Obviously not anti-gun, but am for private sale backround checks. Talk me out of it.

[wired]

There is no reason to shoot first when there is no sign of aggregation. Simply holding an inanimate object is not intent to do anything.

That is not how cops are trained. They were responding to an incident that they had been alerted to concerning an individual who was potentially suicidal and who at answered the door armed with a rifle KNOWING the police were at the door. You have no (zero) idea how he came to the door i.e. weapon raised or not. People commit suicide all the time even despondent veterans. Yes, it sucks but the police have procedures that they follow when confronted with a situation where there is an armed individual. They followed their procedures and dispatched what at the the time had become an armed threat.

 

[Riot]

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales.

Answer these first-

Question:
1) Do you think someone that is a prior felon or lives with a prior felon should not own a firearm?
2) Do you think that someone who is a prior felon or lives with a prior felon is not entitled to the same basic rights of self-defense?
3) Do you think that if someone is too dangerous to own a firearm (mental health, criminal history) should be placed on permanent supervision from the state, executed or incarcerated for life?
4) Do you consider firearms as tools designed to shot projectiles that can be used for hunting, plinking, target shooting and defense that can be mishandled or abused, or do you consider them weapons designed for killing?

If you already have pre-conceived notions on the above, then you're going to have the opinion that you're going to have on background checks and nothing anyone here tells you is going to convince you otherwise.

 

[IronMonster]

That is not how cops are trained. They were responding to an incident that they had been alerted to concerning an individual who was potentially suicidal and who at answered the door armed with a rifle KNOWING the police were at the door. You have no (zero) idea how he came to the door i.e. weapon raised or not. People commit suicide all the time even despondent veterans. Yes, it sucks but the police have procedures that they follow when confronted with a situation where there is an armed individual. They followed their procedures and dispatched what at the the time had become an armed threat.

I know that's the way it is, but it's not the way it should be. Cops are not special. Would it be right for a person to just shoot someone simply because they are holding a gun in a non threatining manner? With no contact? If it's not ok for you, it should not be standard procedure for LE

 

[RB87]

The thing I like most about it is most of the posters are making valid points, rather than just beating their chests, calling the other side names, and giving the lame old "take it from my cold dead hand" crap that turns fence sitters off. This is kind of what I was going for.

They cry of the moderate no longer sways me. I used to be one. Five to ten years ago I thought background checks and concealed carry licences made sense even if just to placate the worry worts who get too emotional about it. Hey, it might actually stop some crimes too! Its not a big deal, right? But then, we need more laws, because more laws will prevent more crimes. Ten round mags are ok but ten years later, its now seven rounds. Thats safer! Eggs are bad for you! Well, now we think they're ok, maybe even good for you! Saturated fats are bad! Trans-fats good! Twenty years later... trans-fats are bad!

You know what truly convinced me Phillyfan that they were wrong and liars? Looking at the history of gun control laws for the past 100 years and seeing a lot of similarities between those and drug laws. Oh and being called a wannabe rambo tin foil hatter for just owning a 12 gauge, a 22lr rifle and a pistol. "What do you need 1000 rounds for!? (of 22lr)"

These people are not considerate, they are not honorable, they are liars and they don't fight by the so called rules you do. Fence sitters who can't see this now likely never will. They're too dim or too brainwashed. I have no right to self-defense without a permit and a background check but any abortion laws are a violation of a woman's rights to choose what to do with her own body? Yet, the government has a tax right to create government run health insurance that you have to buy... where is the logic?

There is no logic there at all. I can't be that moderate or fence sitter anymore. For not jumping up and down in immediate agreement with the social justice warrior crowd I'm now the rude fringe reactionary. I'm the bigot for pointing out the rank hypocrisy of their beliefs or pointing out their lies on the actual statistics.

You and the SAF crowd can argue and play by the moderate rules all you want. You will lose. You have been slowly losing for 100 years. For every Heller and McDonald court ruling win, you get the 594s and ten round mag limits, ammo bans, import bans etc..

You want to win? Aka be left alone to live and let live? Fight back and stand up, otherwise they'll run you over eventually. Free speech used to be a big deal to all these concern troll leftists. Not so much now say when it comes to baking cakes and gay weddings.

 

[Phillyfan]

Really never try to talk people out of things or give advice. I never give advice as wise men don't need it and fools won't heed it. You can study and learn to be wise but a fool will always be a fool.

