Dealers won't do background checks.

[etrain16]

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.

And those contributions are recognized and very much appreciated

 

[Norm0931]

And those contributions are recognized and very much appreciated

Just seems like some in the community are jumping on dealers like they were vultures circling while this bill was being proposed. Dems shove a wedge in between dealers and owners and only the anti's win. Honestly, outside of the Senate hearing I spoke with several other major dealers from the Portland area and we all considered just not doing private transfers as a "screw you" to Prozanski. Issue was we were concerned about them changing the law to legally force us and that the only people we'd be hurting are law abiding citizens. Prozanski would be thrilled if no transfers were taking place.

 

[etrain16]

Just seems like some in the community are jumping on dealers like they were vultures circling while this bill was being proposed. Dems shove a wedge in between dealers and owners and only the anti's win. Honestly, outside of the Senate hearing I spoke with several other major dealers from the Portland area and we all considered just not doing private transfers as a "screw you" to Prozanski. Issue was we were concerned about them changing the law to legally force us and that the only people we'd be hurting are law abiding citizens. Prozanski would be thrilled if no transfers were taking place.

I don't doubt there were some dealers that were looking forward to SB941 and the money they could potentially make. But I don't buy that many of them were in support of the bill - just my personal opinion in the matter. I think many dealers would rather support freedom in gun ownership rather than more gun laws.

 

[U201491]

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.

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.

Yes I corrected my comment. He was also in the fight and at the meetings. But I sure cannot remember seeing any other dealers there.

 

[Just Jim]

State mandates you pay a dealer to sell your gun it's a windfall for the dealer if people keep commerce happening. However the state being involved will take so much time that dealers will have to raise their rates for paperwork. 50 minutes on the phone and not talking to anyone is going to be aproblem.

 

[etrain16]

State mandates you pay a dealer to sell your gun it's a windfall for the dealer if people keep commerce happening. However the state being involved will take so much time that dealers will have to raise their rates for paperwork. 50 minutes on the phone and not talking to anyone is going to be aproblem.

Except for one thing - many people will either fall into the "I won't comply" group or the "I'm done with private sales" group. And looking at the classifieds, it sure seems to me that, at least for now, folks are either done or not planning to use an FFL. I'll be surprised to see if many new folks show up at dealers for a transfer. For me, private sales are done, I don't want the extra registration crap, so I'm done. I really don't think this is going to be some big financial boon for the FFL dealers. Plus, if they do raise their rates really high, then why in the hell would anyone do a private sale?

As for my local FFL, he's already confirmed no price change from a regular transfer if I ever do want to do a private sale. I don't see that happening.

 

[DuneHopper]

Just seems like some in the community are jumping on dealers like they were vultures circling while this bill was being proposed. Dems shove a wedge in between dealers and owners and only the anti's win. Honestly, outside of the Senate hearing I spoke with several other major dealers from the Portland area and we all considered just not doing private transfers as a "screw you" to Prozanski. Issue was we were concerned about them changing the law to legally force us and that the only people we'd be hurting are law abiding citizens. Prozanski would be thrilled if no transfers were taking place.

Before the session began I contacted several several dealers including Cabelas and Armslist as well.
The quote I kept getting was along the lines its a law that wouldn't affect them so they cant get involved.
I am not convinced a good part of dealers saw dollar signs, because they are tax revenue for the state to have had them all write or speak would have been monumental. I for one do not think doing nothing is a tactical strategy when it comes to Prozanski he is counting on people doing nothing so he can go in unopposed as much as possible. I will stand as one who think in many cases vultures were circling based on my own personal experience before, during and after SB941.

 

[DuneHopper]

State mandates you pay a dealer to sell your gun it's a windfall for the dealer if people keep commerce happening. However the state being involved will take so much time that dealers will have to raise their rates for paperwork. 50 minutes on the phone and not talking to anyone is going to be aproblem.

This is very true as well, but then the end result is the consumer losing they may figure as well why you are there you are apt to buy something why waiting. I know in the rare purchases at Cabelas for firearms I shop around and buy stuff why waiting

 

[Norm0931]

Before the session began I contacted several several dealers including Cabelas and Armslist as well.
The quote I kept getting was along the lines its a law that wouldn't affect them so they cant get involved.
I am not convinced a good part of dealers saw dollar signs, because they are tax revenue for the state to have had them all write or speak would have been monumental. I for one do not think doing nothing is a tactical strategy when it comes to Prozanski he is counting on people doing nothing so he can go in unopposed as much as possible. I will stand as one who think in many cases vultures were circling based on my own personal experience before, during and after SB941.

Alright then DuneHopper, what is your suggestion? As an LGS has costs associated with operating and running the store enabling them to perform a background, they would be taking a loss if they did them for free. Only democrats think businesses work to lose money and provide free handouts to others. Yet, you seem upset that FFLs are going to end up being paid for their services. My shop has not changed our fee from the last 2 years and we don't plan to. What is your suggestion for dealers? How can we make you happy and still keep operating? Kinda between a rock and a hard place, so I'd honestly like to hear your thoughts.

