Now with SB941in Effect whom will it affect more the buyer or seller.

[DuneHopper]

I understand what you're saying but now when felons are caught with weapons, those individuals that chose to sell them those firearms without going through a background check can also be prosecuted unless it was prior to SB941.

What I am saying is I am a normal law abiding citizen, and even being one I know right now a felon I could buy or sell a firearm too. This occurs all the time just like drug deals do all day long. Laws do not stop any criminal acts even gun registration does not as many guns sold by felons are stolen, Hope that clarifies it .

 

[DuneHopper]

I understand what you're saying but now when felons are caught with weapons, those individuals that chose to sell them those firearms without going through a background check can also be prosecuted unless it was prior to SB941.

I should add your response through me off as I haven't met anyone who thought SB941 would end anything other then rights. Even if in theory SB941 was said to work 100% its still and illegal unconstitutional law.

 

[Koda]

I think the intention was to cut a process in which they were obtaining them illegally. If an individual is providing a firearms to felons in a community but through a loophole is able to continue selling them without legal prosecution I find that somewhat of a problem. Of the all the guns I've confiscated from gang members they were all traced back to a small handful of enterprising individuals who took advantage of the ambiguity.

(emphasis mine)
that sounds more like a true straw purchase not a private sale.

 

[41Slinger]

Look at History, it's all about registration, only about registration and always has been about registration. Straw purchase = registration, background check = registration, etc. Kalifornia, register you black rifles and a year later turn them in, that's how it works, watch as it's here now. To the OP's original question, it's going to have to be a really good deal to get me to go through the process and cost. I personally have bought new firearms and done the finger print routine over and over and also a CHL so they have all my info already. This law does nothing but REGISTER.

 

[NSDQ]

• I should add your response through me off as I haven't met anyone who thought SB941 would end anything other then rights. Even if in theory SB941 was said to work 100% its still and illegal unconstitutional law.

  
  
• I'll give you a really specific instance. <broken link removed>

These idiots belong to a gang that has frequented establishments where security has found them with loaded weapons. 7 instances where security found weapons and confiscated them. All of the firearms were obtained through 1 individual who didn't have a criminal record. This individual had sold 10 firearms in a span of 4 months to felons. However through the law it was impossible to prove this individual knew they were felons. However now that SB941 has passed, if a firearm is found on any new gang members and this individual sold them a weapon without going through a background check that individual can also be prosecuted.

 

[Koda]

OSP doesn't make it mandatory.
There are folks who don't ask for identification or verification from buyers. The primary purpose was to create a back channel to prevent future interactions with qualified buyers and non qualified buyers.

Prior to 941 if a felon had in his possession a firearm and it was traced back to a private sale there was no legal course of action to prosecute that person because the burden of proof is on wether or not the individual knew they were a felon. With SB941 being into law - there is no grey area. You're required to get a background check which prevents this murky point of contention of ask no questions and i'll tell you no lies.

I hear what your saying but I just dont believe 941 had anything to do with straw purchases or closing any tiny loophole felons had. The whole UBC campaign put out by the antis never mentioned straw purchases and if you look at the statistics illegal acquisitions thru private sales is a fraction of the guns prohibited person get. if the antis truely wanted to tackle the problem they would have address true straw purchases where its much easier and safer for a felon to acquire a gun illegally.

 

[NSDQ]

I hear what your saying but I just dont believe 941 had anything to do with straw purchases or closing any tiny loophole felons had. The whole UBC campaign put out by the antis never mentioned straw purchases and if you look at the statistics illegal acquisitions thru private sales is a fraction of the guns prohibited person get. if the antis truely wanted to tackle the problem they would have address true straw purchases where its much easier and safer for a felon to acquire a gun illegally.

There is a real black market business not just in straw purchasing but in reselling. An enterprising individual who doesn't have a criminal record can make a lucrative business by buying guns legally through gun stores and posting online ads with sell titles like "I won't ask you any questions if you don't tell me any lies"

 

[Koda]

• 
  
  
• I'll give you a really specific instance. <broken link removed>

These idiots belong to a gang that has frequented establishments where security has found them with loaded weapons. 7 instances where security found weapons and confiscated them. All of the firearms were obtained through 1 individual who didn't have a criminal record. This individual had sold 10 firearms in a span of 4 months to felons. However through the law it was impossible to prove this individual knew they were felons. However now that SB941 has passed, if a firearm is found on any new gang members and this individual sold them a weapon without going through a background check that individual can also be prosecuted.

so instead of fixing the straw purchase law they went after law abiding citizens.

question: doesnt selling 10 firearms in a span of 4 months require an FFL?

