JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
My objection to this measure comes from the barring of county employees from doing background checks, if the sheriff can't do a bgc how will they issue concealed handgun licenses in Clatsop county? If Clatsop resident cant get a concealed license here do they then have to travel to another county to get or renew a chl? Does this place an unfair burden on someone needing to get a chl? I get the whole criminals don't do bgc's argument but what about the undue burden on law abiding citizens that this measure will create?
 
My objection to this measure comes from the barring of county employees from doing background checks, if the sheriff can't do a bgc how will they issue concealed handgun licenses in Clatsop county? If Clatsop resident cant get a concealed license here do they then have to travel to another county to get or renew a chl? Does this place an unfair burden on someone needing to get a chl? I get the whole criminals don't do bgc's argument but what about the undue burden on law abiding citizens that this measure will create?
That's easy you walk in to Sheriff's Office hand him the fee, walk out with CHL. Problem solved. We shouldn't need a CHL anyways but if we are going to be required to get one it should be easy and not intrusive.
 
That's easy you walk in to Sheriff's Office hand him the fee, walk out with CHL. Problem solved. We shouldn't need a CHL anyways but if we are going to be required to get one it should be easy and not intrusive.

But since the CHL that was issued does not meet the standards set forth in ORS 166.291 the CHL would be invalid anywhere outside of Clatsop county. Again I agree with your sentiment on BGC's but this measure has the potential to have a very negative effect on conceal carriers in Clatsop county.
 
But since the CHL that was issued does not meet the standards set forth in ORS 166.291 the CHL would be invalid anywhere outside of Clatsop county. Again I agree with your sentiment on BGC's but this measure has the potential to have a very negative effect on conceal carriers in Clatsop county.
Other counties have passed similar measures. I guess we could look at what has happened in those counties.
 
Welcome to the forum.


So - do you agree with SB 941?
That's a tough one. I do not agree with SB 941, BUT if I sell a firearm to an individual, I would elect to have them accompany me to a store and conduct a background check because I feel its my "personal responsibility" to not sell a firearm to a felon, etc or to someone that would cause harm. I think this is a good ethic. For private sales I believe this should be optional. So I would vote No on 941.

Then there is the other side of the coin , a business establishment, who purpose is to sell firearms and ammunition. I do not mind it being required. These are all my opinions of course.

As for the argument, they can always just steal one and commit crime. I would honestly prefer that, than the store just selling one because they have to. Because when they steal they take a risk, for example they would die trying in my house.
 
But since the CHL that was issued does not meet the standards set forth in ORS 166.291 the CHL would be invalid anywhere outside of Clatsop county. Again I agree with your sentiment on BGC's but this measure has the potential to have a very negative effect on conceal carriers in Clatsop county.
I think the Sheriff could ask the questions about eligibility requirements on a form and go with the honor system.
 
Other counties have passed similar measures. I guess we could look at what has happened in those counties.

The other 2a sanctuary counties Oregon gave the Sherriff the right to decide what laws regarding firearms violate the constition and then choose not to enforce them, Clatsop's measure strips the Sheriffs the ability to do anything regarding firearms.
 
[QUOTE So I would vote No on 941. [/QUOTE]
Well this is not an option since SB 941 is already in place.

they can always just steal one and commit crime. I would honestly prefer that, than the store just selling one because they have to. Because when they steal they take a risk, for example they would die trying in my house.
You 'honestly' agree with and prefer a criminal stealing a gun?

Yes, they might 'die trying' in your house but then you or members of your family might also, along with potentially other honest law -abiding citizens you 'prefer' a criminal try to steal a gun from.
 
I'm not a firearms dealer but work closely with them. This is what I've seen when a person is denied. A state trooper shows up shortly there after and gathers up the information. I have seen where the person was still in Calbelas and the trooper walked with him off the floor. The dealers aren't told what the denial is for.
 
[QUOTE So I would vote No on 941.
Well this is not an option since SB 941 is already in place.


You 'honestly' agree with and prefer a criminal stealing a gun?

Yes, they might 'die trying' in your house but then you or members of your family might also, along with potentially other honest law -abiding citizens you 'prefer' a criminal try to steal a gun from.
[/QUOTE]

Prefer may be the wrong words, please try not to take my words exactly. I'm trying to simply say of two bubblegumty options:

Criminal goes in store and buys firearm because background checks are prohibited (not enforced)
or
Criminal cannot buy firearms and must resort to stealing(or additional criminal activity) to acquire

I prefer NEITHER, but one is significantly more difficult to accomplish.
 
Well this is not an option since SB 941 is already in place.


You 'honestly' agree with and prefer a criminal stealing a gun?

Yes, they might 'die trying' in your house but then you or members of your family might also, along with potentially other honest law -abiding citizens you 'prefer' a criminal try to steal a gun from.