 

[DuneHopper]

Alright then DuneHopper, what is your suggestion? As an LGS has costs associated with operating and running the store enabling them to perform a background, they would be taking a loss if they did them for free. Only democrats think businesses work to lose money and provide free handouts to others. Yet, you seem upset that FFLs are going to end up being paid for their services. My shop has not changed our fee from the last 2 years and we don't plan to. What is your suggestion for dealers? How can we make you happy and still keep operating?

Hi there, not upset not even a little over stuff like this. Oh I will respond to a situation as needed but reaction is not something I do, I am not a knee jerk type person probably cause I am not a Liberal-Anti
But I digress, well its hard to give a blanket answer in your case since you are quoting the locals you know and what you do, meanwhile I am looking at testimony not given by some of the top FFL's owners. There are over 2000 dealers and my point is only a few of them could get involved enough to at least make attempts at unity.
I cant speak for a shop I am not a FFL, but in that light I can also say you are not a non-FFL citizen I am and my view is obviously going to be way different then yours. I can't tell you how to fix what is broke at and FFL, no more then anyone can fix me now being forced into the doors of one. I saw many non-ffl people at the hearings and in testimony thats a fact I cant change that influences how I look at this mess.

 

[Norm0931]

Hi there, not upset not even a little over stuff like this. Oh I will respond to a situation as needed but reaction is not something I do, I am not a knee jerk type person probably cause I am not a Liberal-Anti
But I digress, well its hard to give a blanket answer in your case since you are quoting the locals you know and what you do, meanwhile I am looking at testimony not given by some of the top FFL's owners. There are over 2000 dealers and my point is only a few of them could get involved enough to at least make attempts at unity.
I cant speak for a shop I am not a FFL, but in that light I can also say you are not a non-FFL citizen I am and my view is obviously going to be way different then yours. I can't tell you how to fix what is broke at and FFL, no more then anyone can fix me now being forced into the doors of one. I saw many non-ffl people at the hearings and in testimony thats a fact I cant change that influences how I look at this mess.

Sorry Dune, I guess my response came off as confrontational. Am I correct in understanding that you are just upset that most FFLs in Oregon did not contribute to fighting this law? Alright, I totally understand that. I agree with you. I wish more FFLs and more citizens were there at the hearings. It was unfortunate that so many Oregonians were turned away at these hearings when so many anti-2A speakers from other states got to spew their hate to our legislators. I do feel crappy about having to be involved in private (now public) transactions. I don't want to have to go through my own shop to sell my guns, that presents me with conflicts in and of itself, so I will probably end up going through another dealer if I sell a firearm to another citizen. The best we can do for now is support the Prozanski recall and work hard on the next election. I'm not a fan at all of the Republican Party in Oregon, though a few select legislators seem to be decent, but it's better than more years of tyrannical liberal conversion to California.

 

[DuneHopper]

I should stress the situation here to maybe get some clarity, FFL's should be looking at the big picture they can and are telling many they wont do private transfers. We that are not FFL's are not given a option by law. Its not like they are forcing and FFL's to do the transfer, but they are forcing citizen by the law to go to a FFL and pay what ever is required. FFL's are not the problem, but they are not a solution either.
I can tell you ask any gun owner that loves their 2nd Amendment Right if they like being forced to exercise it ? By the way thanks for the work on the recall its appreciated and my thoughts are not aimed at those who fought beside all of us.

 

[Just Jim]

Dealers do have options, they could add the $25 to the price of new guns and not charge to do a transfer. Transfer will get people in the shop if they know it's free or $10 +state fee. It's all going to be about $, if it drives the cost up people are going to quit buying. Dealers are in a bad spot, the state has raised the price on the products and the cost to do business and you know for a fact there won't be a bailout of gunstores.

 

[DuneHopper]

Dealers do have options, they could add the $25 to the price of new guns and not charge to do a transfer. Transfer will get people in the shop if they know it's free or $10 +state fee. It's all going to be about $, if it drives the cost up people are going to quit buying. Dealers are in a bad spot, the state has raised the price on the products and the cost to do business and you know for a fact there won't be a bailout of gunstores.

I agree 100%, which is why one asks where were they all why this was being bum-rushed ?
As I have said there are over 2000 FFL's in Oregon why where not even a 1/3 involved.
If I knew my lively hood was going to be affected I would have large banners in my shop, Id be giving a flier to every customer and I would have showed at the testimony or at least written.
I think I would really be showing way more empathy if there had been a strong unity of FFL's involved win or lose it would have showed unity.

 

[telero]

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

OK, so reading through the old version of ORS 166.436 and 166.138, it looks like in the past individuals could voluntarily have a background check performed for a face to face sale, except that it was mandatory at a gun show (or by going through a dealer at a gun show)

Now with the new wording of ORS 166.136 and 166.138 from SB941, it looks like going through a dealer is mandatory for all face to face sales, except at a gun show individuals can still use the non dealer background check option/form if they wish (or go through a dealer).

