Messages
54
Reactions
48
Maybe an opportunity for a class action law suit of obstruction if this does not end favorable for the queue?
It's useful to plan ahead for litigation of all damages due to 114. That would include economic impact on both individuals and businesses. Preserve anything that represents documentation of such... As several have pointed out, it could be years before we finally kill this monstrosity - and anyone who's suffered losses a result of it, will have to wait until it's been finally adjudicated, possibly at SCOTUS, before they'll have standing to really go after the scumbags who've perpetrated this.

Meanwhile, "save your receipts"...

The aforementioned scumbags had better hope nobody gets injured or killed as a result of not being able to get access to a firearm to protect themselves, too... awards for damages from that sort of thing, may *dwarf* any economic impact

Regarding the backlogs mentioned above... Did anyone else happen to watch the hearing at 8:30 this morning? (Is there a thread on that somewhere?)
 
Messages
859
Reactions
1,587
Maybe an opportunity for a class action law suit of obstruction if this does not end favorable for the queue?
Yeah i would think there would be one coming. it will be a tough one, if we lose to 114 then they will have their permit system up and running. it will be very hard to prove they prevented us from buying guns. If we lose to 114 at that point we know the courts are not on our side.
 
Messages
843
Reactions
794
Yep I bet they got orders to drag their feet. Especially since it's on a 10day min hold.
They probably only have a budget for one or two staff members to process background checks. When their workload goes up by 6-10x It’d be hard to prove the Staties are dragging their feet.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
859
Reactions
1,587
They probably only have a budget for one or two staff members to process background checks. When their workload goes up by 6-10x It’d be hard to prove the Staties are dragging their feet.
Well typically they are clearing 600-1000 a day and it seems they ate only doing 300ish a day now. Dragging their feet won't cause a lawsuit, stopping the process of buying a gun will.
 
Messages
16
Reactions
25
They probably only have a budget for one or two staff members to process background checks. When their workload goes up by 6-10x It’d be hard to prove the Staties are dragging their feet.
Only budgeting for one or two staffers... or five, or ten, or however many... IS the Staties "dragging their feet". They've had ample opportunity to hire more people and fix their process to improve NICS wait times and respond to the obvious, ongoing and unrelenting demand... and they have chosen not to. The Oregon BGC system has been a mess for years. Frankly, even the different treatment that CHL holders and non-CHL holders have received is, IMHO, completely inexcusable.

The NICS system is unconstitutional garbage all on its own, but at least there was the "promise" that for the vast majority of "law-abiding" citizens, it would be but a minor inconvenience... an "instant" check. But we should have expected that the "promise" would eventually be broken; the system was ripe for abuse by the State, and look where taking the .GOV at their word has gotten all of us now.

OSP can take their reasons, limitations, and excuses and shove them where the sun don't shine. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
 
Messages
843
Reactions
794
You are quite the government apologist.
Is acknowledging reality being an apologist? You think the OSP magically got an influx of cash to hire temp workers to do background checks since 11/5 because some a- holes wrote a dumb law that had an unanticipated effect of increasing their employees workload by 5x per day? Right.

What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days. If that happened enough, and the number of regulated items released to buyers without a background check was made public, the executive branch might scramble to find some resources to bring the que down to under three days.
 
Messages
7,050
Reactions
14,559
What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days. If that happened enough, and the number of regulated items released to buyers without a background check was made public, the executive branch might scramble to find some resources to bring the que down to under three days.
The background check will still be in the que....
 
Messages
40
Reactions
46
MichaelH said:
What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days


What I don't understand, cause I'm only 10 years into firearms and shooting as a hobby, is why if the law says they MAY release after 3 days these shops don't? Is it just a "social responsibility" mentality that they don't want to MAYBE release a gun to a criminal? Does the shop/FFL really take on any legal responsibility for what I do after I leave with my gun? I assume if you sell guns you're "with us" so to speak but I hear about all these shops NOT allowing releases before the background check clears....I just don't get what they're afraid of.
 
Messages
7,050
Reactions
14,559
MichaelH said:
What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days


What I don't understand, cause I'm only 10 years into firearms and shooting as a hobby, is why if the law says they MAY release after 3 days these shops don't? Is it just a "social responsibility" mentality that they don't want to MAYBE release a gun to a criminal? Does the shop/FFL really take on any legal responsibility for what I do after I leave with my gun? I assume if you sell guns you're "with us" so to speak but I hear about all these shops NOT allowing releases before the background check clears....I just don't get what they're afraid of.
OSP has been threatening them for years telling them they are liable.
 
