JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
This is specific to Oregon, related to SB941 from 2015. I asked my state Senator and Representative - Girod and Gilliam, respectively - if they'd consider introducing legislation that'd add CHL holders to the list of exemptions for doing background checks on private party firearm sales. Girod is going to do so, and Gilliam said he'd support it if it makes it over to the House side.

In my (humble) opinion, getting rid of SB 941 isn't going to happen in Oregon's current political climate. But a CHL holder exemption might make it. And as you all probably already know, the background check for CHL is more stringent than the instant check. Adding this exemption may even assuage gun control people's fears that folks aren't complying with the overall law.

There won't be an official Bill number until at least January, but I'd just like to encourage folks to contact their state Senators and Reps and ask them to support or even co-sponsor it.
 
This sounds great on the surface...but... I'll offer one caveat.

If transactions are tied to getting a CHL, we need to make sure they don't try to burden them with extra conditions. This could load down the CHL application / renewal process, since having one would then bypass the current requirements for transfer. Kind of like opening Pandora's Box. The Dem's would love to get the excuse to throw in some monkey wrenches. You don't get anything for nothing...especially from Salem.

At present, we have a fairly painless process to maintain a CHL. Do we really want endanger that just to streamline occasional purchases ? o_O
 
It has been my understanding that the BGC fee's are not a profitable endeavor for the state the cost of staffing and such. Thats why they were looking at the big increase in cost a while back trying to get something out of it.
 
It was reported here that right after SB 941 passed, several members had been digging into the C&R exemption and the CHL exemption. These ideas were presented during the SB 941 discussion and specifically excluded. They knew full well they could include those exemptions and chose not to allow them. Why? Well, most likely to punish us, of course. In fact, I think it was Prozanski's office that confirmed they specifically didn't want to allow those exclusions.

I would love to see something positive come our way, and good on the OP for bringing this forward, but with the opposition in majority right now, I won't hold my breath that they'll be able to make it happen. Brown has promised more gun control for us in 2017, and giving exemptions to us will only work against her rabid anti-gun agenda.
 
It was reported here that right after SB 941 passed, several members had been digging into the C&R exemption and the CHL exemption. These ideas were presented during the SB 941 discussion and specifically excluded. They knew full well they could include those exemptions and chose not to allow them. Why? Well, most likely to punish us, of course. In fact, I think it was Prozanski's office that confirmed they specifically didn't want to allow those exclusions.

I would love to see something positive come our way, and good on the OP for bringing this forward, but with the opposition in majority right now, I won't hold my breath that they'll be able to make it happen. Brown has promised more gun control for us in 2017, and giving exemptions to us will only work against her rabid anti-gun agenda.
Sound like the perfect reason to push for it.
 
This sounds great on the surface...but... I'll offer one caveat.

If transactions are tied to getting a CHL, we need to make sure they don't try to burden them with extra conditions. This could load down the CHL application / renewal process, since having one would then bypass the current requirements for transfer. Kind of like opening Pandora's Box. The Dem's would love to get the excuse to throw in some monkey wrenches. You don't get anything for nothing...especially from Salem.

At present, we have a fairly painless process to maintain a CHL. Do we really want endanger that just to streamline occasional purchases ? o_O
Not sure how any additional requirements would apply. The purpose is to replace redundancy with a stronger security requirement. Passing the CHL background check means that you have been subjected to review by the FBI, Oregon State Police, and local Sheriffs Department. Any "Texas Floyd" type of additional requirements are irrelevant to the discussion.

Doesn't mean that there won't be attempts to add requirements to the CHL, just pointing out that they are not germane to this discussion.
 
These are all valid arguments. I do think, however, that it's worthwhile to also contact our state Senator and Rep and ask them to support it. I'll admit that I live in a relatively small district and both my representatives are Republican, and probably more responsive than average.

I see it as similar to word coming out that half of the protestors in PDX recently didn't even vote, and half of those weren't even registered. We can discuss here, and that's great. I think it's also important to participate in the process. We do that when we vote, sure, but we can also write our representatives, give testimony at committee hearings, etc. And I'll even go on the say that when we do so, we can avoid being hostile and angry or whatever. I've watched some of those hearings. When someone is calm and reasonable, they're more likely to listen. But when we wig out, they tend to tune out. Some of them also respond to tear jerker stories, FWIW.
 
