JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I think you have to tell them


A couple times I offered my CHL as ID and the FFL said they only needed my DL, so I've never brought it up nor have I ever been asked. I doubt the FFL can see if you have a CHL, but I'm sure the OSP can when they run your info. What I'm trying to work out is how you get skipped from #28 in a que of waiting customers to the "front"... but hey, whatever works! ;)
 
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.

I agree, with the exception that we have Dennis Richardson as the Secretary of State now, and I can't imagine thousands of signatures on a petition being "disqualified", for whatever reasons can be deemed remotely defensible in court, as was the petition to recall Floyd Prozanski. I can't help but think these legislators realize the new level of accountability this places on them. If they think otherwise, we have to show them (another petition drive ?). Granted, it will take time, but it seems to be the way thing work with this State government. Cancer takes time to defeat.
 
Last Edited:
The plus is that, if I remember right, there were a few dems that were against mag limits and AWB.. I want to say Sen. Reilly was one, and I want to say that even Prozanski was against at least one of them. Between the two, I think the mag ban is probably the most likely to pass.
 
They will not agree to a waiver for CHL holders on a BGC. Universal BGC is a back door registration. OSP are required to keep a record for 5 years. And it is very doubtful that they take the time to delete the records after that.
 
They will not agree to a waiver for CHL holders on a BGC. Universal BGC is a back door registration. OSP are required to keep a record for 5 years. And it is very doubtful that they take the time to delete the records after that.

They may have a procedure to delete the data - it is easy to automate - you can write a stored procedure in the DB that runs that process nightly in about five minutes (depending on the schema, it might take longer to write it, but it isn't rocket surgery).

However, as I have mentioned before, it is much much much harder (almost impossible) to make sure all copies and backups of the data have had the data older than a given date, deleted.

Besides backups (which are not that hard to manage with proper procedures, you have all the other data repositories that make copies of the data - to run reports, to analyze it, etc. - that are usually not part of the process of managing the central data repository.

Then there are all of the ad-hoc data repositories - the one off reports, the spreadsheets, and so on, that are always present if the central data repository is accessible to almost anyone at all. Even if there are extremely strict controls on the data, I would bet a little wink wink from the governors office to the OSP/et. al. would result in illicit copies being made quite readily by someone who does have the access.

In short, if someone with enough juice wants that data kept around, it would be oh so easy for them to quietly request that it be kept. OTOH, it would be really difficult to control that that there wasn't copies of the data kept long after it was supposed to be deleted.
 
They will not agree to a waiver for CHL holders on a BGC. Universal BGC is a back door registration. OSP are required to keep a record for 5 years. And it is very doubtful that they take the time to delete the records after that.


They arent as interested in registration of owners as they are in traces. 6 of one half dozen of the other I know but they want recovered guns to have trace-ability back to the owner. You dont need actual registration per se to do that but you do need a path of 4473's.
 
They arent as interested in registration of owners as they are in traces. 6 of one half dozen of the other I know but they want recovered guns to have trace-ability back to the owner. You dont need actual registration per se to do that but you do need a path of 4473's.

I usually assume the best of people - that they are not malignant in their intentions - except when it comes to government, especially when it comes to people in government wanting to control the populace and most especially when government infringes on our rights and says "trust us, we wouldn't do that".
 
I look at Oregon government differently. These are the same people who put together the Cover Oregon system. The people who spent a year figuring out how their new software system is supposed to work at the marine board and really still havent ( try registering a boat in Oregon ) . They come in to work, go through a couple of motions and all wish they were at the county level so they could find a cul-de-sac to park their county van at so they can sit and play Sudoku all day. They are incompetent boobs with no understanding of how their own current system works and who could leverage their own system to put down the rights of the people if they wanted to. I have lived all over the country and all over the world and have never witnessed a more incompetent system at the state level before in my life. If they wanted to register everyone and track it they couldnt with all the forms sitting on their desks. Washington's I worry about a lot more but Oregon not so much.
 
I am not talking about efficiency or competence, I am talking about intentions.

Two quite different things.

I work for one of the largest corporations in the world (in the top 25), that has more employees than there are people in the greater Salem area. I know about incompetence and layers of bureaucracy.
 
The intent "might" be there but without the capability to follow through it doesnt mean much.

Oh they could get it done - in an inefficient and slow manner - but they have all the time in the world. And if the data is there (and it is) they can always hire someone to make it more efficient.

If there is one thing government has it is money and manpower.
 
The plus is that, if I remember right, there were a few dems that were against mag limits and AWB.. I want to say Sen. Reilly was one, and I want to say that even Prozanski was against at least one of them. Between the two, I think the mag ban is probably the most likely to pass.
Chuck Reily is a moron. He'll vote whichever way his masters tell him.
 
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.

At ten bucks a pop I'd think they're lucky to be breaking even. Looks like a likely place for an increase, unless they think a significant price increase would encourage non-compliance.

That $10 doesn't go to fund background checks. Dealers pay it to OSP every month, who then passes it straight to the Legislature's general fund. The FICS unit is funded our of OSP's normal operating budget. That $10 is purely a tax. This FICS unit is literally taking the info from the Oregon system, inputting it into the federal NICS system, and awaiting the FREE background check response from the FBI. It's a huge scam.
 
Long long ago in a state (politically) far far away----there was a waiting period for
handguns (I don't recall one for long guns) in Oregon. Late 1980's? Five day wait?
BUT--if you had a CHL it was cash and carry--no wait. Then when the Brady Bill started
and OSP got involved, the CHL no longer meant anything. Appears that it does now, you
get bumped up the list--but OSP still gets their cut. Follow the money.

Some states do exempt you from background checks if you have a carry permit.
Idaho is one--there are others.
 
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.

I just now had a revelation, did anyone have & use facts that called out the politicians for receiving bribes (campaign donations) from Bloombergs ilk? These corrupt so-called elected officials need to be called out to the mat in public!!!:mad::mad::mad:
 

Upcoming Events

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

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top