Every year, in homes across America, countless law-abiding citizens use firearms to protect themselves and their families from dangerous intruders.

But in Oregon, how much longer will they be able to do so?

Last spring, the state legislature — with the support of only Democrats and no Republicans — passed Senate Bill 554; Gov. Kate Brown signed the bill in June. Its main provision: “An owner or possessor of a firearm shall, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the owner, possessor or authorized person, secure the firearm with an engaged trigger or cable lock; in a locked container; or in a gun room” — in other words, in a way that renders it inoperable or inaccessible for immediate use. Unless postponed by rank-and-file Oregonians (more on which below), SB 554 is scheduled to become law in late September.

Now, consider two recent Oregon incidents (among many other of their kind here in the past several years).

On March 11, 2019, in Josephine County, one Michael Lee Fouch “forced his way into his ex-girlfriend’s house and threatened her,” reported KDRV-TV News; “he forced his way into a bedroom where the woman was hiding with her young son, causing her to fear for her safety.” The woman shot Fouch in the groin, reported the station, “causing him to flee.”

On March 25 of this year, in Lane County, one Brandon Coats came to the home of a married couple and their child and, KMTR-TV News reported, began “trying to force his way inside.” The husband, said the station, “armed himself with a handgun in order to protect his family and a few moments later, Coats forcibly broke open their front door armed with a shotgun.” At that point, the husband shot Coats and held him at gunpoint until law enforcement officers arrived.

In these instances, what would have transpired had the residents’ firearms been incapacitated by a trigger lock or secured inside a safe? Beset, suddenly, by a swiftly advancing attacker, would they have been able — inside of a few precious seconds — to have retrieved a key from a drawer, inserted it swiftly and precisely into a trigger lock and disengaged a gun? Or to have dialed a combination lock speedily and accurately enough to have opened a safe?

If not, would the attackers have been sporting enough to have let them do so?

Gov. Brown, says her spokeswoman Liz Merah, “believes that public safety is one of the most important responsibilities of government.” If so, let the governor answer this: How does government promote public safety by hindering citizens’ ability to protect themselves from attack in their own homes?

Crime researcher John Lott is blunt: “More lives will be lost than saved if everyone locks up their guns.” Indeed, he notes, in states with gun-lockup laws, “there were 300 more total murders and 4,000 more rapes occurring each year.” Part of the reason? Aware of such laws in their jurisdictions, says Lott, “criminals become more emboldened to attack people in their homes.”

If SB 554 is enacted, is there any doubt criminals will become equally emboldened here?

In the bill’s preamble, its sponsors seek to justify mandatory gun lockups by citing cases of Oregon children who have killed or injured themselves with unsecured firearms. And in Oregon and elsewhere, there are too many such incidents. But tragic as they are, says Lott, “so too is the much larger number of cases where people aren’t able to protect themselves and their families from criminals.”

Here’s some perspective. In 2017, reported the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 62 children between the ages of 1 and 14 suffered a fatal firearm accident. But the CDC also has noted this: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.”

And — as is the case in the two Oregon incidents cited above — among those protected by such defensive uses are the very children whose welfare, ostensibly, is so vital to the sponsors of SB 554.

The way to prevent children’s gun accidents is through education — not by forcing parents to lock away the guns they someday might need to protect those children. One of the nation’s premier gun-accident prevention programs — the National Rifle Association’s “Eddie Eagle” — has, in recent decades, taught firearms safety to millions of children. Gun owners should assure their children receive this program’s vital training.

As mentioned above, SB 554 is scheduled to become law early this fall. However, with the help of sensible Oregonians, it may yet be derailed.

A group of Second Amendment advocates has launched the “Responsible Response” campaign to refer SB 554 to the November 2022 statewide ballot for a yes-or-no vote of Oregon voters. To qualify its measure, the campaign needs to collect the signatures of 74,680 registered voters on Referendum Petition 301 by Sept. 25. If it does, the bill’s enactment will be delayed pending the vote’s outcome. If voters approve the bill, it will become law; if they reject it, it won’t.

To sign the petition, go to responsibleresponse.com and print, sign and mail a single-signature petition to the listed address. Or come to the Grant County Fair between Aug. 11 and Aug. 14 and sign a petition at the Responsible Response booth in the Trowbridge Pavilion.

Together, we can defeat SB 554’s attack on our gun rights — and on our families’ safety.