Earl Bluemenauer's Gun Control Survey

[Grizzly_A]

This just got posted today about Gun Control following the tragedy in Colorado. You might make your thoughts and positions known.

Your Thoughts on Gun Safety

Read More

 

[Chee-to]

3. Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers?

Yes

No

It's already closed, ya Twit !! It's great to have a Member of Congress, that doesn't even know the laws in his own state,.................. jump in on gun control !!

 

[VW_Factor]

I made sure to send an email to his office letting him know that its a bad idea to parrot material from anti-2A firms, when the law has been on the books for 12 years in the state of Oregon. I cannot in good conscience take a poll from a guy who really doesn't even know what hes talking about.

Edit : The bit about "history of DV" is great as well. Does he not know that people with a history of DV are not going to pass the check for a weapon or CHL without going through the court system?

 

[deadeye]

Sent a message but dont expect a reply other than an automated one.

 

[Dunerunner]

Laughable!! But, I filled out the poll anyway!

 

[CharonPDX]

Not that it will do any good, but here's what I wrote...

Hi Congressman Blumenauer,

First, I must admit that I am not your constituent. I am just across the river is Ms. Bonamici's district. (However, I did grow up in what is now your district, and the second election I voted in was your first election to the House - the first election I voted in was to have your predecessor take his current Senate seat.)

I am writing in regards to your recent survey on gun safety. While I do appreciate the current tense nature of gun rights/control, I do feel that some of your questions are slanted, and my answers to them require explanation.

1. 100-round magazine: As evidenced by the Aurora shooter - large-capacity magazines are horribly unreliable. There is a reason the military does not use them. There has yet to be a mass shooting in the US where the shooter successfully used a greater-than-30-round magazine in an "assault rifle". (Plus, the definition of "assault rifle" is very nebulous, see my comments under question 6.) Not to mention that the 'ban' before was useless, as there are already hundreds-of-thousands-to-millions of high-capacity magazines already out there. And, realistically, you're not going to get rid of those.

2. The no-fly list has already been proven to be flawed, with little-to-no oversight. I support better inter-governmental communication to get people who shouldn't have guns on lists so that background checks are useful, yes. But the no-fly list is a bad example. (I know someone who has to produce a letter from the TSA every time he flies, he has to go for screening two hours early, because he *WILL* be flagged, the TSA screener *WILL* have to call headquarters to clear him.) "Security theater" is not the answer, actual security is.

3. The "gun show loophole" was closed years ago. *EVERY* gun sold at the Expo Center during gun shows has a background check performed. Not to mention the fact that even before it was closed, very few criminals ever bought guns at gun shows.

4. No guns for domestic violence? I'm not even sure why you're asking this one. This is already law.

5. I see a federal mandate that says that every state must recognize every other state's concealed handgun license as an obvious step - we already do it for drivers' licenses, and we should do it for marriage licenses, too. "Full faith and credit" and all.

6. The assault weapon ban was a knee-jerk reaction. It defined specific named weapons as "assault weapons", not features of weapons. Yet the features that the general public uses to define an "assault weapon" are not functional features that differentiate a "military" weapon from a hunting rifle, they are pure aesthetic. In Oregon, there was only ONE shooting with rifles last year - out of 73 total shootings. The statistics do not identify if it was a semi-automatic rifle or not, or if it was a "military-looking" rifle or not.

Can you tell me which of these two weapons is an "assault rifle"?
http://i33.tinypic.com/ae7ghw.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ABunJ7_jGFU/T4woX6RejUI/AAAAAAAAAVE/JnzCAqrQ8F0/s1600/IMG_2710.jpg

Mr. Blumenauer, I urge you to not provide knee-jerk reactions that alienate the 47% of Democrats that own firearms. As Chicago, Washington DC, and Los Angeles prove: Gun control doesn't work. Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're called criminals. A committed murderer won't be stopped by laws. See the Norway shooter from last year - who tried to buy his weapons legally, was foiled by Norway's strict gun control laws, so he bought them illegally.

The shooting in Aurora wasn't a failure of gun control, it was a failure of our mental health system.

--
{signed}

 

[Cigarlvr313]

I wish I could write like that!! 2 Thumbs up!

