JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Speaking about how much the FFL dealers are collecting over this new law....

Before the background check law was passed in WA, I asked my local gun store owner if he was in favor or not. His reply was that he was in favor. He claimed that it was gonna make WA a "safer place" if all transfers had a background check.

Really? WA is a safer place because I want to purchase another firearm and I need to get another background check that'll cost me an additional $35? BTW, I also have a valid WA CCW.

The way I see it....
The gun store owner was looking out for his own interest, as it brought additional revenue to his business.

IMHO....
Law enforcement should be doing the background check(s) for FREE on private transfers. Especially since the voters want a safer state and think that running an additional background check on another purchase, will somehow make it so.

Aloha, Mark
 
IMHO.......paying for a backgound check is just another TAX on our freedom. How long will it be? Or at what price will the background check fee have to be, before only the rich could afford to comply?

Think about it.......

Adolph Hitler didn't kill anyone by his own hands after WW1. Yet, by winning an election and convincing the German people to go along.....well, WW2 happened. So, his speeches and writing had alot to do with the wide spread death that came with WW2.

Humm, in that context.....writings and speeches can be very dangerous.

So, shouldn't the Govt also regulate printing and speech? Maybe that is next on the list? Humm....how about paying for a lic., permit or tax, just to print a book or make a speech?

The US Constitution doesn't mean very much to the LIBTARDS if they could just save one life.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
^^^^^^^^ I think anyone with a Conceal Carry should not have to do any background check on " ANY" purchases. A Conceal Carry is pretty extensive check, and from what I have been told recently in another post a FFL check is not as deep or intense as a CHL. I would like to see Kim Thatcher here in Oregon and others rally around such a law.
 
My store charged $35 for transfers before the law and that won't change now it's in effect. I know myself and several other shops went to Salem to and testified in objection to this law. Honestly, it's more of a pain the butt than profitable. Also, personally it's another step toward government approved freedom.
 
^^^^^^^^ I think anyone with a Conceal Carry should not have to do any background check on " ANY" purchases. A Conceal Carry is pretty extensive check, and from what I have been told recently in another post a FFL check is not as deep or intense as a CHL. I would like to see Kim Thatcher here in Oregon and others rally around such a law.
Problem is at FFLs the background is federally mandated. Congress would have to make that change. Given that states have different background check methods and concealed requirements I don't see that going anywhere.
 
Problem is at FFLs the background is federally mandated. Congress would have to make that change. Given that states have different background check methods and concealed requirements I don't see that going anywhere.
That is true but Oregon could have included that in SB941 would have made things way easier. Not that I agree with SB941 but that option would have taken some sting out of it.
 
^^^^^^^^ I think anyone with a Conceal Carry should not have to do any background check on " ANY" purchases. A Conceal Carry is pretty extensive check, and from what I have been told recently in another post a FFL check is not as deep or intense as a CHL. I would like to see Kim Thatcher here in Oregon and others rally around such a law.

She did attempt to make that modification to SB941 (as did a few others - big thumbs up to Kim Thatcher :)), but the folks in charge of the committee shut that idea down, hard. It was brought up by many people in opposition to this bill, so they can't claim ignorance. They knew what they wanted - registration of every single gun transaction - granting a CHL exemption allows people to stay off that list.

Until such time that the balance of power in Salem shifts, which can only happen if the voters in Oregon wake up and vote against these bozos, we'll never get a chance to see such a law in place. I am hopeful, though not hugely hopeful, that the balance will shift for the better in 2016. It will be up to every single one of us to educate every single voter we can to vote pro-gun in the next election(s) - even if that means going against their traditional political views. I've already spoken to several that are willing, and already committed to do so. We need as many as we can get, otherwise, 2017 will bring us even more restrictive gun laws - I'm guessing magazine capacity is the next big target on their list.
 
She did attempt to make that modification to SB941 (as did a few others - big thumbs up to Kim Thatcher :)), but the folks in charge of the committee shut that idea down, hard. It was brought up by many people in opposition to this bill, so they can't claim ignorance. They knew what they wanted - registration of every single gun transaction - granting a CHL exemption allows people to stay off that list.

Until such time that the balance of power in Salem shifts, which can only happen if the voters in Oregon wake up and vote against these bozos, we'll never get a chance to see such a law in place. I am hopeful, though not hugely hopeful, that the balance will shift for the better in 2016. It will be up to every single one of us to educate every single voter we can to vote pro-gun in the next election(s) - even if that means going against their traditional political views. I've already spoken to several that are willing, and already committed to do so. We need as many as we can get, otherwise, 2017 will bring us even more restrictive gun laws - I'm guessing magazine capacity is the next big target on their list.

