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

Can we use all this gun fervor for good? Throw OSP Background checks under the bus?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by shredjesse, Jan 22, 2013.

  1. shredjesse

    shredjesse Vantuckey Active Member

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    43
    Hey everyone,

    I have read a lot of widespread complaints about the BS associated with Oregon running it's background checks through OSP, and the complete and utter lack of service there. The Oregon background check's lack of service and difficulties are well documented across multiple Oregon Firearms rights websites I've encountered, and honestly... I don't know anyone who thinks the system is particularly amaing.

    So, as most people seem to feel, there isn't a lot of good legislation coming down the pipeline for gun-ownership, but what if we could take this opportunity to throw OSP background checks under the bus and get back to the federal background check system?

    It wouldn't be all that hard to do to get public sentiment against the "shoddy Oregon state background check system" over "The more robust and comprehensive federal background check system", especially if we tossed in a "The Oregon State Background check only checks against criminal records, not mental health records maintained in the federal system".


    As we all know from politics, none of this nescessarily has to be true. Lies in politics is like cheese on pizza.


    So, what's the general opinion of everyone? Ditch OSP background checks and start working on throwing them under the bus?
     
  2. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    2,073
    This is one of the Obama Executive Actions. He wants the States to send their files and records to the federal government so that the NICS has all the information collected by state and local authorities. Not sure I'm so much for that.

    Background checks for security clearances also use state and local checks so I really don't see a problem with continuing to use local references.
     
  3. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    Yes, we should throw them both under the bus. Both systems are infringing on our rights. I hate when questions are formulated so I have to choose the lesser of two evils -- give me a GOOD choice like "No background check required for purchase of firearms".


    I get the impression that a lot of people on this forum think that getting a larger cage is equivalent to getting freedom.
     
    BigBull 301, padd54, Just Me and 3 others like this.
  4. mkwerx

    mkwerx Forest Grove, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    I'd be in favor of throwing out the OSP nonsense. The FBI offers NICS checks for free - Oregon is ripping off gun owners (and raking in huge piles of cash with every gun rush) with every FFL transaction. $10 they charge, for something the FedGov offers for free. THAT is price gouging, if there ever was any. No way in hell does it cost OSP or the state of oregon a fraction of what is charged - they already had/have the personnel, computers, network, etc. They just retasked employees to do background checks. Of course OSP would be against changing the law - that means they have either to retask those employees back to something else, or lay them off. God forbid the government downsize.

    But why should we be dinged at $10 (and you know they want to up that rate) for something we can get for free from the feds???
     
  5. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,768
    Likes Received:
    4,943
    does the federal system allow private background checks like Oregon does
     
  6. rick

    rick Close to Corvallis, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    122
    It's not really free, it's undoubtedly buried in our federal tax bill. So Oregon gun buyers are getting double dipped for ten dollars to the state and some of our federal tax dollars to support the national background check system.
     
  7. padd54

    padd54 Central Oregon/Cascades Active Member

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    29
    Yes
     
  8. BAMCIS

    BAMCIS Eugene Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    981
    Maybe a bit off topic, but if one has a CHL then why is a background check even necessary?

    It seems to me simply having a CHL would lead someone to think that a) this person has already passed a background check and b) s/he probably already has guns. (Maybe just a quick call to whatever county sheriff issued it. Or better yet a way to check it online.)
     
  9. civilian75

    civilian75 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    627
    OSP has worked for me every time (dozens). I have having to pay $10 "sin tax" each time we use it, but, that's preferable to passing this role also to the Federal government. The more the states surrender, the more the feds swallow up.

    And yes, I'd like a system where we could use our CHL in lieu of the OSP. But it is unlikely to fly because of potential for fraud.
     
  10. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    751

    OSP wanted there $$$.
     
  11. Greenbug

    Greenbug Bend Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    593
    One thing you guys are missing here about the OSP background check... OSP checks the serial number on the firearm you are purchasing against various databases to ensure that you are not purchasing a reported stolen firearm. The NICS system does not even care about the serial number on the firearm being purchased. A friend of mine in Washington bought a used gun from a dealer in Washington and later had it confiscated by law enforcement (routine traffic stop with gun sitting on front seat) because it was reported stolen. If he had attempted to buy that same firearm from an Oregon dealer the police would have stopped the transaction and picked up the reported stolen firearm right then, saving him the money and embarassment.

    There are problems with all the "background checks" wether they be NICS or some other state point of contact system. Just my 2 cents.
     
  12. shredjesse

    shredjesse Vantuckey Active Member

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    43
    All valid points.

    I'm personally not sure I'm okay with NO background checks. I feel strongly about mental health issues needing to be addressed, and criminals with a history of violence getting firearms easy.
     
  13. mkwerx

    mkwerx Forest Grove, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    We don't have "no background checks" right now - every gun, regardless of what state it is purchased in, if purchased from an FFL, has to have a background check conducted for the sale. Certain private transactions here in Oregon require background checks (deals made at gunshows).

    And honestly - background checks aren't going to stop someone bent on obtaining a gun. The feds don't even prosecute felons who try to buy guns. Adam Lanza was denied a purchase. Didn't stop him. Background checks are one of those feel good "common sense" pieces of legislation that only work on the surface - or stop the half-hearted from getting a gun. Someone who wants to murder someone else with a gun will get one, legal or not.
     
  14. Just Me

    Just Me Peoples Republik of Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    203
    Background checks are like door locks, they only keep the honest people honest. Just like houses and cars are only as secure as their windows.


    Yup.

    Oh, and I voted for keeping the OSP check just because I love the phrase "friggen Cat's meow". :bluelaugh:

    Any background check is an infringement and completely unnecessary if criminals were actually prosecuted and held to their sentence.