Not that it will do any good, but here's what I wrote...

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

It's already closed, ya Twit !! It's great to have a Member of Congress, that doesn't even know the laws in his own state,.................. jump in on gun control !!

Kevin at the OFF just sent out an alert about this. Hopefully he won't mind if I paste it here:

Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013

Voice: (503) 263-5830

Oregon Firearms Federation
OFF ALERT 08.02.12
THE VULTURES HAVE LANDED

In the wake of the Colorado shooting, we all expected the media and the victimhood promoters to do all they could to use a crime to attack YOUR rights as gun owners. But the anti-rights vultures never seem to fail to find a new low to sink to.

We all know that Oregon is cursed with one of the worst congressional delegations in the country, given that 6 out of 7 of our members of Congress are foaming-at-the-mouth gun haters.

But every time we think we have reached a new low, the bottom feeders who "represent" us pull out their shovels and dig a little deeper.

Let's take a look at a "survey" that Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer emailed out today. You can see it here:

Your Thoughts on Gun Safety


Question 3 of his survey asks;

"Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers."

Let's put aside that no Portland Expo show we have ever been to has ever been "open-air." Does a rabidly anti-gun Oregon Congressman NOT know that private sales at Oregon gun shows have been banned for 12 years? Blumenauer was one of the main forces pushing for a ballot measure that banned private transfers in 2000. And now he is unaware that this is current law? Should this guy really have a job of this importance if he doesn't know a law he pushed actually passed?

Question 4 says:

"Should people with a history of domestic violence be able to purchase guns and carry concealed weapons?"

Is this member of the Oregon Congressional delegation REALLY unaware that people with even the most minor "domestic violence" convictions are banned from owning guns or even a single round of ammo FOR LIFE and have for 16 YEARS!?

Earl is a shameless liar who is counting on the ignorance of the people in his district to promote his anti-rights agenda. You may want to take a moment to answer his bogus survey.

You may also want to check out the following links to see more on the never-ending debate between those of us who take responsibility for ourselves and those who rely on the forces who "responded" to Hurricane Katrina.

Kevin Starrett vs Oregon University System:
<broken link removed>

Ceasefire Oregon on new gun restrictions:
http://tinyurl.com/d6kq2we

Kevin Starrett on new gun restrictions:
http://tinyurl.com/d4opwye

So I am thinking either A: He's such an idiot he can't remember he already helped close the "gun show loophole" in Oregon 12 years ago
or B: He thinks the voters are such idiots they won't know this "loophole" is already closed. After all, those are the bright minds that keep putting him back in office.

I'm betting B.

 

[Mark W.]

Let’s put aside that no Portland Expo show we have ever been to has ever been “open-air.” Does a rabidly anti-gun Oregon Congressman NOT know that private sales at Oregon gun shows have been banned for 12 years?

WHAT since when have private sales at any gun show in Oregon been banned????? Yes you need to do a background check on the buyer but that is hardly a Ban.

 

[CharonPDX]

Yeah, it's not that private sales are banned, just background checks required.

Although very few private sellers bother with gun shows anymore.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

I got the same email. I didn't fill out the poll, but instead sent him the following 2-page response:

Congressman Blumenauer,

Hello. I (along with many others, I'm sure) received an email from you today containing a poll on gun safety and legislation. Though it did contain a poll, I feel that the yes/no answer format is inadequate to respond to such a complex issue. I also read your article, "#26 Sensible Gun Laws," which was linked to in the email. This is a response to that as well.


Starting with the poll:

I give questions 1 and 6 the same answer.

"1) Should there be a limit on the size of the semi- automatic weapon magazine, so that a shooter would not be able to fire off 100 bullets in a minute?"

"6) Should the Clinton-era assault weapon ban, which expired in 2004, be renewed?"

If someone really wants to kill a large number of people, they'll find a way to do it regardless of how large a magazine they can procure. In the case of Holmes, his apartment was rigged with explosives. What would have kept him from using explosives in the theater (possibly to even more damaging effect) if he were unable to acquire a firearm? Criminals frequently have access to illegal goods. Passing laws restricting modern sporting rifles and magazine size will only affect law-abiding citizens, and will give criminals who will not comply with these laws an advantage.