Not to get into a philosophical argument, but what about the majority of people who fall in between the extremes of wise man and fool?

Also, very few (probably none) are wise in all things. In that case a wise man would admit he is not an expert in a certain area and seek advice from someone who is.

Really off topic, but couldn't resist.

 

[3MTA3]

It's just one more step to registration and confiscation. You also have to know that there will be special "sin" taxes introduced like they do on tobacco and alcohol. Every time you breath out the constrictor tightens it up a notch until you can't breath in again. That is our future unless we stop it now.

 

[Phillyfan]

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.

I don't think you understand that the place I go through charges $30, but you can pay in cash. Please refer me to the guy charging $10, I have a credit card.

 

[Phillyfan]

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?

"4. How do you enforce background checks on private sales without a registry to keep track of the firearms?"

THIS, to me, is the big one. From most of the replies I have read so far, this seems to be the one that it really comes down to. And also from what I have read in your (meaning all of you) replies, I now admit that there were things that I was not considering and have changed my stance on the issue.

While I still believe in the idea of it, and the intent, the fact that it is basically a "back-door registration" is what kills it for me. Some posters had some very good ideas on how to get around that on here, and I would hope that policy and lawmakers would take the suggestions to heart. "There is more than one way to skin a cat." No, PETA, I will not be apologizing for that quote!

I thank you all for attacking the issue, and not me. It proves that the majority gun owners are nothing like the morons the media puts front and center every evening. Still very proud to be a member of this site.

 

[Just Jim]

So if the law doesn't bother you then think about how they will enforce it. They will have to set up buying and selling stings to make examples of people to get them in fear. As they sting people they will turn them against their gun loving friends to get them to sell without paper work. Soon nobody will trust even their own friends. It's the way they do things, look at Ruby Ridge as an example.

 

[Koda]

"4. How do you enforce background checks on private sales without a registry to keep track of the firearms?"

................Some posters had some very good ideas on how to get around that on here, and I would hope that policy and lawmakers would take the suggestions to heart.
..........

they will never take it to heart. I even emailed ceasefire oregon with this question regarding 941 and corresponded with Penny herself and she refused to admit it was a registration scheme yet she then claimed in the next paragraph the registration was needed to trace guns back to the purchaser if they are used in a crime.
I have zero faith they will take that to heart. because of this I'm convinced their hidden agenda is complete confiscation. There ARE ways to do this without registration, there are lots of ideas on the table they have all been thrown out. What these people believe is there is no reason anyone needs an AR15 (etc.) or standard capacity magazines or even to carry a pistol in public.

While I still believe in the idea of it, and the intent, the fact that it is basically a "back-door registration" is what kills it for me.

I have not problem with a background check system that does not include make model or serial number or even if the transaction took place. Nothing about a persons background has anything to do with the sale. Hes either prohibited from possessing the item or not.

 

[Phillyfan]

I had to make an account after reading this--so i guess, hello.

You say you're pro-gun. But what does that mean to you? I would challenge you not adhere to labels when defining your position, but to concrete ideas. "I respect the natural rights of all men, so I support the right to keep and bear arms." "I support gun ownership because it's in the constitution and I like guns." Just some meaningful stance, whatever that may be because being pro-gun probably means something a little different to everyone. It might seem frivolous, but clearly defining your stance is an important first step to having a meaningful discussion, but I don't want to dwell on that.

If a man sells a gun and follows all of the appropriate laws--whatever they are, in this case imagine he gets a background check for his party--and the man he sells it to uses it for a crime, is he responsible? He sold him the gun, just because he followed the law doesn't mean he shouldn't feel guilty for arming a dangerous person for compensation. Regardless if the government messed up the background check or the man had no previous crimes, if the man truly cared about keeping guns away from people he didn't trust, he would never sell them.

Everything you do in life is based on trusting the people around you. You drive down the street at 45 mph against another man driving 45 mph only separated by a few feet. There is nothing stopping them from causing a wreck. You buy meat at the store trusting it has been properly packed while the store trusts you're not going to rob them. I can keep going, but I think it's clear. Everything you do with every person has an element of trust involved. All a background check does is give you a government approved reason not to trust someone--although I have more to say about that.

1.
When you sell a gun to a stranger who later commits a crime, you shouldn't feel any better because you got the government stamp of approval.

