Dealers won't do background checks.

[Riot]

I have purchased many guns off GunBroker - as have thousands of others. My local Dealer never had an issue with it as he wanted me at least coming by in hopes of future business - which he got. He charged his $25, did the NICS and sent me on my way until next time.

You are purchasing a firearm and are having it shipped to a dealer, correct? The dealer is basically selling you the firearm at the cost of the transfer fee. You're not saying "hey joe, meet me at the Big R so I can buy that pistol off ya!" Besides, the dealer is still doing the 4473, correct?

NICS tells you if that SN is stolen or not.

And if it is reported stolen after the transfer? Then what? Who is responsible for keeping track of the seller's information? The FFL or the seller?!


Bah...why do I bother....I don't even live in Oregon but I'm fighting for Oregon liberties...

Oh that's right...because I think all Americans should have liberties.

 

[blackadder]

Good point, but I can see how setting the price that high says "I don't want to do it but I will if it's worth my time ". What would the State do if every dealer refused to process private sales????

This was discussed when 594 was introduced up here in WA. Two main takeaways (that I got):

First of all, there will always be one dealer that doesn't give a shot and continues doing transfers, and the state will say tough luck. Drive halfway across the state and pay the $100 fee or don't sell your weapon.
Second, the antis would love to see any lack of unity (perceived or actual) amongst gun owners and sellers.

 

[Slobray]

I suspect a few months or a year of data showing that any firearm related crime or death (despite SB941) remaining the same will be sufficient to have a strong hand to play to reverse this bill and remove it from law books.

Sadly we'll have to put up with it for that time, but the other side will just consider what we know to be true as merely "talking points." We need hard data to put in their faces showing that it does nothing, as well as the moderates or undecided.

The sad part is that it will never be repealed, no matter what the data shows......look at the Brady bill stats. The democrats that signed this POS bill will not let it die and will be piling on more and more anti-gun bills as fast as Bloomberg can transfer money into their secret account.


Ray

 

[Charliehorse]

You are purchasing a firearm and are having it shipped to a dealer, correct? The dealer is basically selling you the firearm at the cost of the transfer fee. You're not saying "hey joe, meet me at the Big R so I can buy that pistol off ya!" Besides, the dealer is still doing the 4473, correct?

Right - just like they will now do the 4473. And with "hey Joe" at least my Dealer sees the guy face to face - whereas who knows where the gun came from over the internet via GunBroker, correct? I don't see a difference and my Dealer is still making $25.

And if it is reported stolen after the transfer? Then what? Who is responsible for keeping track of the seller's information? The FFL or the seller?!

The FFL. Just like now with GB. Heck the FFL's advertise they do transfers for GB.

Bah...why do I bother....I don't even live in Oregon but I'm fighting for Oregon liberties...

Oh that's right...because I think all Americans should have liberties.

I'm not defending 941. But I don't see any difference between my local FFL doing a transfer for GB and/or doing a person to person local transfer. He's still making $25 and gets 2 faces in his shop that may have never entered his door before.

If he or others now want to gouge due to 941 (which in effect puts them on the side of Bloomberg/hobama/Salem anti 2nd crowd of maggots to restrict gun sales), I will mark them off my list for EVER buying anything from them, and bad mouth them far and wide!

 

[Riot]

But I don't see any difference between my local FFL doing a transfer for GB and/or doing a person to person local transfer.

It would appear as though Oregon, does in fact, have their own form for non-FFL purchased firearm transfers.

<broken link removed>

The seller is supposed to maintain a copy of the record for five years...but there's really no place for the FFL dealer...I guess the private seller is supposed to call the Oregon State Police Firearms Unit and do it themselves?

 

[U201491]

The $100 price tag kind of shows why many of the dealers were quiet about 941 passing. They saw income coming their way in the bill.

You pegged it !

 

[308]

It would appear as though Oregon, does in fact, have their own form for non-FFL purchased firearm transfers.

<broken link removed>

The seller is supposed to maintain a copy of the record for five years...but there's really no place for the FFL dealer...I guess the private seller is supposed to call the Oregon State Police Firearms Unit and do it themselves?

There is a number to call on the form, but what is unclear to me is how does the seller/buyer pay the IBC fee?