"2) Should Federal agencies be able to share information so that people deemed so dangerous as to be on the "no fly list" would be prohibited from legally purchasing guns?"

Yes and no. I don't feel that simply being on the no fly list should be reason enough in itself, since mistakes are occasionally made. However, I do feel that the ATF should have access to the same information that a person's placement on the "no fly list" is based upon. The ATF should then be allowed to reach their own conclusion based on the same information.

"3) Should the gun show loophole be closed, so that the people who buy weapons in the open-air gun bazaars, like what occurs in Portland at the Expo Center, be required to submit to the same background checks and record-keeping as people who buy from licensed gun-dealers?"

People at the Portland Expo Center gun show are required to submit to background checks already. Many gun shows already require background checks even where not required by law. I feel that this is an effective way to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, but I have mixed feelings about keeping individual records for every gun a person buys.

In principle, I like the idea of a register of privately-owned firearms. It would make it possible to keep track of them and to see which ones are used in crimes. However, I do not think there should be one due to its potential to be abused. In New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina there were many armed gangs robbing peoples' homes. Some people stayed with their homes, defending their lives and their property. In all the chaos, law enforcement was overwhelmed and effectively unavailable. Some of these home defenders had the necessary tools to protect their possessions and their lives: firearms. After a while the police received an order to deprive these citizens of their self-defense tools (in the time of the citizenry's greatest need of them) and used one of these lists to do so. There were then 2 types of gangs trying to deprive law-abiding citizens of their possessions through threat of force, one of them being law enforcement officers. Despite the best intentions, it is impossible to say what someone in the future might do with a list like this. Its simple existence could be detrimental to the citizenry if put in the wrong hands. If a hacker or an insider gained access to a list of all the privately-owner firearms and their locations, this information could be sold to organized crime rings (or worse) with devastating results. I truly believe it is safer to keep no such lists. If the list doesn't exist, it can't be misused.

"4) Should people with a history of domestic violence be able to purchase guns and carry concealed weapons?"

Absolutely not, unless they are able to show longstanding, true reform.

"5) Should the federal government force every state to accept the weakest gun safety standards of any state in a "race to the bottom?""

I feel that this falls into the realm of the states' rights debate, and is best left to the Supreme Court of the United States.


Regarding "#26 Sensible Gun Laws":

I addressed much of this above, but I still have a few comments.

"...We know that automatic weapons are available over the counter and that they come with enormous magazines capable of facilitating killing sprees that serve no purpose in sports or target shooting..."

Automatic weapons are incredibly difficult to acquire. In order to purchase one, a person needs to fill out a great deal of paperwork with the ATF, submit to an extensive background check, and pay a tax. A FFL must be involved in the transfer of ownership, and additional laws have prohibited the ownership of newly manufactured automatic firearms to civilians since 1986. Additionally since 1934 when the law was passed requiring this registration there have been only 2 cases of homicides with legally-owned automatic firearms, one of which was committed by a law enforcement officer.

There are also certainly reasons other than "killing sprees" to own automatic firearms. Many automatic firearms are historically significant, and thus have a draw for history buffs. Many people who are mechanically inclined, or have an engineering mind also enjoy shooting automatic firearms simply for the joy of understanding the machine.

"...The 70 killed or wounded are the latest in a pattern that happens repeatedly, predictably, with overall loss of life in the tens of thousands over the years and yet we refuse to do anything about it..."

I think that it is very important to address the causes of these tragedies, and do what is necessary to prevent them. However, one must not confuse the cause with the tool used. The question should be "What causes a person to want to kill another?" Social, economic and personal factors are the root of the answer to this question. No matter what restrictions are made on the means chosen, people will continue to kill other people unless the cause of this desire is addressed. High unemployment has put many people in desperate situations. Upward mobility in this country is stunted compared to years past. The people responsible for the current financial crisis still haven't been held accountable, which sends a dangerous message ("you can get away with it") to those who would allow this to occur again. The people with the most money and power, who need the least help, hold amazing sway with lawmakers leaving those with the most need of representation un- or under-represented. All the energy spent focusing on the "how?" of these tragedies could be better spent trying to fix the "why?" of them.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Your constituent,
[ArgyleAdams]

(note: I did sign my actual name, not my forum handle )

 

[bnsaibum]

It would appear from the intelligence involved in framing the questions in the survey that someone may have already won the 'race to the bottom'.

