Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

If you could only oppose one bill, which one would it be?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by PiratePast40, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    With the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee, apparently allowing public hearings on 4 senate bills, which one is the most worthy of opposition? I ask because I believe that people will be required to only address a single bill during their time at the microphone. And even then, only for 3-5 minutes, if that.

    Here's the quick summary from the OFF Alert:

    • SB 347 – Removes the exemption for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders to carry a firearm on K-12 school grounds.
    • SB 699 – Removes the exemption for CHL holders to carry a firearm in the Capital Building unless given written permission by Legislative Administration.
    • SB 700 – Requires criminal background checks on all gun purchases and transactions except those between immediate family members.
    • SB 796 – Requires all persons applying for a CHL permit to pass a firing range test.​


    My personal opinion, is that the UBC (SB700) will be dropped on the state level since it's being taken up on the federal level and will require federal legislation because of interstate involvement in internet sales.

    I believe that the issue of concealed carry exemption in schools (SB347) will have quite a bit of support from the anti-gun crowd. I also believe this one could set a precident to allow any group being given legal authority to prohibit concealed carry. This bill has a companion in the House to allow universities to also prohibit concealed carry.

    The concept of SB699 is also a precident setting bill in that it's not just the Capital but ANY legislative body, state or local. Again, would allow local restrictions over-riding State law.

    I don't think the concept of gun handling experience is a bad one (SB796), it's just that it's a matter of personal responsibility and should not be a requirement of the state. I can see a positive side of this, IF it was written to provide a more positive view of CHL holders, so the idea of carrying in schools and state buildings was more palatible to the anti-gun people. That's a big IF, but wanted to throw it out there. There would also need to be clarification as to the qualification of existing CHL holders.

    I think we have a responsibility of providing legitimate and persuasive arguments.

    Opinions as to which one is more important?
     
  2. BSG 75

    BSG 75 Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    Huh? Interstate sales have been regulated since 1968. No new Federal legislation is required for interstate sales. SB 700 is likely to pass. In fact, all of them are likely to pass out of committee. The best we can do is try to soften the impact of SB 700 by trying to get exemptions for CHL holders and trying to make the private sale background checks free of charge.
     
  3. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,098
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    I've never purchased a gun from someone like gunbroker. I was under the impression, that for shipping, it had to go through an FFL but a background check wasn't required. Am I wrong?
     
  4. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    SB700 would be the most intrusive law and would be "THE ONE" to oppose if you could only oppose one. Reasons:
    1) It affects all gun buyers, not just those with CHL (The other proposals only affect CHL)
    2) The way some people talk about SB700, they use the words "Require background checks for all gun OWNERS" -- this is their ultimate goal is to require every gun OWNER to have to register the gun, not just for new gun purchases.
    3) The "background check" is much more than that. They also will insist on record keeping and the recording of the gun S/N. "Registration".
     
  5. BSG 75

    BSG 75 Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    Yes, you are mistaken. The firearm is shipped to a FFL 01 or 02 licensee in your state. Before the licensee can release the firearm to you a background check is performed. Firearms that are Curios or Relics can be shipped directly to a buyer that has a FFL 03 Curio & Relic license. I have received many C&R firearms that way. In fact, a Colt M1911 I bought on Gunbroker.com will be arriving at my house tomorrow.

    Some states like California require that all handguns, including C&R handguns, go through a FFL 01, with a background check and 10-day waiting period.