Right , I do remember her even being shut down in the meetings when trying to discuss this. I guess I am hoping with recalls around perhaps getting up an rallying now might give her an opportunity, SB941 didnt pass by a great margin so there is hope in this if we don't wait until the last minute, which is what Senator Thatcher did, she had worked on the idea for a few years but then said nothing really until the last minute getting people to rally with her is needed.
 
Right , I do remember her even being shut down in the meetings when trying to discuss this. I guess I am hoping with recalls around perhaps getting up an rallying now might give her an opportunity, SB941 didnt pass by a great margin so there is hope in this if we don't wait until the last minute, which is what Senator Thatcher did, she had worked on the idea for a few years but then said nothing really until the last minute getting people to rally with her is needed.

Perhaps she, like others, were simply not prepared for the full on attack we underwent on our rights this time around. In the past, they had enough votes to block stuff like this, but things changed and I think many were caught off-guard.

That is a mistake that should not be repeated again.
 
Perhaps she, like others, were simply not prepared for the full on attack we underwent on our rights this time around. In the past, they had enough votes to block stuff like this, but things changed and I think many were caught off-guard.
That is a mistake that should not be repeated again.

I agree, what is needed between now and next session is EDUCATION, thats how the antis get votes is
educating the pubic to their messed up views we need to see more much more education of the public who knows little about the laws and firearms, I know so many people hundreds I have met whom own guns and go SB941 whats that UGGgggggg!!
 
I agree, what is needed between now and next session is EDUCATION, thats how the antis get votes is
educating the pubic to their messed up views we need to see more much more education of the public who knows little about the laws and firearms, I know so many people hundreds I have met whom own guns and go SB941 whats that UGGgggggg!!

Yep, I've met quite a few myself. Think of all those people that could have swayed the vote the other way :oops:. Sadly, the average American voter is woefully uninformed on what really happens when lawmakers are in session.
 
Gun laws work in Russian and China just fine. Anyone want to live there with the rights they provide ?
Dealers should be looking at the big picture, or sure maybe you will make out like a bandit until they get to the point of banning firearms. I have a news flash to any dealer who thinks SB941 is a good thing.
If Dems get their fill there wont be any gun owners to but from dealers.
 
Really don't care what the dealers are going to do, like everything else if you want to save a buck then shop around. Or sell your guns out of state by shipping to an FFL in a legal manner. Dealer doesn't want to sell a gun for a reasonable price for the customer then he won't be selling many to the customer. It's all money.o_O
 
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.
So if we should not trust a dealer who IS completing PP transfers and the honest ones are NOT doing PP transfers who then do we use?
 
I am not saying dealers of firearms are bad people, I am saying whom has the most to lose and gain in SB941 the People or the dealers. The fact that out of the 2000+ dealers most did not publicly testify to say SB941 was bad. My inquisitive self says they are obvious firearm lovers and well hmmm cash is sure a motivator. Can some explain where these two thousand plus dealers were when this was being past ?
 
I am not saying dealers of firearms are bad people, I am saying whom has the most to lose and gain in SB941 the People or the dealers. The fact that out of the 2000+ dealers most did not publicly testify to say SB941 was bad. My inquisitive self says they are obvious firearm lovers and well hmmm cash is sure a motivator. Can some explain where these two thousand plus dealers were when this was being past ?

Lee from Rich's guns in Donald was the only dealer I saw actually fighting the bill. Correction, The guy from NW Armory was there too. The rest must have been back there wringing their hands seeing dollar signs.
 
Last Edited:
That is true but Oregon could have included that in SB941 would have made things way easier. Not that I agree with SB941 but that option would have taken some sting out of it.
My suggestion when it became clear this was passing no matter what was your get rid of FICS and switch to the NICS system. But it was about money to the state as much as it was about restrictions to make it difficult on gun owners. Read Prozanski's comments about construction workers getting caught up in this. He basically admits this law is designed to make things harder.
Lee from Rich's guns in Donald was the only dealer I saw actually fighting the bill. The rest must have been back there wringing their hands seeing dollar signs.
I was at both hearings and ran a recall. Carl from NW Armory was at both hearings. Michael from MK Tactical helped with the recall and is working with an attorney on legal challenges to the law. There were several dealers that helped fight the bill.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top