OR Senate Bill 941 - UBC

[lykke]

That's good news from the OFF, I prefer that we have constitutional carry and keep everything else the same. We are the last hold out in the PNW for seemingly decent gun laws.

 

[simpleguy]

Though I would prefer nothing less than constitutional carry, this puts anti-rights crowd in a precarious spot...... LOVE IT!

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's good news from the OFF, I prefer that we have constitutional carry and keep everything else the same. We are the last hold out in the PNW for seemingly decent gun laws.

What about Alaska? Isn't it part of the Pacific NorthWest??

That said; I am cautiously encouraged by this new development..

 

[lykke]

What about Alaska? Isn't it part of the Pacific NorthWest??

That said; I am cautiously encouraged by this new development..

Ha! Alaska would be the most awesome top hat, I am thinking like an Abraham Lincoln top hat. Yes I to am also encouraged, it is pretty much a perfectly crafted poison pill thus the we have to put it off to monday.

 

[etrain16]

Now that I've had an hour or so to think about this, here are areas I think the gun-grabbers will go after this amendment:

First, it only addresses (from what I know, feel free to correct me) convicted felons. No doubt they'll want to argue that it doesn't address folks who have a recent stalking order, etc., though I don't know that the BGC system is even capable of catching those either.

Second is the issue of 'marking' felons and other prohibited folks with a license that points them out to anyone that needs to see them. I'm guessing they'll suddenly be concerned about the rights and privacy of convicted felons and prohibited persons by forcing them to identify who they are. Just look at the push in the legislature right now to remove the check box for previous felony convictions - if they're not okay with that on a job application, I can't see them going for a marked license.

Going back to the CHL idea, I think it would be a better route to go. If you have a current CHL, that is your BGC for any sale (private, gun show, dealer), period. No further BGC are needed. If you don't have a CHL, then yes, you need to through a BGC for any transaction. I realize this is far from a perfect solution, but it's once I could get behind. I know those who are constitutional carry advocates will probably not like it because it concedes the requirement for a CHL as mandatory if you want to avoid BGC's. But considering where the UBC bill could go, and the support it has to pass, I could easily get behind the CHL idea.

Now, how could something like that be put in as and amendment if they shoot down the ODL idea? Could the same senator proposing the amendment be brought up to speed ASAP on an alternate idea? Just thinking out loud here. It might be nice if we could tell the folks in the legislature that we have an offer of an idea that gives them what they claim they want (without registration ), and, would remove probably much of the opposition to the plan they're currently facing.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I don't agree with forcing law abiding people to submit to a BGC on EVERY "transfer" they do.. it complicates things, FFLs can simply choose not allow deals like that in their stores, and people are gonna be either stuck with a gun they want to sell, or stuck with the money they want to spend...unless they spend it on the FFL's wares instead, because the FFL will do the BGC on their sales anyhow (required anyways)...but this would effectively kill private sales and cause huge prison population growths from people "failing to do the BGC on private transfers".... My guess is that if private sales are effectively banned, then the FFLs would have in effect, a monopoly on trades and sales of arms in Oregon... and thus, price control on the legal transactions, as opposed to being subject to the market pricing from private sales driving the prices to where they are.... That means basically they can give you only 10-40% of what your gun is worth, but sell it back to you at 200% of its true market value, because, you can't get this gun through private sales without having to go through a FFL and doing a Background Check if they decide they want to eliminate the pro-gun amendment..


That is the crux of the matter. It criminalizes an activity that has long been legal since the founding of America, and has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on whatever the CRIMINAL does.....because the law does not matter to them.

 

[lykke]

By conceding little by little it will just open the door for more legislation, once they pass this or something like this it won't stop. Only expand to "high cap" mags "Assault Rifles" all that crap.....I love how they used the Clackamas mall shooting but didn't mention anything about the CHL holder that essentially stopped the shooting. Why play fair anymore with them?

 

[deshoots]

Just a thought...what if all the gun shops/ffl's said there is no way we will do these transfers?