Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

941 out of Judiciary and up for Senate vote

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by PiratePast40, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    2,078
    What happened to the promise of additional public comment?

    This is what I got back from Courtney:

    Thank you for writing to Senator Courtney about SB 941. The bill was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning with -7 amendment (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/5051).


    The bill will now go to the floor of the Senate for a vote by all Senators. If it passes the Senate, I suggest you share your suggestion and support with the House of Representatives.


    Thank you, again, for your interest and input on this measure.

    Respectfully,


    Debbie Miller, Legislative Assistant

    Senate President's Office

    503-986-1600
     
  2. bolus

    bolus Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    why open to more public comment if they are not going to listen?
     
    Caveman Jim, bnsaibum and Slobray like this.
  3. barrintp

    barrintp Gresham, OR Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    31
    State Senator Kim Thatcher

    Senate District 13

    9da020d0-e548-4b74-adc4-cb7b3ab718e8.jpg
    News Release

    April 6, 2015

    Contact: William Newell

    (503) 986-1713


    Amendment to Improve Senate Bill 941 Rejected By Senate Democrats

    Salem, OR - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard an amendment proposed by Senator Thatcher that would have dramatically improved SB 941. It would have removed the universal background check system and enhanced existing law.



    More specifically, the amendment would have made individuals who transfer a gun to a prohibited person criminally liable whether the transferor knew the recipient was prohibited or not. This would act as incentive for individuals to perform due diligence when selling a weapon without mandating background checks for all private gun transfers.



    "Mandating background checks on private gun sales will do little in the way of preventing gun violence and stopping criminals from obtaining a gun," said Senator Thatcher. "My amendment would have been a great compromise which would have encouraged more due diligence in private gun sales while also protecting law-abiding Oregon gun owners."



    Committee chair Prozanski along with Senator Gelser and Senator Burdick voted to pass SB 941 out of committee on a party line vote. The bill must still be heard in the House before being sent to Governor Brown.



    ####:mad:
     
  4. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    When 'Shall not be Infringed' is replaced with 'Government needs to approve', the transformation from RIGHT to PRIVILEGE is complete and the People have slipped further under control of TYRANNY.

    As usual, IMO-YMMY.
     
  5. Lance Jacobs

    Lance Jacobs South Willamette Valley Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    It appears that an amendment was past in the Judiciary Committee today making this bill even more restrictive.

    If the two parties live over 40 miles from each other, the gun will now have to be shipped to a local FFL, in order for the transaction to be completed.

    So this bill has apparently been strengthened and made tougher, and certainly not weakened at all.

    If it passes the Senate, it will easily make its way through the House, where the Democrats have a larger majority.

    .
     
  6. bakersman345

    bakersman345 Camas wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    526
    I quit, lol lets all just move away from the coastal states. Or flood them with red staters.
     
  7. Deebow

    Deebow Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    815
    Or we could start the next population boom in Grant County. The sheriff there told them to "pi$$ off" and that he wasn't going to spend his time trying to figure this law out, and that he had better things to do. Sounds like I know who to donate to next election cycle.

    As someone who is starting a fledgling firearms instructor business, I am going to be violating the "transfer" law if it includes handing guns to students all day long.

    Or, I may just take my business to another state and give them my tax revenue instead. :cool:
     
    beavernation and bakersman345 like this.
  8. Qaolin

    Qaolin 1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    My Senator is Ginny Burdick, (yeah, I know all about her) but I still had to take a shot at an e-mail to her office.

    Dear Senator Burdick
    I urge a reconsideration of SB941 for the following reasons:
    1. The background checks called for are, for the most part, unenforceable. Even the Oregonian and many County LEOs admit this. Criminals, by definition, would not be deterred by the restrictions.
    2. The bill, as written, makes no allowances for those who possess a valid Concealed Handgun License. CHL holders have already been vetted by both the Oregon State Police (the required background check required to get the CHL) as well as their county LEO who issues the license.
    3. The bill, as written, makes no allowances for those who possess a valid 03 FFL commonly referred to as the Curio & Relic license. This is a Federal license issued to people, such as myself, to purchase guns which meet BATFE criteria as a curio or relic. These are essentially guns which are at least 50 years old or have a historical or collectors value. To force all guns to go through a UBC regardless is an undue burden on those who comply with BATFE rules and negates any value to that license.
    4. Taking all points into account , SB941 becomes just another piece of superfluous legislation which addresses a non-existent problem, which would not prevent a single instance of gun related violence and is nothing more than political grandstanding with a piece of feel good legislation. The root causes of violence, such as poverty and mental health care, remain ignored. The time and effort of the Senators and Representative of the State of Oregon would be better put to use on the myriad of other challenges which we face.
    Sincerely,
    James Colvill
    Beaverton, OR
     
    jim97701, HHT, dietrich and 4 others like this.
  9. RW-Ore

    RW-Ore Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    355
    The sad point Qaolin is that both Prozanski and Birdick are on record stating that it will not stop felons from getting firearms.
    What is the real point for this bill ?
     
  10. Qaolin

    Qaolin 1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    The cynical answer: a $10 sales tax on each gun sold. As I said, I know all about Burdick and she won't get my vote next time she comes up. What else to do? I'll send copies of my arguments to the Governor and my Representative as well. I know it's a long shot but since they are all Democrat perhaps, maybe, by an act of god they will listen seriously to a registered D.
     
