Always cite your sources. I found this one, but it's from 2001, I'm not sure if there's a newer one or not.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Obviously not anti-gun, but am for private sale backround checks. Talk me out of it.
- Thread Starter Phillyfan
- Start date
Always cite your sources. I found this one, but it's from 2001, I'm not sure if there's a newer one or not.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
That's the latest one. But again, if this is such a "problem" that it demands restrictions on rights, surely there would be a bevy of properly researched and peer-reviewed reports illustrating the "problem." There aren't.
Country to popular belief very new gun sold is registered and every gun sold under a background check is to. Even though under law the State Police are supposed to get rid of that of the information they keep it.
I don't know that it's contrary to popular belief, per ORS 166, the local police receive a copy of your form 4473 for each purchase, and the OSP keeps a log for at least five years, but I don't believe that they actually delete them like they're supposed to.
Just sent another email to them, I hope that I'm getting obnoxious.
A 2001 study by the DOJ, I know it's outdated, but I'm not sure if there's a newer one available, shows that a survey of state and federal correctional facilities of inmates that used firearms during a crime, the majority of criminals got their guns from the following sources:
Per the 2001 study, the numbers are from 1997 (numbers are from the DOJ and don't equal 100%)
13.9% passed a background check.
39.6% used a straw purchase to have a friend or family member illegally purchase them with a background check.
39.2% either stole them or purchased them from the street.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
I realize that the numbers are from 2001, that said, the violent crime rate has been on a decreasing trend since then.
In 1994, the violent crime rate was 713.6 and in 2013, the violent crime rate was 367.9, this rate has decreased year over year. Since 2001, no federal laws have been put in place making it tougher for criminals to get firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls
As you can see above from the older study, criminals either pass background checks, or they have someone else pass a background check for them, which is illegal per federal law.
A 2001 study by the DOJ, I know it's outdated, but I'm not sure if there's a newer one available, shows that a survey of state and federal correctional facilities of inmates that used firearms during a crime, the majority of criminals got their guns from the following sources:
Per the 2001 study, the numbers are from 1997 (numbers are from the DOJ and don't equal 100%)
13.9% passed a background check.
39.6% used a straw purchase to have a friend or family member illegally purchase them with a background check.
39.2% either stole them or purchased them from the street.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
I realize that the numbers are from 2001, that said, the violent crime rate has been on a decreasing trend since then.
In 1994, the violent crime rate was 713.6 and in 2013, the violent crime rate was 367.9, this rate has decreased year over year. Since 2001, no federal laws have been put in place making it tougher for criminals to get firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls
As you can see above from the older study, criminals either pass background checks, or they have someone else pass a background check for them, which is illegal per federal law.
I know they don't delete as required by law as some FFLs have caught them using records supposed to be deleted when going through the FFLs books. When confronted about it and asked "shouldn't those records have been deleted?" all he got for an answer was a smile. How you going to hold them accountable, they are the law?
- Messages
- 711
- Reactions
- 553
Here is a simple solution that works pretty well. If you want to do a background check to make your self feel better you should totally do it.
However dont force it onto other people if others dont want to then who cares. In realty the likelihood of the person your selling it too using it in a crime is small if you do your due diligence.
The police dont recover guns based on a registry, or paper trail. That only comes in handy after they find it. The probability is high that the offender will still have the weapon is also high. So there's another way a background check or registration wouldn't matter.
If you keep a copy of the bill of sale of the police ever are able to trace the paperwork to you. Simply show them the bill of sale and you have helped find the guy
Ta da it all worked out without any need for a background or registration.
However dont force it onto other people if others dont want to then who cares. In realty the likelihood of the person your selling it too using it in a crime is small if you do your due diligence.
The police dont recover guns based on a registry, or paper trail. That only comes in handy after they find it. The probability is high that the offender will still have the weapon is also high. So there's another way a background check or registration wouldn't matter.