Messages
843
Reactions
794
OSP has been threatening them for years telling them they are liable.
That’s probably a reality and the BGC would insulate the FFL somewhat. But rremember that the buyer signed a form swearing that he/she isn’t someone who’d fail a bgc, under the express threat of jail for providing false answers, and the state failed to process the check in a reasonable amount of time. Under Federal law three days is presumed reasonable. The “may” is in there probably because an FFL should have the discretion to refuse to provide a firearm to someone who instincts tell them is off.

I also would hope an FFL engaged with the public has a CGL (insurance) policy that covers potential lability for just that sort of claim. The real value of insurance is the obligation of the company to provide a legal defense to the insured.
 
Messages
3,888
Reactions
5,894
Well typically they are clearing 600-1000 a day and it seems they ate only doing 300ish a day now. Dragging their feet won't cause a lawsuit, stopping the process of buying a gun will.
Bingo. People were cheering that there was a delay but missed the point completely. Giving the enemy a chance to recoup and regroup is always a bad idea when you could have pursued the attack.
 
Messages
7,050
Reactions
14,559
That’s probably a reality and the BGC would insulate the FFL somewhat. But rremember that the buyer signed a form swearing that he/she isn’t someone who’d fail a bgc, under the express threat of jail for providing false answers, and the state failed to process the check in a reasonable amount of time. Under Federal law three days is presumed reasonable. The “may” is in there probably because an FFL should have the discretion to refuse to provide a firearm to someone who instincts tell them is off.

I also would hope an FFL engaged with the public has a CGL (insurance) policy that covers potential lability for just that sort of claim. The real value of insurance is the obligation of the company to provide a legal defense to the insured.
By allowing an FFL the discretion would be a sure fire way to the supreme court on protected class.
 
Messages
18,379
Reactions
38,636
MichaelH said:
What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days


What I don't understand, cause I'm only 10 years into firearms and shooting as a hobby, is why if the law says they MAY release after 3 days these shops don't? Is it just a "social responsibility" mentality that they don't want to MAYBE release a gun to a criminal? Does the shop/FFL really take on any legal responsibility for what I do after I leave with my gun? I assume if you sell guns you're "with us" so to speak but I hear about all these shops NOT allowing releases before the background check clears....I just don't get what they're afraid of.
Hey! I just started playing seriously with guns in 2010! and started reloading in late 2011. I had a Ruger 10-22 for over 30 years but never really did much with it once I got to Oregon.
I'll answer your question the way I see it. Back when we could do face to face buying/selling I don't think shops had much of an issue with getting BGC done in a timely manor. If we went way back, I'd guess gun shops would release guns after three days to people they knew. These days, when it's not uncommon for a moron to do something stupid, like dump gas on himself and light it up, in YOUR yard, to be able to sue the crap out of you, and WIN! A gun shop releasing a gun to an un-known person would be foolish. It's the sue happy population and the judges allowing people to profit from their own stupidity that screwed the pooch for everyone.

Huge THANKS should go to those gun stores/FFLs that are releasing guns according to the federal 3-day rule. And those not able to bring themselves to do the same shouldn't be put down for their choice.

That's my thoughts on the situation.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,598
Reactions
2,934
Is acknowledging reality being an apologist? You think the OSP magically got an influx of cash to hire temp workers to do background checks since 11/5 because some a- holes wrote a dumb law that had an unanticipated effect of increasing their employees workload by 5x per day? Right.

What should be happening is the FFLs should be releasing firearms after not getting a response for three days. If that happened enough, and the number of regulated items released to buyers without a background check was made public, the executive branch might scramble to find some resources to bring the que down to under three days.
If that were reality I could understand. For the last couple years at the very least the OPS has had a backlog and has NOT been an instant process like promised. This is not something new that just started on 11/5 but has amplified sense then though. To say this is an unanticipated effect from passing this law is ridiculous. Anyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense could see a run on firearms coming if the law passed.
 
Messages
843
Reactions
794
If that were reality I could understand. For the last couple years at the very least the OPS has had a backlog and has NOT been an instant process like promised. This is not something new that just started on 11/5 but has amplified sense then though. To say this is an unanticipated effect from passing this law is ridiculous. Anyone with a pulse and a shred of common sense could see a run on firearms coming if the law passed.
I don't have a CHL but before March 2020 I'd get approval in ten minutes. Since then two to four weeks....but gun buying has been up since March 2020. It does seem that they could have hired some more people to do background check since then, but my guess is that they thought it would eventually return to normal.
 

Latest Resource Reviews

Back Top