Unless I'm misinterpreting the law in Oregon, you could get into some serious shit by keeping it in the glove box, too. I did NOT look at the statutes mention in "Except as provided", but maybe you should:
From
formatting link
Date updated: Aug 23, 2005 @ 9:14 pm
166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270,
166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;
(b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle; or
(c) Possesses a firearm and: (A) Is under 18 years of age;
in article 3Yo1g.6264$ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny, Doug Kanter at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 4/19/06 4:20 AM:
That's why I have a concealed handgun permit... I can have it anywhere I want pretty much in my car or on my person. It used to make me nervous when I was going hunting or shooting, even though Oregon law provides an escape clause for those activities, that I essentially had a concealed handgun if my hunting jacket covered it or whatever. That, and while open carry is perfectly legal in Oregon*, open carry can be very disturbing to the people around you. There are times, camping hiking and fishing being a few of them, where i want to carry but would rather not be "that guy", the one with a big ol' pistol stapped to his hip. I've done that but it's better to just be (legally) concealed and not stress everyone out.
I could legally walk through downtown Eugene with a loaded pistol strapped to my hip and a loaded AR-15 "assault rifle" (sic) slung over my back. They just can't be concealed. Any Oregonian can have a pistol in their car but again, it has to be in plain sight, which is obviously problematic!
I think I can shoehorn a small metal lockbox into the bottom of my center console. Believe you me, I don't ever want this to happen again, and I'm not gonna stop keeping a gun around the vehicle. For 7 years locking it in center consoles and glove boxes has been fine; now it's not. So I will take your (poorly delivered :-) ) advice and find a car safe of some sort (again- I'm having NO luck here; any ideas? It's amazing how little aftermarket stuff there is for the Tundra..)
Some one had to know you had the pistol in the glove box. Not the best place to be packing a piece. Hopefully you learned a lesson. I'm very sorry your Tundra took a beating. Good luck on getting it fixed.
Dipshit!!! Whoever broke into your truck probably knew about the gun or saw you put it in there. You only have yourself to blame! Quit bitching, learn from it and move on!
in article snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net, W.T. MC GLYNN at snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote on 4/20/06 12:13 PM:
I've since found out that there were 4 other vehicles hit that night in that area, maybe more I don't know of... so I'm pretty sure that once they were in the truck, the locked glove box was just irresistable, not that they knew something was in there and that's why they broke in.
Just so you know, I erased all the names you were called before I responded to any of the posts, and I didn't call you any names. I'm sorry about your truck.
in article Ny52g.6519$ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny, Doug Kanter at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 4/21/06 7:11 AM:
I am raising two kids. They are now 7 and 10. Yeah, you have to keep stuff out of reach, put away, etc when they are little and clueless. Now... heck I bought my 10 year old a carving kit for Xmas last, complete with multiple razor knives and chisels and whatnot. She's a real whittler. She's cut herself a few times. My younger daughter has cut herself a couple times too. Oh well. We don't worry about meds; they have no interest in that, but then we don't have much around other than ibuprofen and such. If there were little toddlers around we'd have to do a sweep.
Of course, my kids also learned not to eat dirt by eating dirt. They are the healthiest kids you'll ever see. Knock on wood.
Anyway, on to the debate! The fly in your ointment is that you are busting my balls for, to use your analogy, the kids smashing the medicine cabinet to get to the medicines. Or prying open the locked toolbox to get to the sharp tools. I *DID* put "the medicine" away.
-jeff
(It's funny, Doug. I'm guessing in civilian life we'd agree on a lot of things. I actually DO store my guns in safes in my house and think that's important. I bet I'm to the left of you, politically, in spite of how I think you have me pigeonholed in your mind right now, and I know you take stands as the thinking liberal on the gun groups etc... in fact I think we've stood together a time or two over there, over the years...)
in article x7e2g.6619$ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny, Doug Kanter at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 4/21/06 4:46 PM:
Except, Doug, and not to be tedious here, but you DID compare a gun to other objects. You compared it to sharp tools and medicines and said that any reasonable parent had to lock that stuff up away from the kids. Of course, what happened to me is that, to continue your analogy, the kids smashed the medicine cabinet and pried open the toolbox with a crowbar!