If you keep a copy of the bill of sale of the police ever are able to trace the paperwork to you. Simply show them the bill of sale and you have helped find the guy
Ta da it all worked out without any need for a background or registration.
- Messages
- 3,267
- Reactions
- 4,909
The Anti Folks decline to allow for any other options.
So much for co-operation
Such as, branding a Felon's id. Only the felon is inconvenienced.
True, time served, but the law says a convicted felon may not possess firearms.
The Anti Folks will yoke and hobble you and any other citizen willing to renounce their right.
So much for co-operation
Such as, branding a Felon's id. Only the felon is inconvenienced.
True, time served, but the law says a convicted felon may not possess firearms.
The Anti Folks will yoke and hobble you and any other citizen willing to renounce their right.
- Messages
- 6,124
- Reactions
- 13,918
Well said,
I would add one more thing.
There is also a DOJ report that shows 42% of background applicants who are either directly denied or delayed and later denied and appeal the deny are found upon further investigation not to be a prohibited person.
Let that sink in.
About a two months ago I went in to purchase a handgun and was given a delay, roughly 10 days later I was informed that I had received a deny.
I have a CPL and am not a prohibited person, matter of fact I bought two firearms this week, both transactions where given a quick proceed.
Investigation into my deny suggests there was a recent paperwork error at the state level that affected NICS. It was easily rectified but I had to hire a lawyer to get the state to update the record. The court simply ignores you, without a lawyer I may have never been figured out what happened. None of the people you talk to at the ATF or even the state are interested in helping.
Could you imagine being me in Oregon, getting a deny, having the cops show up. I go to jail, all my firearms confiscated, being unable to do the work to figure out what the hell happend because I am locked up. Only later finding out some entry level clerk had simply put an x in the wrong file? My life a wreck, family heirloom rifles damaged because a uncaring cop tossing then unprotected in the back of an SUV.
On top of that. Do I need to now do a background check on each of my 40+ firearms to take possession? Under Wasington law I would.
Because that scenario is far more likely than a gun being kept out of the hands of a bad guy. The bag guy knows he can't pass a background check. He simply buys one of the dozens on the street that are stolen or got by ill gotten means.
Again by the DOJ's own figures 42% of those denied during a background check are subsequently found to not be a prohibited person.
Upon sharing my story I found countless other non prohibited persons who have also received denys. One who is a class 3 FFL!
- Messages
- 3,267
- Reactions
- 4,909
"citizen willing to renounce their right"
hence the Washington gun owners with signs saying "I will not comply"
hence the Washington gun owners with signs saying "I will not comply"
The UBC's are a bad idea for the exact same reasons as "gun free zones" are. At the end of the day, it does absolutely nothing because anyone with ill intent can so easily choose to ignore it that it may as well not exist in the first place. At the same time, this creates an additional expense and burden for people who are not the problem. As has been stated in this thread a few times over, the overwhelming majority of guns in criminal hands are either stolen, or bought illegally from sellers who probably make their living off selling to criminals (in fact, these guns are also pretty much all stolen). Does anyone honestly believe a 17-year-old with two felonies and a gang member dealing in stolen guns are both going agree to head to their nearest FFL to run a background check before conducting their transaction?
Furthermore, it's an example of the non-sequitur thinking behind a lot of gun control efforts. They pretty much want to institute all of the gun control they can regardless of its irrelevance to preventing any crimes. For instance, the big push for UBC's occurred after mass shootings for which the guns had either been stolen from people who did pass background checks or committed by people who passed background checks. If UBC's had been in effect at the time, everything that happened would still have happened. It comes from this nonsensical idea that "doing something" that will accomplish nothing is somehow better than doing either nothing or doing something that might actually help.
Furthermore, it's an example of the non-sequitur thinking behind a lot of gun control efforts. They pretty much want to institute all of the gun control they can regardless of its irrelevance to preventing any crimes. For instance, the big push for UBC's occurred after mass shootings for which the guns had either been stolen from people who did pass background checks or committed by people who passed background checks. If UBC's had been in effect at the time, everything that happened would still have happened. It comes from this nonsensical idea that "doing something" that will accomplish nothing is somehow better than doing either nothing or doing something that might actually help.
