One would think that they maintain a record of the serial numbers of guns that were reported stolen. Especially since the system is supposed to be just for that circumstance. The questioning indicates that, with or without a stolen firearms report, the police have a record of the address of the last owner of every firearm in the state. That's not supposed to be the purpose of the system.The background system is not user friendly. I was going to do a private party to private party deal and wanted to run a check on the pistol in question. The seller gave me the serial number and I called it in, the conversation went like this: "I'm a non-FFL looking to do a private buy on a pistol and would like to run the serial number please", "what is the address of the pistol?", "I don't know the seller gave me the serial number so I could have it checked before we do the transaction", "well how would we know where to go to pick up the pistol?", "What do you mean?", "if its stolen the police wouldn't know where it is", "We haven't set up a meeting yet, I just wanted to make sure the serial number checks out", "We can't do that without the address of the pistol", "Fine, goodbye".
INDEED! You DO need to be pointing to that. If they can't show a conviction for it, then it didn't happen! By not enforcing the laws and not using the tools they already asked for and received, they have been enabling the gun crimes they are complaining about now.... . I am glad they are doing it now because Ginny will push her bill next year and we can say OSP has conducted x amount of investigated and this percentage was a false positive.
..... People who almost have to remember to breath can't tax their precious brain cells to remember the past or be bothered to see what is unfolding in front of them. Throw in the super lib wackadoos who LOVE seeing what is unfolding and there you go - 4th term for Doctor Do-Nothing, more contracts for his cronies and his bed partner (the media really needs to stop referring to that twit as the First Lady of Oregon - they're shacking, not married)........
I consider myself a conservative with latent libertarian tendencies.mkwerx - you forgot all the otherwise conservative, right, repub voters, or the conservative 'leaning', or right 'leaning', or repub 'leaning' voters who won't vote simply because 'their' candidate(s) didn't win the primary.
UBCs go hand in hand with official registration. OSP already stores transfer info from the NICS checks they run. There is zero reason for OSP to collect any data on the transfer other than the person's name, SSN, and DOB and that they are trying to purchase a firearm. Recording the firearms type/make/model and SN = registration, at a backdoor level at this point. The FFL's already check the guns to see if they're stolen when they get them in - there is NO reasonable need to give the firearm types or quantities to OSP for a simple background check.Yup - definitely sounds like a prep for pushing UBC to me.
A waste of time from the enforcement perspective IMO (they could always follow up later if they determine that the denial was due to the prospective buyer being an actual felon), but the governors office could care less if it gets them the political hay needed to pass a bill they want.
Which segues to the real question - *why* do they want UBC so badly that they are willing to waste time and money on what is obviously a fishing expedition??