These are all valid arguments. I do think, however, that it's worthwhile to also contact our state Senator and Rep and ask them to support it. I'll admit that I live in a relatively small district and both my representatives are Republican, and probably more responsive than average.

I see it as similar to word coming out that half of the protestors in PDX recently didn't even vote, and half of those weren't even registered. We can discuss here, and that's great. I think it's also important to participate in the process. We do that when we vote, sure, but we can also write our representatives, give testimony at committee hearings, etc. And I'll even go on the say that when we do so, we can avoid being hostile and angry or whatever. I've watched some of those hearings. When someone is calm and reasonable, they're more likely to listen. But when we wig out, they tend to tune out. Some of them also respond to tear jerker stories, FWIW.

I agree for the most part. But many of us took time out of our lives to write, call, email and even show up and publicly testify against SB 941. The ones that did were very polite, kind and had facts to back their statements, not just opinions. What happened? They ignored us. 100% ignored us, because they held the majority (super majority in the Senate) and had a defined agenda funded by outside interests that many are beholden to. The public comment was a show, put on for no other reason than to make it appear they were playing fair. Let's be honest, they were going to pass that bill from day one. No amount of testimony, nice or nasty, was going to change their minds. They had the majority and they used it. Unfortunately, they have the same advantage in 2017, save for the super majority in the senate. Unless we can find a way to turn a good number of Democrats to our side, we have no chance to stop them. OFF can't do it. Public testimony can't do it. Letters, phone calls and emails can't do it. We have nothing to offer to hold against them if they pass their anti-gun laws.

That isn't to say I give up on the process and won't continue to participate, but I do so knowing that I'm likely slamming my head into a brick wall.
 
It was reported here that right after SB 941 passed, several members had been digging into the C&R exemption and the CHL exemption. These ideas were presented during the SB 941 discussion and specifically excluded. They knew full well they could include those exemptions and chose not to allow them. Why? Well, most likely to punish us, of course. In fact, I think it was Prozanski's office that confirmed they specifically didn't want to allow those exclusions.

Do the math.

BGC + no exemptions (except for LEOs) == a more thorough and complete database of firearms == a better starting point for confiscation

If they allowed those exemptions, then a lot more people would get the permits and use them to buy firearms without the BGC so that the firearm serial numbers don't go into the database. This would mean fewer serial number associated with people. Also, you could then just claim you sold your firearms to someone with a permit.

It would make a huge loophole and they don't want that.
 
Not directly related to the subject at hand and purely observational but I'd heard that if you have a C.C. you go to the head of the line in the background check cue. Yesterday I bought a gun at Calbelas and was told I was #28 in line. In the time it took for me to call my wife and tell her I was going to be a while I passed the check. Maybe things are loosening up.
 
Not directly related to the subject at hand and purely observational but I'd heard that if you have a C.C. you go to the head of the line in the background check cue. Yesterday I bought a gun at Calbelas and was told I was #28 in line. In the time it took for me to call my wife and tell her I was going to be a while I passed the check. Maybe things are loosening up.

That started back in May. From what I was told by a local pawn shop owner, a bunch of the shop owners got together and lobbied a particular member of the state legislature to help them out with their more 'regular' CHL customers who were having to wait in long lines for BGC's. I don't know if that's exactly how it went down, but either way, if you have a CHL, in Oregon and go to do a BGC, you will be put in front of any non-CHL holders, but behind any CHL holders already ahead of you.

I ran into this as a problem about 3 months ago when I sold a gun to a private party - she didn't have a CHL and we ended up waiting well over an hour for her BGC to clear as she kept getting pushed down the queue by CHL holders. It was kind of frustrating. But, as a CHL holder, I do appreciate the change, though I don't see it as any kind of compromise or loosening of the laws - they still require us to go through a BGC and transfer for private sales (at least for those that comply).

So, no, no loosening of anything. They simply tossed out a small bone, really a sliver of an old bone, really, to try and show they'll work with us. They did nothing but make some of us wait a little less longer at the counter.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top