Prefer may be the wrong words, please try not to take my words exactly. I'm trying to simply say of two bubblegumty options:

Criminal goes in store and buys firearm because background checks are prohibited (not enforced)
or
Criminal cannot buy firearms and must resort to stealing(or additional criminal activity) to acquire

I prefer NEITHER, but one is significantly more difficult to accomplish.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe this type of ordinance will prevent FFLs from having to do background checks. That is a federal law.
 
I don't believe this type of ordinance will prevent FFLs from having to do background checks. That is a federal law.

Looking at the wording of this ordinance , you may be right. Having a hard time deciphering the legalese in the document. Since oregonfirearms.org is a sponsor of it, maybe I can call them and get a clear answer of how this applies when it comes to background checks (my only sticking point)
 
Here is the text of the measure:

County Measure 4-205 Caption: Prohibits enforcement of certain firearm regulations by Clatsop County employees Question: Should Clatsop County prohibit use of county resources for enforcement of certain firearms regulations and allow fines for violations? Summary: Approval would prohibit Clatsop County employees or officials from enforcing any Extraterritorial Act relating to firearms or using any County resources to enforce such acts relating to firearms. The measure defines Extraterritorial Act as any local, state or federal law or regulation that restricts a person's right to keep and bear firearms, accessories or ammunition. Approval would prohibit enforcement of any of the following related to firearms: Any tax, levy or fee on the purchase or ownership of said items, any tracking requirements, background checks, confiscation orders, ownership of non-fully automatic firearms or accessories, and any restriction on the open or concealed carrying of firearms. Violation would result in a fine of up to $2,000 per individual or $4,000 for a corporation. Exceptions: Does not apply to convicted felons or persons prohibited from possession firearms by court order. The law also does not allow the possession of firearms in state or federal buildings.
 
I would elect to have them accompany me to a store and conduct a background check because I feel its my "personal responsibility" to not sell a firearm to a felon, etc
And I agree with this - heck I requested a buyer once do this with a gun I was selling to which he declined and I left - with the gun in hand.

My major argument is SB 941 was signed into law by Brown as an 'Emergency bill'.

There was nothing 'Emergent' about it!

In over 40 years of buying & selling guns I can only think of one time a privately sold gun became an issue and if I recall it was discovered to have been stolen and became a legal issue.
 
Looking at the wording of this ordinance , you may be right. Having a hard time deciphering the legalese in the document. Since oregonfirearms.org is a sponsor of it, maybe I can call them and get a clear answer of how this applies when it comes to background checks (my only sticking point)
One other point you mentioned was private party transfers which is governed by State law. This ordinance 4-205 would only prevent county employees from enforcing State laws regarding private transfers. The State could send in troopers to nab somebody openly defying State laws regarding firearm restrictions.
 
Looking at the wording of this ordinance , you may be right. Having a hard time deciphering the legalese in the document. Since oregonfirearms.org is a sponsor of it, maybe I can call them and get a clear answer of how this applies when it comes to background checks (my only sticking point)
I wanted to weigh in here because I moved to Seattle from a Constitutional Carry state (Oklahoma) which doesn't require background checks for private sales, I am a member of a 2A forum there, and I have extensive experience with the scenario you're talking about.
1. There's a principle in leadership where you don't manage the behaviors of 100 employees because of the actions of 1. Of the countless parking lot and gun show deals I've personally done, and the THOUSANDS of others that the quality people from the forums have done, a law like this would now cause all of those to have to go through a background check. Thousands of safe, legal, successful transfer that would now have to find an FFL willing to do a private transfer and pay their made-up charge for the privilege of telling the government that you're buying a gun. I see it here in Seattle and it hits a raw nerve with me. The gov requires a process then our own community charges us $25, then $30, then $50 for 2 minutes of work.
2. Of those transfers that I've done and others in the trusted community have done, you're a responsible gun owner who doesn't want a felon owning a gun. You talk to the buyer, you ask if they have an in-state drivers license, and you get a general feel for if you feel comfortable with the transaction. While it's subjective, you have every right (and people absolutely do) to walk away from deals because they feel sketchy.
3. And all of these numbers, processes, and costs are for a system that we don't even have the data to say is successful. I don't subscribe to "Well they'll just steal one anyway". I think we need to be more responsible than that. But I also don't subscribe to "I have no proof that this is making an impact, but I'm going to burden you with it anyway".

I guess the short response is, it has the potential to not be perfect, but give us the personal responsibility of doing the right thing instead of legislating it, which is also not perfect
 
Or if you get pulled over by OSP with a concealed weapon, or even better when the sheriffs just start having OSP assist with calls.
This ordinance is definitely not going to provide a free for all environment. You raise a good point about whether background checks are required by ORS 166.291 to be completed by Sheriffs office. It's not clear to me that they are but it is a question the Sheriff could probably answer.
 

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