By that reasoning if you have no reason to trust anyone unless the government said they'll take the blame.
Sure if you don't trust someone, take the appropriate measures to ensure you work with them responsibly, but realize those measures are not the same for you life long friend as it is the guy who responded to your armslist posting. In the end, building trust with your neighborhood will move mountains more than any background check.

One final thing. Think about how you got interested in hunting/shooting/collecting/whatever. Assuming you've bought in a private sale before, somewhere at some point, someone looked at you and trusted you. They put their faith in you by selling their gun to you. UBC's can persuade people on the fence of getting into firearm ownership away from it. Maybe because they saw a therapist when their parents separated 15 years ago and they're afraid of being denied. Maybe they don't want to invest the time and money waiting to buy from a close friend. Maybe people will be less willing to sell to newcomers because they don't want to take the time to go to an ffl. This will lead to the future community of firearm owners being smaller, which means less political power.

2.
Ensuring that people have easy access to guns is important to the future of everyone, not just gun owners.

First, let me welcome you to the site. It is the best that I have encountered on the gun-net. Members for the most part are respectful, and very helpful. Hope you stick with us.

You start with, "You say you're pro-gun." I never said that. What I said was that I am "obviously not anti-gun." We agree that "pro-gun" means different things to different people. I consider it a spectrum. Some here may consider me anti-gun just for starting this thread, for example.

In your first scenario, I've done all I can do to ensure that my firearm doesn't fall into the hands of someone who should not have it. Whether or not I should still feel guilty is a personal opinion. I may or may not, back to the spectrum, depends on your make-up as a person.

After five pages of great reasons to oppose BGC's and this person hasn't capitulated, I tend to believe that this persons mind was already made up (pro BGC, pro infringement of lawful citizens) when they started this thread and they just wanted to see what kind of uproar they could cause.
I also believe that no matter what we say, this person will never admit

and that this person has already contacted their legislators and the email/letter/phone call started with
thus feleing the fire and trying to doom us all.


As for the "Obviously not anti-gun", I think the below quote answers it


Then why are you supporting this? To burden law abiding citizens?

I think we've already proved that we are seriously "doing what we can" by being law abiding citizens...


Ray


Post Script, I may be wrong about "Phillyfan"'s motives, but if this person can prove me wrong, then I have no problem apologizing. It wouldn't be the first time (and given my reputation) it won't be the last.


Ray

 

[Phillyfan]

After five pages of great reasons to oppose BGC's and this person hasn't capitulated, I tend to believe that this persons mind was already made up (pro BGC, pro infringement of lawful citizens) when they started this thread and they just wanted to see what kind of uproar they could cause.
I also believe that no matter what we say, this person will never admit

and that this person has already contacted their legislators and the email/letter/phone call started with
thus feleing the fire and trying to doom us all.


As for the "Obviously not anti-gun", I think the below quote answers it


Then why are you supporting this? To burden law abiding citizens?

I think we've already proved that we are seriously "doing what we can" by being law abiding citizens...


Ray


Post Script, I may be wrong about "Phillyfan"'s motives, but if this person can prove me wrong, then I have no problem apologizing. It wouldn't be the first time (and given my reputation) it won't be the last.


Ray

Hilarious! Just got to this one. Ray, I did capitulate a few posts ago. I apologize for letting this go longer than it should have, you all actually changed my mind very early on. I just wanted to see where this would go. And also wanted to prove that this conversation can be had without personal/political attacks. For the most part I think it has been very successful.

Take care and GOD bless.

 

[Phillyfan]

So as my final post on this subject I'd like to thank everyone for caring enough to put in your 2 cents (for some it was more like a quarter or Suzanne B Anthony, and kudos to them). The thing I'd like everyone to take from this is to take a look at some of the very well thought out and cited responses. The most affective posts are those that speak directly to the issue, without the slams, insults, and assumptions about the opposition.

I get so frustrated when reading the comments on gun related subjects on Oregonlive.com. The anti-gunners call us gun nuts, and many of the pro-gunners take the bait and make themselves look exactly like what the other side thinks we are with there responses. We are better than that, and it is easy to prove our point without attacking. The fence sitters are the way to win the battle (we need to win them over), and I believe the way to get them is to resort to reason, factual data, and the constitution. The more reasonable, calm, and intelligent we seem the better.

Thanks, again, guys. This was awesome.