State mandates you pay a dealer to sell your gun it's a windfall for the dealer if people keep commerce happening. However the state being involved will take so much time that dealers will have to raise their rates for paperwork. 50 minutes on the phone and not talking to anyone is going to be aproblem.

We that are not FFL's are not given a option by law. Its not like they are forcing and FFL's to do the transfer, but they are forcing citizen by the law to go to a FFL and pay what ever is required. FFL's are not the problem, but they are not a solution either.

Unless you're at a gun show, then you can still use the non dealer background check form. Still have to do a background check, but don't have to go through a dealer.


Now, for those that are going to comply with performing the background check but don't want to do so at the additional cost of a dealer transfer fee, does that mean that gun shows are now going to have a lot more individuals performing face to face transfers using the non-dealer forms? (would still be a $10 OSP fee)

Also, since a gun show is defined as an event with more than 25 firearms on site and available for transfer, does that mean that two individuals could go to the Bi-Mart parking lot and perform a face to face transfer using the gun show form since Bi-Mart undoubtedly has more than 25 firearms for sale? Or any other gun store for that matter...

 

[Joe Link]

@Tim Barnes at Tigard Pawn 4 More has also confirmed that there will be no price change, still $25 including the state fee.

 

[DuneHopper]

@Tim Barnes at Tigard Pawn 4 More has also confirmed that there will be no price change, still $25 including the state fee.

 

[Just Jim]

Yup like it or not gun owners are some of the tightest people with a buck the world has produced so in the long run it will be about money for those who decide to buy a state owned gun...

 

[MountainBear]

I have thought long and hard regarding transfers at my small shop. I suppose I should preface this by saying that I was and am against this law. I don't think it will do anything but burden law abiding citizens. I emailed and called my congress people to voice my opposition. I'm sorry that I could not get to the hearing, but I am a one man band who at the time had a pregnant wife (now I have a newborn). I wish I could have gotten involved, but honestly, I didn't have the time or finances to get to those hearings in person. But do not let not seeing a dealer at the hearings in person fool you into thinking that they were sitting back wringing their hands in delight at some supposed windfall that was due to come. Most of us weren't. Some of you differentiated between FFL holding citizens and non-FFL holding citizens. There isn't much difference. I am a gun guy who just happens to try make a living with a gun shop.

Now, as for transfers. I will continue to do transfers at my shop. In reaction to this bill passing, I actually lowered the transfer fee at my shop from $25 plus $10 to the state to $20 plus $10 to the state. It might not be much, but I understand that my customers work just as hard for their money, as I do. I also understand that there will be people who will abide by this law despite not agreeing with it. I would use a speed limit analogy. You can choose whether or not to obey it, but you must be prepared to deal with the consequences if you are caught. There are those of us who understand we could get a ticket and choose to do 64 in a 55 zone anyway. Others will do the speed limit all the time, as they are not willing to risk the ticket. Likewise, some will follow this law in the same spirit. They may not agree with it (and honestly, I haven't met a single gun owner who did agree with this law), but they are unwilling to risk the consequences in the unlikely event they are caught.

It is my job to serve my customers. As much as I would love to stick it to ol' Floyd and his ilk, refusing to do background checks will not be the manner in which I choose to do this. Anytime I see a recall petition, I will happily sign it. I will continue to vote against anti-freedom politicians, and I will continue to contact my reps when I see an abuse on our liberties. But I have an obligation to take care of my customers, so I will perform private transaction background checks if requested.

But it will not be without trepidation, or without a few changes to my policies. I will now collect the money for the transfer up front. Whether the customer passes or not, it still costs me time. I have to be compensated for my time, or my business would cease to exist. So money will be collected up front. Honestly, my biggest concern is this: if Bill brings in a gun to sell to Joe, I have to check the gun into my A&D log. I then run the check on Joe. If Joe fails, then I have to run a check on Bill, because the gun still has to be checked out of my log by federal law. So that's another $10 background check fee the state will charge. But then here's the kicker. What if Bill then fails the check? How does he get the gun back? If he sent anyone in to get the gun, it would almost have to be a straw purchase. So there's no winning that situation.

The bottom line is that I will continue to take care of my customers. I will run background checks for private sales. But don't for a minute think this decision came lightly or it is without worries. I don't expect widespread compliance with this law. I don't expect some magical windfall of transfer fees coming my way. If anything, this law makes my world more stressful without any real benefit.

 

[telero]

Honestly, my biggest concern is this: if Bill brings in a gun to sell to Joe, I have to check the gun into my A&D log. I then run the check on Joe. If Joe fails, then I have to run a check on Bill, because the gun still has to be checked out of my log by federal law. So that's another $10 background check fee the state will charge. But then here's the kicker. What if Bill then fails the check? How does he get the gun back? If he sent anyone in to get the gun, it would almost have to be a straw purchase. So there's no winning that situation.

A link to the ATF procedure was posted earlier: https://www.atf.gov/file/56336/download

As long as the seller is there and doesn't relinquish actual possession to you, you can perform the background check on Joe without logging it in. That way if there is a deny, Bill can leave without going through a background check.