    Dyjital and etrain16 like this.
  11. RW-Ore

    RW-Ore Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    355
    Qaolin , all you can do is try that is more than most will do. I applaud you for thinking and doing what you feel is right.
     
    Dyjital, OLDNEWBIE and Ed Guinn like this.
  12. GUNARCHER

    GUNARCHER Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    269
    It's all about registration---just another tool to use in the future when they decide to confiscate firearms from "unstable" citizens
     
  13. CoastRange57

    CoastRange57 Western Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Got this back from Doug Whisett's office today...pretty much a white flag when it goes to the Senate..

    "The Second Amendment is the lynchpin of our United States Constitution. I have strongly opposed any infringement on that unalienable right, including any expansion of the mandatory state background check system. I will not change that firm stance.

    For the past four years, fourteen Senate Republicans and Senator Betsy Johnson (D) have maintained a 15 vote coalition that has prevented any anti-gun bills from moving through the state Senate. I was instrumental in establishing that coalition.

    Two of the fourteen Senate Republicans were defeated in the November 4th election. Although I will continue to strenuously oppose anti-gun laws, our coalition no longer has the votes in the Senate to stop or in any way alter their passage.

    May I suggest that you and fellow passionate defenders of the Second Amendment focus your attention on developing two more strong no votes from among the Senate Democrat Caucus?


    Best regards,


    Doug "
     
  14. Qaolin

    Qaolin 1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    The Cynicman part of me brought up another thought. How many owners of gun shops and pawn shops would conceivably be for the bill? It seems to me if everyone were forced to go through an FFL to transfer these shops would be making easy money on transfer fees. Those $25-40 fees could add up to some real money for minimum work.

    Sorry, my mind always runs to "follow the money" and "who benefits?"



    As an aside I have sent copies of my e-mail to Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (the senator from my district) and Representative Ken Ham (my district rep) sadly, both have records not sympathetic to our cause.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
    Dyjital likes this.
  15. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,581
    That's a good question. But other than long distance sales (greater than 40 miles if I recall correctly), I thought the only requirement at the FFL was to have a BGC run in person - no actual transfer paperwork is required. If that's the case, it would seem it's only the $10 BGC fee that would apply. Unless I'm wrong in my understanding of the bill, of course.
     
  16. bolus

    bolus Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,363
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Cut above pawn is going to charge $25 to do them, same as transfer + background check they do now. They have people who already ask for background checks to sell to individuals.
     
    Qaolin likes this.
  17. Qaolin

    Qaolin 1 A.U. from a G2 near Beaverton Old Army Cook Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    The reason I thought of this is that in a transaction the seller is, in essence, transferring to the FFL who then transfers to the buyer. I could be mistaken; that's another gray area which is not addressed.
     
  18. RW-Ore

    RW-Ore Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    355
    The bill of rights
    Article 11
    A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    It does not say except if a Birdick , Gelser or Prozanski says it's ok. What they say or think don't mean jack to what was written.
    The constitution and the bill of rights is the law the United States of America was built on.
    When are people going to wake up and stand for their rights ????
     
  19. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,581
    Here is an excerpt from the text of the bill:

    (b) “Transferee” means a person who is not a gun dealer or licensed as a manufacturer
    or importer under 18 U.S.C. 923 and who intends to receive a firearm from a transferor.
    (c) “Transferor” means a person who is not a gun dealer or licensed as a manufacturer
    or importer under 18 U.S.C. 923 and who intends to deliver a firearm to a transferee.
    (2) Except as provided in ORS 166.436 and 166.438 and subsection (4) of this section, a
    transferor may not transfer a firearm to a transferee unless the transfer is completed
    through a gun dealer as described in subsection (3) of this section.
    (3)(a) A transferor may transfer a firearm to a transferee only as provided in this section.
    Both the transferor and the transferee must first appear in person before a gun dealer,
    with the firearm, and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on
    the transferee.
    (b) A gun dealer who agrees to complete a transfer of a firearm under this section shall
    request a criminal history record check as described in ORS 166.412 and shall comply with
    all requirements of federal law as though transferring the firearm from the gun dealer’s inventory.
    (c) If, upon completion of a criminal background check, the gun dealer:
    (A) Receives a unique approval number from the Department of State Police indicating
    that the transferee is qualified to complete the transfer, the gun dealer shall notify the
    transferor and the transferor may transfer the firearm to the transferee.

    (B) Receives notification that the transferee is prohibited by state or federal law from
    possessing or receiving the firearm, the gun dealer shall notify the transferor and return the
    firearm to the transferor and the transferor may not transfer the firearm to the transferee.
    (d) A gun dealer may charge a reasonable fee for facilitating a firearm transfer pursuant
    to this section.


    As I read this, the language is confusing at best, but I can see that it can read that the FFL is really only running the background check. The language seems to indicate that the transfer is from the seller to the buyer, not to from the seller to the FFL and from the FFL to the buyer. So, if that's the case, I would expect that the fee should be limited to the BGC. However, it does take up their time, so they may add a 'service' fee for running the check, even if they don't process transfer paperwork.

    This is what happens (typical) when legislators write bills about something they know absolutely nothing about.

    Personally, I'm hoping to hear EVERY SINGLE SHERIFF in the state of Oregon stand up and refuse to enforce this ridiculous law. Then what would those morons in Salem be able to do?
     
    Qaolin likes this.
  20. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    19,581
    Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the constitution, and in the case of background checks, they've already ruled it's not a violation of the 2nd amendment to require a background check. Like it or not, we're already screwed on that level.
     
    Qaolin likes this.