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

OFF alert

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by pokerace, Jul 3, 2014.

  1. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    753
    This is outrageous..!!


    1.jpg
    Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
    .
    06.27.14
    Governor Kitzhaber Gears Up For Universal Background Checks In 2015


    OFF recently learned that the Oregon State Police have a new policy dealing with firearms purchase denials. Gun dealers in Oregon were sent a letterfrom the State Police telling them of a revision in OSP policy and stating: "This revision will include enforcement action involving persons attempting an unlawful firearms transfer through a licensed firearm dealer, during a voluntary private party check or a background check at a gun show." We were also informed thatthe State Police had sent a bulletin to troopers informing them of this policy, but were unable to acquire a copy until now.You can see that bulletin here.


    Note that the bulletin says the following:
    (Emphasis added.)
    FICS will report the Denial of a Firearm Transaction to OSP Dispatch.
    The incident will be dispatched as a call for service,including suspect name,dealer location,and reason for denial. Sworn personnel will respond and take appropriate enforcement action.
    After enforcement is completed, OSP personnel will clear the CAD call with a reportable clearance code.
    Investigative consideration- The statutes above require you to prove the suspect"knowingly"was aware they are not qualified for these transactions. The suspect's culpable mental state will need to be determined.

    OFF has now spoken to two persons who attempted firearms purchases, were denied and had State Troopers dispatched to "investigate."


    In the first instance, this Wednesday, a buyer was attempting to purchase a pistol and the dealer received a notice of a "delay" on his computer terminal.

    Oddly, the "delay" provided no estimate of when the OSP expected to have the issue resolved, so the dealer called OSP and was told "We are working on it." The dealer asked the customer to wait (hoping for an approval)and then a State Trooper arrived looking for the customer.

    The trooper took the customer to the parking lot for an "investigation" where the trooper explained he did not know the specific reason for the denial. He was only told the customer had a "Federal ping" for mental health issues. The customer told the trooper that he had never been involuntarily committed as the law requires for such a denial.

    We were told by both the dealer and the customer that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and was clearly not comfortable being pulled off patrol for this "call for service."


    The trooper reported that the new rule came directly from the Governor. The customer was not arrested or further detained. No action was taken against him but he was denied the purchase.


    A similar event took place yesterday. A customer attempted a purchase and was denied.


    The customer had no idea why, as he had purchased firearms in the past and even had had a concealed handgun license.


    After leaving the store, a State Trooper came to the business looking for the customer. The trooper then went to the home of the customer.

    The trooper told the customer that he did not know why he had been dispatched and had no record of any criminal history of the "suspect."
    Again, the report from the denied party was that the trooper was professional and apologetic for the intrusion and that the trooper informed him that this new policy was directly from the Governor.

    Again, there was no arrest, and no action was taken against the customer. But of course, once again a State Trooper was removed from patrol to "investigate" a person who was attempting to purchase a firearm when there was no evidence that the buyer was attempting an illegal purchase.


    We believe this policy is a prelude to another attempt to require universal background checks in the coming legislative session.

    You will recall that when Floyd Prozanski attempted to pass this in 2014, he was ridiculed because it was well known that when a person failed a background check as the result of past felonies there was virtually never any police action or prosecutions. So, to respond to that criticism and lay the ground work for a new bill, the Governor has ordered State Police to leave patrols to respond to every denial, no matter how unjustified.

    The two buyers we spoke to were lucky. They were not hauled off to jail pending completion of an "investigation." But both had to deal with the embarrassment of being detained and questioned by the State Police. (One in front of his children.)


    This new policy illuminates the failures in the background check system and is nothing more than another politically motivated attack on gun owners. Furthermore, it's an outrageous misuse of scarce police resources. The State Police have long complained about being understaffed. Now they are being dragged off of traffic patrols to enforce what at very least should be handled by local cops.

    Please remember, if you become the subject of one of these "investigations" you are not required to answer any questions without the advice of a lawyer.
     
  2. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    Well---that's interesting. It sort of sounds like maybe they are going to actually go after and
    prosecute people that try to purchase and are not allowed to purchase for whatever reason.
    Not sure that is a bad thing----felons etc that are denied after they lied on a 4473 should
    be arrested!

    The other side of the coin is that there are pile of denials/delays that are for BS reasons.
    Similar name, system overload, whatever. Sounds like it will put a pretty heavy load on
    OSP--and they are far from overstaffed.
     
