • Good points Donald! The Governor seems to pick and choose which laws she follows, so why can’t we?

      • Donald Reynolds says:

        The left/dems/socialists underestimate the will of the people that live rurally. We are self motivated, independent, self sufficient and have value systems that are NOT in line with what is going on in Salem. I believe the truth will prevail when they come to the “front door” to enforce their illegal agenda.


  2. David T Eckhardt says:

    Will someone tell the dingbats in Salem that this has been tried in NY and commiefornia and the compliance factor is usually under 10%. Besides that, it’s 100% among criminals who they think this is going to affect. Oh, and just how are you going to enforce it? That’s one question I would really like an answer to.

  3. arden ray says:

    This bill will have no effect on the rationale, “whereas” statement which claim to support it.

No tags for this post.

Comments are closed.