 

[John Gault]

You can't possibly take someone who wears a bow tie to work seriously right

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Of course you can!

 

[Natty Bumpo]

Not that it will do any good, but here's what I wrote...

I know am chiming in rather late, but I commend you for your outstanding reply. Cogent, articulate and very well reasoned. Even though I agree that it will likely do no good in this particular context, please consider speaking up whenever the opportunity presents itself. It is people like you that should be speaking for us. Thanks.

 

[deadeye]

Good article about this.......Editorial: A gun survey gets answers

 

[AMProducts]

I thought I might put a finer point on it for some of you guys.

Dear Congressman Blumenauer,

As a frequent visitor to your lovely district, I was interested to see your recent poll regarding current firearms legislation and regulation. As a person who is involved in the firearms industry I am very well informed as to current regulations involving firearms, and wanted to point out a few ambiguous details in your survey:

Regardless of the size of the ammunition feeding device, very few people are capable of firing 100 shots in a minute due simply to limitations of human physiology. Further, "armor piercing" ammunition is already a highly regulated item per 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17).

For questions 2-4: While I do support the use of background checks, the "No Fly List" often includes babies, grandmothers, and other individuals who have been added to the list in error or omission, it is at best a capricious standard and would needlessly obstruct the free exercise of citizens' second amendment rights.

For those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" are already prohibited from possessing, purchasing, inheriting or transporting firearms and ammunition. This regulation was passed in 1997 and is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)

At present, the "gun show loophole" exists more on paper than it does in reality. Responsible sellers usually check for a Concealed Weapons License before transacting business with another person. This practice protects the seller from criminal prosecution, as it is a crime to provide a firearm to a convicted felon, a resident of another state, or anyone convicted of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Federal penalties for these crimes may exceed $10,000 and up to 10 years in federal prison. Therefore, the "loophole" only exists so long as those who sell firearms to prohibited persons are not prosecuted for these crimes.

The Clinton AWB (aka Brady Bill) did not have a significant effect on violent crime, as very few crimes are committed with AW's. Handguns are the most frequent choice of criminals, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) has played a significant role in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while ensuring law abiding citizens have a ready means to defend themselves.

Firearms are tools that know no master, a gun in the hand of a police officer or an American Soldier are comforting, while guns in the hand of the criminal or the terrorist are frightful. The regulation that really needs to come from atrocities like the Aurora, CO shooting are improvements to the NICS system that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and the criminally insane; yet keep them available to all those who would protect society.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Andrew Van Lahr

PS: Thank you for representing such a vibrant business-friendly district.

 

[ecmartinson]

I completed the online Blumenauer survey. I found the questions to be poorly formed and did little to address specifics other than emotional questions.

In response I wrote it office via his web site and provided a narrative of my opinion about each of the questions. I thought there would be a reply at some point but so far nothing. Has anyone who wrote to the congressman else received a response? I realize he isn't the congressman for my zip code but thought a response might be given regardless.

 

[Darknight]

WHAT since when have private sales at any gun show in Oregon been banned????? Yes you need to do a background check on the buyer but that is hardly a Ban.

I think what was meant was the guy walking around the gun shows with a sign and guns for sale. I have seen these people at gun shows in smaller towns. I was at one earlier this year and saw a guy just walking around with guns on him selling them. Those type of sales do not have backgrounds done. Usually anyone involved with the show has to do background checks. So yes, those type of private sales have been banned for many years at most gun shows, but not all.

 

[drew]

I think what was meant was the guy walking around the gun shows with a sign and guns for sale. I have seen these people at gun shows in smaller towns. I was at one earlier this year and saw a guy just walking around with guns on him selling them. Those type of sales do not have backgrounds done. Usually anyone involved with the show has to do background checks. So yes, those type of private sales have been banned for many years at most gun shows, but not all.

Sales at a gun show in OR require a backround check. A gun show is when more than 25 guns are available for transfer at the venue. These statutes are relevant. Transfer of Firearms at Gun Shows http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.438 A gun show with more than 25 guns available for transfer in ORS 166.432. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.432