  3. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,092
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    I agree with you 100% Bill. There was a previous thread on this, but questions remained as to if a redress number was issued and the final outcome. I fully agree that there needs to be an investigation, but there also needs to be rapid resolution of problems caused by errors in the system.
     
  4. coyote223

    coyote223 NW Oregon Stamp Collector,,,

    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    512
    That was one of the concerns that was brought up at the hearing. I guess kitslobber has a pen and a phone, just like king barry,,,,
     
  5. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    2,684
    The creep from Salem would sooner have a sloooooow resolution. First it takes additional manpower which allows said creep to add more coppers and blab that the hold-up is because unqualified people are jamming the system. 2nd, slow resolution may have a tendency to dissuade law abiding people from buying firearms . . .

    If you don't believe that is in his liberal pea brain. You are foolish indeed.

    Sheldon
     
  6. WillametteWill

    WillametteWill Willamette Valley Active Member

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    134
    Good to hear the troopers were professional...and dimed off the Governor for the new policy. I agree with other posts that it is good to actually catch bad guys trying to buy guns illegally, but you cannot just send an officer with no info and say investigate when they have no information regarding the reason for the refusal. For one thing it is not safe for the officers. After the first 100 when nothing happens I would hate to have one of the officers walk into a situation with an armed felon trying to buy another gun.

    Once again, politicians not thinking out the ramifications of a policy before it is put in place.
     
  7. Sstrand

    Sstrand La Grande OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    2,684
    Can you say harassment??

    Sheldon
     
    orygun likes this.
  8. FortRock

    FortRock Bend/Salem, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    311
    The natural evolution of this will be acquiring Federal funds to create regional 4 or 6-man "rapid response teams" to go out every time there is a delay or denial. These occur daily. RRT's would eliminate the officer safety issue and prevent taking our road guys off patrol. I agree with investigating bad guys trying to have guns, but they rarely attempt buying guns through legal means. Tough balancing act, but it is a bit difficult to trust our "politicians".
     
    WillametteWill likes this.
  9. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    I can see it now. An MRAP pulls up in front of the gun store and 6 black-clad storm troopers pile out, get in formation, and batter down the gun store's front door, while another team covers the back door. Next come the flash-bangs and 187 rounds fired at random into the shop. Once the scene is secured and it's safe for officers to enter, they won't even have to question anybody. It'll be a moot point.
     
  10. FortRock

    FortRock Bend/Salem, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    311
    at least flash-bangs and a little gas....and Justice will have been served....peace and dignity of the State of Oregon... (reference Markus Bracken....Foreign And Domestic)....
     
    cooper likes this.
  11. pokerace

    pokerace Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    753
    The Governor is looking for a case to prosecute as an example for the new law.
     
  12. FortRock

    FortRock Bend/Salem, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    311
    actually....it is a new "policy" based on existing law. Timing is interesting though. I think it was a feel good response to the Troutdale school incident.
     
  13. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Maybe the tables should get turned a little bit. How about prosecuting HIM for violating the law himself, namely ORS 181.400:

    "181.400 Interference with personal and property rights of others. No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime, or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes. [Amended by 1971 c.467 §25; 1991 c.145 §1]"

    An officer who is told by the Governor to go "interfere" with a gun transaction without "probable cause" to believe there is a crime to prevent, is being told by the governor to go break the law. Is this actionable? It sure looks like it when you look at Article 1, Section 22 of the Oregon Constitution:

    "Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

    Maybe the State Police should express their apologies to those they have wrongfully "interfered" with by going down and knocking on the Governor's office door to investigate his overt violation of 181.400. The governor should also be afraid of a jury if they are informed of their rights as jurors under Article 1, Section 16 (see underlined emphasis):

    "Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

    Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution is Oregon's "Bill of Rights". Notice how Oregon jurors not only have a civic duty to "determine the law", but a "right" to "determine the law". When was the last time anyone on this site served as a juror and was informed by the judge that the jury gets to "determine the law"?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
    bnsaibum likes this.
  14. parallax

    parallax eugene, or-gun Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    408
    this needs to be stopped, or its going to have a negative impact on gun stores. nobody is going to want to get hassled if they want to buy a gun. and business for gun stores is going to dry up… just like the governor is planning.