I took reasonable precautions. I am now taking better ones. I'll post my solution next in a new thread.
Actually, I haven't pigeonholed you at all. Labels are ridiculous, and I drive people crazy when they try and put one on me. It's fun to mess with peoples' heads this way. For example, if you wanted to create a questionnaire to figure out who's a liberal and who's a conservative, I'd guess you include stuff like whether people are "tough on crime" - the details that go into determining that general idea. But, then, everyone has their own exceptions which blow their entire framework out of the water.
For example, a friend of mine believes, as I do, that there should be no bail available for certain types of criminals. We even agree on which types. But, I add one category: If a corporation breaks one of the more serious laws involving the dumping of toxic waste, the head of that company should be hauled off in handcuffs, just as if he was caught on videotape molesting toddlers. And, no bail for him, just like a murderer or child molester.
My friend hears this and has visions of Greenpeace demonstrators doing crazy things at an industrial facility, but is NOT able to understand that chemicals can end up in drinking water that's headed for kids just like his. So, even though he likes to say "Hey...the law's the law - you pay if you don't obey", he likes to pick & choose which ones he likes because he's ignorant of environmental laws that make sense. He'll also say it's unfair for the CEO of the offending company to be arrested - "Maybe he didn't have anything to do with the crime". But, at the same time, if somebody's grandma in Bolivia fell down the stairs and ended up in the hospital in 1995, it's Bill Clinton's fault.
Doug Kanter wrote: First off, I applaud your honesty in returning the wallet you found with everything intact. It's refreshing to find an honest person in what seems to be a world slowly digressing towards dishonesty. I think basically we agree on pretty much all topics that have developed in this thread. I also applaud your concerns towards children and teenagers. There are too many parents and grandparents who won't or don't take the time to tend to the requirements of these kids. I know we need to be held to a "prudent person standard" in many situations and especially when dangerous items are part of the equation. I try to hold myself to this standard when necessary as well, sometimes it's confusing when I've done enough to fullfill this need. On the other hand, like you said, "There have been theives since time began." The "prudent person standard" evolved along with the advancements of technology in our weapons and other potentialy dangerous toys. But, when is enough, enough? We have more prisoners per capita than any other time in history. More and more, it's the victims responsibility to protect a dumbass or evil person from themselves, and the per capita criminal population keeps increasing. I'm not sure exactly what's changed to make this happen, there are a lot of possiblilities, but it seems lopsided to have to spend more money to protect my valuables from being taken. It seems to me we should be able to spend money on ways to cause the criminal harm if they try to damage my property. I know it would be hard to distinguish between the true evil criminal who needs a Taser-like jolt in the groin and the everyday dumbass or kid who just needs an education. I don't rant about this and I'm not a reformer, mostly I guess because I don't know enough answers. Plus, like you said it will shorten my life if I worry about it too much. I guess the only thing we disagree on is whether the OP is stupid or just slightly out of kilter on the "prudent person standard" concerning the security of his handgun. Maybe the most important part of this whole thread is the OP is intelligent and adult enough to consider increasing the security when he does have a weapon left in his truck. Maybe, because of this, a dumbass or kid won't get hurt by this weapon, maybe only an evil person will hurt another evil person. :-) Finally, I also agree with your philosophy on ending a criminals career if your there when they come in. Too many times this is being turned around to where you have to protect the criminal's rights before your own. One other thought, in the case of the teenagers doing breakin's, maybe that Taser to the groin idea would have a benefit. :-) Dave
Doug, sorry I forgot to take your name off when I replied to you and it looks like this post is coming from you. Hopefully I didn't say anything that would cause you discomfort, if it turns out that way I'll write the correction. Dave
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.