 

[Uberdillo]

I don't think you understand that the place I go through charges $30, but you can pay in cash. Please refer me to the guy charging $10, I have a credit card.

No, that was pretty clear from the beginning which is in fact the reason for me writing a reply in the first place. I was pointing out something that was either a misunderstanding or a straw-man argument. There's no reason to be patronizing.

Regardless, that "guy" is the Oregon State Police, casually referred to as OSP. "He" or she is the one doing the background checks in cooperation with the FBI. A couple seconds to google search Oregon background checks would have revealed all of this to you or anyone wanting to transfer a firearm to a private party:

FICS Instant Check (And Stolen Gun Checks) 1-800-432-5059

Local Alternate FICS Instant Check Number (For use when cell phone does not allow an 800 number) 503-585-6245

Challenge/Information line (for denied, delayed transactions or inquiries) 503-373-1808

FICS Unit Manager 503-934-2330

FICS Unit Supervisor 503-934-2364

OSP Firearms Instant Check Fax 503-370-8584

 

[bnsaibum]

I don't think you understand that the place I go through charges $30, but you can pay in cash. Please refer me to the guy charging $10, I have a credit card.

That would be the OSP. The same ones you probably should have been calling already to assuage your feelings on the matter at hand when you sold firearm/s to a private party.

Edit: Uberdillo beat me to it, and with important information. Thanks Uberdillo.

 

[CoastRange57]

Simple solution to me...do not sell any guns. I buy guns, but have a hard item selling them.

 

[bnsaibum]

FICS Instant Check (And Stolen Gun Checks) 1-800-432-5059

I think it would be important to note that the call is free, not the background check.

 

[wired]

I know that's the way it is, but it's not the way it should be. Cops are not special. Would it be right for a person to just shoot someone simply because they are holding a gun in a non threatining manner? With no contact? If it's not ok for you, it should not be standard procedure for LE

What the hell are you talking about? The cops were alerted to a mentally ill suicidal person. They responded to the call and were met by that reported suicidal person holding a gun. No one knows whether he was pointing that gun at the cops but the fact that he responded to the police with a firearm is reason enough to shoot the dumb bastard. Cops arent special? Do plumbers go to stop mentally ill people holding firearms? Yes he was a veteran . Yes he was having a real bad day but cops do actually have to do some stuff that the rest of us pay them to do so we don't have to and they really like to go home at the end of the day. One of those things they do is respond to calls of mentally ill suicidal people holding firearms. Put the gun down when confronted by police and you don't get shot. Pretty GD simple. I could see one of the idiots I knew in the Army doing something stupid like that but PTSD or not I expect more from a former captain.

 

[Phillyfan]

No, that was pretty clear from the beginning which is in fact the reason for me writing a reply in the first place. I was pointing out something that was either a misunderstanding or a straw-man argument. There's no reason to be patronizing.

Regardless, that "guy" is the Oregon State Police, casually referred to as OSP. "He" or she is the one doing the background checks in cooperation with the FBI. A couple seconds to google search Oregon background checks would have revealed all of this to you or anyone wanting to transfer a firearm to a private party:

FICS Instant Check (And Stolen Gun Checks) 1-800-432-5059

Local Alternate FICS Instant Check Number (For use when cell phone does not allow an 800 number) 503-585-6245

Challenge/Information line (for denied, delayed transactions or inquiries) 503-373-1808

FICS Unit Manager 503-934-2330

FICS Unit Supervisor 503-934-2364

OSP Firearms Instant Check Fax 503-370-8584

Good info, thanks

 

[IronMonster]

What the hell are you talking about? The cops were alerted to a mentally ill suicidal person. They responded to the call and were met by that reported suicidal person holding a gun. No one knows whether he was pointing that gun at the cops but the fact that he responded to the police with a firearm is reason enough to shoot the dumb bastard. Cops arent special? Do plumbers go to stop mentally ill people holding firearms? Yes he was a veteran . Yes he was having a real bad day but cops do actually have to do some stuff that the rest of us pay them to do so we don't have to and they really like to go home at the end of the day. One of those things they do is respond to calls of mentally ill suicidal people holding firearms. Put the gun down when confronted by police and you don't get shot. Pretty GD simple. I could see one of the idiots I knew in the Army doing something stupid like that but PTSD or not I expect more from a former captain.

Exactly, the cops where alerted to HELP a mentally ill suicidal person, whom they executed without even making contact.