 

[telero]

I thought one of the Bill of Rights to the Oregon constitution says:

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State"

So now if someone only has access to acquire a firearm from another unrelated person that is going to give them said firearm, and neither of them are able to pay the fee required for the background check and/or dealer fee that is legally required, wouldn't that be violating the person's constitutional right to bear arms?

 

[The B]

I thought for face-to-face, you could just call OSP and use their usual private transfer background check...?

 

[telero]

I thought for face-to-face, you could just call OSP and use their usual private transfer background check...?

Not after 941 goes into effect.

 

[The B]

Well then I'm equally clueless as to how to go about complying. Has OSP not issued a form to do the transfer on?

 

[Swshield9mm]

I thought one of the Bill of Rights to the Oregon constitution says:

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State"

So now if someone only has access to acquire a firearm from another unrelated person that is going to give them said firearm, and neither of them are able to pay the fee required for the background check and/or dealer fee that is legally required, wouldn't that be violating the person's constitutional right to bear arms?

Every law regarding firearms is unconstitutional.

 

[telero]

Well then I'm equally clueless as to how to go about complying. Has OSP not issued a form to do the transfer on?

Here is the complete text: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941

I haven't seen it fully integrated with all the extra language removed and formatted so it's easy to read, but it looks like you can still do face to face with a background check at a gun show. But generally guns hows also charge admisssion...and even the face to face form requires a payment.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yet they allow avowed jihadi of the US to build a nuclear arsenal. alrighty

 

[elsie]

It would appear as though Oregon, does in fact, have their own form for non-FFL purchased firearm transfers.

<broken link removed>

The seller is supposed to maintain a copy of the record for five years...but there's really no place for the FFL dealer...I guess the private seller is supposed to call the Oregon State Police Firearms Unit and do it themselves?

That's the old form for transfers at gun shows. You still had to call OSP for the check, but it didn't have to go through an FFL. I think 941 eliminates that option, but it's so confusing I can't tell.


elsie

 

[pokerace]

Ok here is the start of it. Every body gets entered into the data base.






Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization

.


08.06.15

Just a few days before the universal gun owner registration bill kicks in, it appears that the Oregon State Police are planning on collecting data on sellers of guns, not just buyers. We've been telling you all along that SB 941 was never intended to be anything but a vast database of gun owners and now it's being proven to be all too true.

Starting today, gun dealers are seeing a new interface on their computer screens when they log in to conduct a background check on a gun sale. Now there is a box they can check for "Private Party Through Dealer." While not fully functional, it is clear that the Oregon State Police plan to demand, and database, personal information on the seller, or transferor, of the firearm.



As of today, if a dealer checks the "Private Party Through Dealer" box they cannot actually enter the personal info of the seller, but they do get an error message saying "Alert!!!Please adjust for the following errors and try again"

It then lists all the info "not supplied." This includes the seller's name, address, city, state and zip and their phone number.



Nowhere in the Prozanski/ Hoyle bill is any of this data mining authorized. But hey, if you are creating a gun owner database you want all gun owners, not just people who are receiving guns. Are the State Police planning on running background checks on the sellers of guns too? Are they going to send out a trooper if the seller fails a "background check?" What's next?



This is a very disturbing development and one that proves once again what the true intent of this bill was.


Be warned, every transfer under SB 941 will become a vehicle to harass and intimidate gun owners. It's only going to get worse from here.


We urge you to call bill sponsor Val Hoyle and demand that she end tracking of gun sellers. Hoyle can be reached in her Salem office at 503-986-1414 and her district office at 541-221-9162.

 

[DuneHopper]

^^^^^^^ And is why SB941 does not apply to me.

 

[Greenbug]

I think the dealers that have stated they will not do a private party transfer are the honest ones. For them it is too much liability, extra paperwork and it would be supporting this unconstitutional law. The dealers who are charging (any amount) to complete private party transfers are the opportunists who should not be trusted.

 

[The B]

I hope ALL dealers boycott the whole thing.

 

[lcb97269]

I have never seen so much bs on this site. Are we free people or are we not? Are we going to let 2 leftist lesbos run our lives? Just asking Deadeye.