 

[Koda]

There is a real black market business not just in straw purchasing but in reselling. An enterprising individual who doesn't have a criminal record can make a lucrative business by buying guns legally through gun stores and posting online ads with sell titles like "I won't ask you any questions if you don't tell me any lies"

I mentioned previously. but doesn't this individual need to have an FFL to do this? Isn't their some serious felonious ramifications for being in the business of selling guns without an FFL?

 

[NSDQ]

so instead of fixing the straw purchase law they went after law abiding citizens.

question: doesnt selling 10 firearms in a span of 4 months require an FFL?

It doesn't go after law abiding citizens because the background check prevents law abiding citizens from being prosecuted. Now when enterprising individuals want to put a firearm into a felons hands without getting a background check, they can and will be prosecuted when the idiots they sell to get caught.

 

[Just Jim]

Registration and confiscation from here on out so if you buy a gun now just figure you are renting it from the state until they want it back.

 

[NSDQ]

I mentioned previously. but doesn't this individual need to have an FFL to do this? Isn't their some serious felonious ramifications for being in the business of selling guns without an FFL?

It doesn't prevent a criminal from buying a gun from someone who wants to violate the law by selling it to them without a background check. But by making the background check mandatory - it also allows LE to go after the individuals who put guns into their hands.

 

[Koda]

It doesn't go after law abiding citizens because the background check prevents law abiding citizens from being prosecuted. Now when enterprising individuals want to put a firearm into a felons hands without getting a background check, they can and will be prosecuted when the idiots they sell to get caught.

this didn't answer my question. prior to 941 doesn't an individual have to have an FFL to be in the business of selling guns?

 

[ozmosis]

If memory serves me, they stated a 30 year plan. WA/OR both got bought by a billionaire, lies and double speak. On WA balot it just said "closes a loophole in gunshow firearm purchases" and said nothing about the 18 or so provisions in the bill.

 

[41Slinger]

It was already illegal to sell a firearm to a known felon, no need for this law. All that was needed was prosecution of existing laws.

 

[NSDQ]

this didn't answer my question. prior to 941 doesn't an individual have to have an FFL to be in the business of selling guns?

Its next to impossible to prove an individual sold a firearm for profit versus legal reasons just like its next to impossible to prove that an individual knew they were a felon prior to the sale unless they put the criminal aspects of the transaction in black and white.

 

[ozmosis]

Funny criminals follow the laws every day............

 

[NSDQ]

It was already illegal to sell a firearm to a known felon, no need for this law.

Actually -- You're quite wrong. You could sell a firearm to a felon. They could be caught with a firearm. You would not be prosecuted unless you had prior knowledge that they were a felon. It would be on the city/state to prove you knew so.

 

[NSDQ]

I could sell 100 guns a year to felons prior to SB941. Felons could be caught with my weapons and it would be next to impossible to prosecute me because I could require every purchaser to sign a statement saying they were not a felon. Because it was a cash transaction I could easily hide wether or not I profited from the sale which would prevent a federal violation being an issue of contention. But with SB941 being enacted - if anyone caught with firearms I sold - I would be in violation of the background check.

 

[Provincial]

It doesn't go after law abiding citizens because the background check prevents law abiding citizens from being prosecuted. Now when enterprising individuals want to put a firearm into a felons hands without getting a background check, they can and will be prosecuted when the idiots they sell to get caught.

The lie here is that the law has no exemption for C&R FFL holders and CHL holders. Really, a flag on an Oregon Drivers License would be sufficient to meet the background check requirement (prohibited persons would have a ODL or ID with a flag indicating prohibited from owning firearms) if the seller was required to check ID.

Since these "common sense" approaches were rejected in favor of a registration scheme, it is clear what the agenda is.

It would be very easy to make failure to check ID a felony for repeat offenders. I'm pretty hard-nosed, so I would make it a death penalty offense.