[M]any may be unaware of the extreme and counterproductive nature of Oregon’s laws on locking up your self-defense firearms. We have copied the entire statute at the end of this post and included the statute that provides the definitions for the terms used in the law in question. [More]
You know, just like the Founders intended…
IANAL, but this line at the end of the Oregon statute — … the presumption of negligence may not be overcome by a showing that the owner or possessor acted reasonably. — seems blatantly and indefensibly unconstitutional.
It sounds like once you are presumed negligent, there is NOTHING you can do to show you’re not. OFF doesn’t know how the cops could prove, up to two years later, that the gun wasn’t locked up, but by my reading, it doesn’t matter if they can or not, because even if you can prove it WAS locked up, the fact someone accessed it still makes you negligent.
You’re not just presumed guilty; even if you can prove your innocence (and you shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of proof anyway), you’re still guilty.
And that’s not even getting into the Heller arguments that requiring guns to be stored locked or otherwise inoperable cannot be required.