- Messages
- 259
- Reactions
- 196
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html
" ...The Facts
The Brady law — named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary James Brady, who was gravely wounded in an assassination attempt on the president — requires federally licensed firearms sellers to check whether a purchaser is prohibited from owning a gun because of a criminal history. Generally, this is done through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) through either the FBI or state agencies.
All told, in 2010, the FBI and state agencies denied a firearm to nearly 153,000 people via the NICS system. To keep things simple, we will focus on the FBI, using a report on the 2010 data by Ronald J. Frandsen of the Regional Justice Information Service.
About 99 percent of people who apply to buy a firearm are quickly cleared. But about 1 to 2 percent are denied, mainly because the records show that he or she has a felony indictment or conviction. The data also show that about 5 percent successfully appeal their denials.
Applications: 6,037,394
FBI denials: 72,659 (1.2 percent)
Appeals 16,513 (22.7 percent)
Successful appeals 3,491 (4.77 percent of denials)
The main reason listed for a denial is a felony conviction or indictment. Here are some of the key reasons:
Felony: 34,459 (47.4 percent)
Fugitive: 13,862 (19.1 percent)
State law prohibition: 7,666 (10.6 percent)
Drug use/addiction: 6,971 (9.6 percent)
But here is where it gets complicated. After a review by an arm of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), only a tiny percentage of the cases are actually referred to ATF field divisions for possible referral to prosecutors. Here are the data for 2010 concerning FBI denials.
FBI denials referred to ATF: 76,142
Referred to field: 4,732 (6.2 percent)
Not referred to field: 68,209 (89.6 percent)
Overturned: 3,163 (4.2 percent)
At first glance, these numbers seemed astonishing. In other words, another 4 percent of initial denials were found to be wrong — and nine out of 10 were not deemed worthy of further investigation.
Then, virtually all of these cases were declined by ATF field offices. Here are some of the key reasons, with essentially one-quarter being a case of mistaken denial — even after weeks of investigation.
No prosecutorial merit: 1,661
Federal/state guidelines not met: 1,092
Not a prohibited person: 480
Closed by supervisor: 457
No potential or unfounded: 396
In the end, 62 cases were referred for prosecution, but most were declined by prosecutors or dismissed by the court. Out of the original 73,000 denials, there emerge just 13 guilty pleas...."
I'm certain that your "42%" figure is a deliberate underestimate on the DoJ's part. If that 99.9+ % error rate can disallow so many legal purchasers incorrectly, I'm just as certain that the system is capable erring on the side of allowing just as many prohibited persons to buy.
If the error rate had been improved to anywhere near 42%, there would be many more people sitting in courtrooms and jails, i.e. the Fryberg father, and we would be hearing about it.
- Messages
- 5,370
- Reactions
- 7,753
This whole thing reminds me of the quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller. Even the author has rewritten it many times, so I don't feel guilty of doing so here. Please understand that the original dealt with Nazi Germany and the treatment of the Jewish people and I am in no way shape or form comparing the two struggles.
First they came for the "assault weapons", and I did not stand up.
Because I did not like or own "assault weapons".
Then they came for the standard capacity magazines, and I did not stand up.
Because I didn't feel the need for more than ten rounds.
Then they came for my semi-auto pistols, and I did not stand up.
Because all I had was my hunting rifle.
Then they came for the private sales, and I did not stand up.
Because I used a dealer anyway.
Then they came for a universal registration, and I did not stand up.
Because I figured it wouldn't hurt.
Then they came for all the rest of my guns—and there was no one left to stand with me.
Either all gun owners come together and present a united front, or the above won't just be a quote. It will be a premonition.
The problem is that if you give this government an inch, they will take a mile. They have proved it time and time again on gun control as well as a number of other policies. All this bill will lead to is a universal registration, which can only lead to confiscation. It isn't paranoia if it's true...
First they came for the "assault weapons", and I did not stand up.
Because I did not like or own "assault weapons".
Then they came for the standard capacity magazines, and I did not stand up.
Because I didn't feel the need for more than ten rounds.
Then they came for my semi-auto pistols, and I did not stand up.
Because all I had was my hunting rifle.
Then they came for the private sales, and I did not stand up.
Because I used a dealer anyway.
Then they came for a universal registration, and I did not stand up.
Because I figured it wouldn't hurt.
Then they came for all the rest of my guns—and there was no one left to stand with me.
Either all gun owners come together and present a united front, or the above won't just be a quote. It will be a premonition.
The problem is that if you give this government an inch, they will take a mile. They have proved it time and time again on gun control as well as a number of other policies. All this bill will lead to is a universal registration, which can only lead to confiscation. It isn't paranoia if it's true...
- Messages
- 259
- Reactions
- 196
I don't think that you understand that it currently only costs $10 to do a background check on someone, but you are required to have a credit card. Not everyone that owns a gun and wants to sell it can (or should be required to) have one. Why would we want to pay MORE for the same service that's already available even in the ideal situation where it was simply mandated? Why provide real dicincentive for compliance? If we all believed this would work as much as the other side fantasizes about, we'd be PAYING sellers to perform background checks if there was any conceivable way to ensure they wouldn't abuse the system.
- Messages
- 370
- Reactions
- 299
Well I think most of these guy's have it covered. I live in Wa. and can tell you it killed the used gun market here. A few still come up but not nearly as much as before which I hate because I love buying older firearms. I recently purchased a out of state used firearm and never will again, their are things you cannot see in pic's. The shipping and FFL costs kill a great deal. My FFL is a very old school gentleman and he does not do out of state used firearm transfers anymore because of the hassle. For the ease of the seller I had it shipped to my local Cabella's which was a huge mistake, 4 hours of wait time, a total of 7 guys picked the pistol up and inspected/handled and sneered at it. Called it a paper weight and useless right to my face. If I was not a very patient man and had money invested I would have walked straight out never to return. By the way I have my concealed permit which at least there did not speed anything up. Do yourself a favor and fight this tooth and nail because the only people it is going to effect is YOU!
- Messages
- 74
- Reactions
- 70
So true. The government wants to place as many people in prohibited categories as possible, so more laws and "mental illnesses" will continue to appear out of thin air.
1. Charging a fee to exercise a right is a poll-tax, imagine if we had a fee and approval process to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of religion reserved by the 1st ammendment
2. The last time I filled out a 4473, the process to get approved took over 2hrs at around 2pm on a weekday. Many people have expiericened delays of days, weeks, or even months while holding FFL or CHL licenses (already had a bg check).
A right delayed is a right denied - MLK JR
3. 4473's ask the person in question if they use marijuana, you are denied even if you have a medical marijuana card. The ATF form 4473 and background check process is at odds with Oregon's values and law. With SB941 how will Medical Marijuana and (after 07/15) Recreational users exercise their federal and state constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. We place none of these restrictions on the users of alcohol or prescribed medications.
4. How do you enforce background checks on private sales without a registry to keep track of the firearms?
2. The last time I filled out a 4473, the process to get approved took over 2hrs at around 2pm on a weekday. Many people have expiericened delays of days, weeks, or even months while holding FFL or CHL licenses (already had a bg check).
A right delayed is a right denied - MLK JR
3. 4473's ask the person in question if they use marijuana, you are denied even if you have a medical marijuana card. The ATF form 4473 and background check process is at odds with Oregon's values and law. With SB941 how will Medical Marijuana and (after 07/15) Recreational users exercise their federal and state constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. We place none of these restrictions on the users of alcohol or prescribed medications.
4. How do you enforce background checks on private sales without a registry to keep track of the firearms?
Last Edited:
