OR Senate Bill 941 - UBC

[Rem700..300]

I sent in my 2 cents to Sara Gelser. I'm really dating myself but threw in a story about how I did a class speech on "How to care for you shotgun after hunting" and how my 17 year old is always getting on me about leaving the safety off on unloaded guns because he has had firearms training and hunter safety. I consider myself a redneck democrat because I believe in firearm ownership but its time to switch parties.

 

[tkdguy]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-on-background-checks-and-gun-control-debate/

Did you folks see the content of this article? Very enlightening. Hope it helps. Perhaps you can circulate it in your arguments on this problematic bill. tkdguy

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Anyone heard a peep from the NRA on this? Is anyone organizing a counter protest for the 1st or 2nd?

 

[Norm0931]

Anyone heard a peep from the NRA on this? Is anyone organizing a counter protest for the 1st or 2nd?

They sent out an email.
Oregon: Anti-Gun Bill Aimed at Restricting Lawful Private Transfers Introduced and on the Move!

Today, Senate Bill 941 was introduced in Oregon. This is an egregious bill that would require individuals to appear before a gun dealer to request a criminal background check prior to privately transferring a firearm. Transfers include, but are not limited to, sales, gifts, loans and leases. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in stiff penalties and possible loss of an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

So-called "universal" background checks do nothing to reduce violent crime, and only affect law-abiding gun owners by imposing cumbersome mandates and restrictions on the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and do not subject themselves to gun control schemes or background checks. It is already illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone classified as a prohibited person, and is a felony for a prohibited person to buy, own or possess a firearm. This is an ineffective and unenforceable piece of legislation that will only impact the law abiding.

SB 941, like many other gun control schemes, is a step towards the full registration of firearms. In January 2013, the Department of Justice said that background checks on all firearm transfers "depends on…requiring gun registration."

SB 941 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, April 1, at 8:00 a.m. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today and politely urge them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 941. Committee contact information is provided below.

Please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this bill as the 2015 legislative session progresses.

Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4), Chair(503) 986-1704
[email protected]

Senator Jeff Kruse (R-1), Vice-Chair(503) 986-1701
[email protected]

Senator Ginny Burdick (D-18)(503) 986-1718
[email protected]

Senator Sara Gelser (D-8)(503) 986-1708
[email protected]

Senator Kim Thatcher (R-13)(503) 986-1851
[email protected]

 

[capdek]

Sent this today to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee…

For all those who think most gun-control laws are not about harassing and disarming otherwise peaceable, law-abiding gun owners, check out this story.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/New_York_City_laws_tough_on_traveling_gun_owners_.html

What's most damning in this article is the following statement:

"Unlike most other gun-possession cases in the nation's biggest city, the airport cases are often reduced to noncriminal violations if the owners can prove there's nothing criminal about their ownership, stay out of trouble for six months, pay a $250 fine and forfeit the guns."

And that's the goal in our opinion - laws designed to create more and more significant burdens to gun ownership in order to reduce the prevalence of guns outside government and law enforcement, and to intimidate and frighten otherwise law-abiding, peaceable, existing gun owners into forfeiting their firearms when they unintentionally commit the victimless crime of running afoul of these restrictive laws.

As we've said over and over, we've seen it all before back in Canada.

So when an anti-gun politician tells you they're "not out to take your guns" or hassle "law-abiding gun-owner's", the facts show otherwise.

If you want to see the blatant hypocrisy of these people, consider first that practically all of them preach tolerance and acceptance. Practically all of them feel it's wrong - and rightfully so - to penalize the majority of peaceable, law-abiding Muslims for the deplorable actions of a few criminal Muslims. But at the very same time, they feel it's perfectly OK to penalize the majority of peaceable, law-abiding gun owners for the deplorable actions of a few criminal gun owners. Being a Muslim or gun owner is a choice and both choices are protected by the Constitution. Yet one wonders if what's really behind this hypocritical dichotomy is an underlying bigotry that stereotypes Muslims as poor dark-skinned minorities and gun owners as white-supremacist rednecks. Whatever the reason, it says quite a bit about the mindset of many 'progressive' politicians.

When rational arguments fall short, the gun-control proselytizers like to tap into human emotion to propel their agenda. For example, they leveraged Sandy Hook to the hilt - dead school children murdered by a vicious crazed young person with a gun. Absolutely horrible - without a doubt! And the strategy worked in the UK after Dunblane - why not try here in the United States? Let's push background checks - even though background checks would have made no difference whatsoever since the guns were stolen from his mother - who he also killed. In fact, it didn't matter one whit that none of the laws they tried to promulgate in response to Sandy Hook would have had any real effect on stopping this crime. For example, they tried to get you to believe that we should ban so-called 'assault weapons' after Sandy Hook, even though Adam Lanza used handguns to commit his horrible crime, leaving the 'assault weapon' he stole from his mother in the trunk of his car. They also tried to get you to believe we should limit the number of bullets in a magazine to no more than ten (in New York, they were already at ten, so they came up with seven as the new magic number) in response to Sandy Hook. What are we to make of this? Let's see - it's not OK to have the potential to kill more than ten children before having to change out your magazine, but it is OK to have the potential to kill no more than ten children before having to change out your magazine? Ridiculous! The ONLY group that benefits by limiting the number of bullets in a magazine are the police and government who are not restricted by this limit. Any idiot can see that. But by leveraging the emotional gut response of Sandy Hook, they hoped they could pull the wool over the eyes of most Americans and put yet one more limitation on the people as compared to the government and law enforcement. And once you get the people used to the idea that ten bullets in a magazine is 'adequate', you can use the next atrocity to now claim ten is too many, and seven is the new 'adequate' limit. What a load of bull!

If emotion is your thing; if dead women and children moves you to action, then read history. If you've ever read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer; if you've read about the Einsatzgruppen and seen the photos of naked women and children lying dead in open fields mowed down by Nazi thugs; if you've read about Himmler's discomfort with the shooting of women and children and his command to kill the women and children 'more gently' in gas vans; if you've ever stood in Auschwitz-Birkenau and seen the mass graves, the gas chambers, the barracks full of suitcases, human hair, spectacles, dental work and artificial limbs (we have and it is something we will never forget); if you've ever read about the mass starvation of Russian and Ukrainian peasants under Stalin; if you've ever read about the cultural revolution under Mao; if you've ever read about the killing fields in Cambodia; if you've ever read about the death squads in El Salvador; if you've ever read about Uganda under Idi Amin; if you've ever read about the Hutus and Tutsis; if you've ever read any history whatsoever - then you know why it's important for decent, peaceable people to own firearms.

Gandhi was able to achieve independence for India through non-violent means, and that should always be the goal of oppressed people. But the most crucial element to Gandhi's success was a free press and the fundamental decency of the British people. Without a free press - under the boot-heels of a tyrannical regime - non-violent change is most often doomed to failure. The sad truth is that good and decent people who are otherwise peaceable may be forced-to-arms at various times to protect their very lives and basic human dignity. Read about the Warsaw ghetto uprising for one such example.

We abhor violence. And the truth is, if we were ever faced with having to defend ourselves against violence, we would do everything in our power to avoid using violence ourselves. But we are also realistic; we read the news and see what can happen to good and decent people; we know history, and we believe that all decent, peaceable people should have the ability to adequately defend themselves, their loved-ones, their community and their country should a genuine need arise. And as history has shown, the people themselves must take on that responsibility since the government cannot adequately protect them, and in rare cases like those mentioned above, it has been the government perpetrating unspeakable violence on the people.

Please open your eyes and see that these laws do nothing except harm the very people you are sworn to represent!

 

[U8395279]

Anyone heard a peep from the NRA on this? Is anyone organizing a counter protest for the 1st or 2nd?

Yes, a protest against this bill is being held on April 1st, the day of this hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. People need to both show up for the protest, and also sign up to testify before the committee and share your feelings about the bill.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1581817952091383/

.

 

[Norm0931]

Yes, a protest against this bill is being held on April 1st, the day of this hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. People need to both show up for the protest, and also sign up to testify before the committee and share your feelings about the bill.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1581817952091383/

.

It bothers me the only post from the coordinator on that page is completely false statements about the bill.

 

[U8395279]

It bothers me the only post from the coordinator on that page is completely false statements about the bill.

Gun owners are just like any other group. Rotten Apples exist in all subsections of society.

.

 

[tkdguy]

Please distribute to interested parties.

Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate
By John Lott

Published April 09, 2013

| FoxNews.com

advertisement

Will Senate Democrats be able to end debate on their new gun control bill Tuesday night? President Obama says that it is "not right" to continue the debate. But he might be more afraid that Senators will point out all of his false claims and reveal the gun control bill's dangers.

Mr. Obama got it all backwards in his April 3rd speech in Colorado: "tougher background checks . . . won't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people."

The president kept claiming this week and last week that: <broken link removed> and that <broken link removed> But both statistics are false.



Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.

And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts.

Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called "kitchen table" dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.

By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the "gun show loophole."

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.

This is the same problem experienced with the "No Fly" list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was "initially denied" flights because his name was on the anti-terror "no fly" list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama's method of counting, that means the "no fly" list stopped five flights by terrorists.

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of "initial denials" after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.

All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. Although this is merely an inconvenience for most, initial denials cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse.

Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks and the initial denials, another 6 percent of checks fail to be completed within two hours, with most delays winding up taking three days.

President Obama ignores what happens to those who suddenly feel threatened. A gun really can make a huge difference in being able to defend against assailants.

Indeed, my own research suggests these delays from the background check system likely increase violent crime, even if ever so slightly. Perhaps not too surprisingly, rape appears to be the crime most sensitive to these delays.

Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect.

The number of criminals stopped by the checks is also quite small. In 2010, there were over 76,000 initial denials, but only 44 of those were deemed worthy for prosecution and only 13 individuals were convicted. Even those 13 cases don't tend to be the "dangerous" criminals Obama claims are being stopped.

The delays have other consequences. States that have applied background checks to sales by private individuals have seen around a 20 percent drop in the number of gun shows, eliminating for many poorer people a relatively inexpensive source of buying guns. For gun shows, which usually only last two days, even a three-day delay means that no sale will be made.

The fees in the Senate bill on those getting background checks on gun transfers are not trivial, ranging from $35 to $50 in most states and rising as high as $125 in the District of Columbia.

This effective tax will price poor blacks -- the people most likely to be victims of violent crime -- out of being able to buy a gun for self-defense. Americans might also not be ready for a national registry.

Expanded background checks might intuitively seem to make sense. But how laws work in theory is often different from how they work in the real world. Unless the databases somehow are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

<broken link removed> <broken link removed>
URL

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-on-background-checks-and-gun-control-debate/

• Home
• Video
• Politics
• U.S.
• Opinion
• Entertainment
• Tech
• Science
• Health
• Travel
• Lifestyle
• World
• Sports
• Weather

• <broken link removed>
• <broken link removed>

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © 2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[U8395279]

It is also good to point out to people that the Homicide figure also includes JUSTIFIED homicides by law enforcement and citizens legally defending themselves.

The actual number of murders being committed with firearms is significantly less.

.

 

[bolus]

View attachment 222202

I have never been much a fan of these infographics since they are so easy to tear apart. Not to mention Naturalnews.com recommends stuff like homeopathy for ebola. That infographic isnt pro-gun, its anti-doctor.
But flip this information around. Number of firearm related deaths if there were no guns? zero. Number of deaths if there were no medical system? like everybody by age 30.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Sorry bolus, I didn't mean to offend. I avoid the medical system like the plague. The last time I saw a doctor was over 10 years ago when I dislocated my shoulder. ER Doc came over and said "let's get an xray first". The xray tech popped my shoulder back in while rotating my arm. ER Doc came back over, looked at the film said it is not broken and sent me home with a sling.

 

[U201491]

Anyone heard a peep from the NRA on this? Is anyone organizing a counter protest for the 1st or 2nd?

<broken link removed>

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-private-transfers-introduced-and-on-the-move

Oregon: Anti-Gun Bill Aimed at Restricting Lawful Private Transfers Introduced and on the Move!
Thursday, March 26, 2015


More
Today, Senate Bill 941 was introduced in Oregon. This is an egregious bill that would require individuals to appear before a gun dealer to request a criminal background check prior to privately transferring a firearm. Transfers include, but are not limited to, sales, gifts, loans and leases. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in stiff penalties and possible loss of an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

So-called "universal" background checks do nothing to reduce violent crime, and only affect law-abiding gun owners by imposing cumbersome mandates and restrictions on the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and do not subject themselves to gun control schemes or background checks. It is already illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone classified as a prohibited person, and is a felony for a prohibited person to buy, own or possess a firearm. This is an ineffective and unenforceable piece of legislation that will only impact the law abiding. To sign up in opposition to Senate Bill 941, please click <broken link removed> .

SB 941, like many other gun control schemes, is a step towards the full registration of firearms. In January 2013, the Department of Justice said that background checks on all firearm transfers "depends on…requiring gun registration."

SB 941 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, April 1, at 8:00 a.m. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today and politely urge them to OPPOSE Senate Bill 941. Committee contact information is provided below.

Please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this bill as the 2015 legislative session progresses.

Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4), Chair(503) 986-1704
[email protected]


Senator Jeff Kruse (R-1), Vice-Chair(503) 986-1701
[email protected]


Senator Ginny Burdick (D-18)(503) 986-1718
[email protected]


Senator Sara Gelser (D-8)(503) 986-1708
[email protected]


Senator Kim Thatcher (R-13)(503) 986-1851
[email protected]

 

[U201491]

Oregon Universal Background Checks - NRA-ILA Frontlines

<broken link removed>

Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and do not subject themselves to gun control schemes or background checks. It is already illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone classified as a prohibited person, and is a felony for a prohibited person to buy, own or possess a firearm. This is an ineffective and unenforceable piece of legislation that will only impact the law abiding. SB 941, like many other gun control schemes, is a step towards the full registration of firearms. Sign the pledge TODAY and help us defeat this misguided legislation!

If you have any questions, or want to get further involved in our efforts in Oregon, please contact your NRA-ILA Grassroots Field Coordinator, Keely Hopkins at [email protected] or 703-939-0824.

 

[tkdguy]

Oregon Universal Background Checks - NRA-ILA Frontlines

<broken link removed>

Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and do not subject themselves to gun control schemes or background checks. It is already illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone classified as a prohibited person, and is a felony for a prohibited person to buy, own or possess a firearm. This is an ineffective and unenforceable piece of legislation that will only impact the law abiding. SB 941, like many other gun control schemes, is a step towards the full registration of firearms. Sign the pledge TODAY and help us defeat this misguided legislation!

If you have any questions, or want to get further involved in our efforts in Oregon, please contact your NRA-ILA Grassroots Field Coordinator, Keely Hopkins at [email protected] or 703-939-0824.

Nicely written. tkdguy

 

[U201491]

Nicely written. tkdguy

Local NRA GRASSROOTS AT WORK.

 

[barrintp]

An idea for competing with the anti's AstroTurf lobbying efforts:

Create a group to counter their efforts. Comprising mainly of stay at home moms from the Willamette Valley area so they're within quick commute distance to Salem (as well as other relevent areas around the state for city & county meetings) & that can arrange baby sitting or coordinate for events around when kids are in school.

Between the women on the forum & wives of members there has to be enough to create a lobbying group for our interests. I'm sure there are members who would help out with things like transportation, baby sitting, donations/fund raisers, media exposure (development of website, social media page, flyers, etc.). It would be great if there was someone with with public speaking or debate experience & knowledge of law & relevant issues to be the front woman. Even better if she was a survivor of an attack or had lost a family member. I know that last part may sound callous, but we've got to use their tricks, like "waving the bloody shirt", against them to have any hope of repelling these repeated attemts of encroaching legislation.

I'm not married or a woman & I'm not financially sound, so I can't help in those aspects, but I could help manage a website & social media pages. Anyone else think this is a viable plan or want to help. Any ideas for a name/acronym?

I don't know how active they are but there is a group called The Women of Purple, they have a Facebook page.

 

[barrintp]

Emailed them all using the OFF automailer. Got a reply from Sen Doug Whitsett, Klamath Falls.
Interesting read. Here is what he has to say:



"The Second Amendment is the lynchpin of our United States Constitution. I have strongly opposed any infringement on that unalienable right, including any expansion of the mandatory state background check system. I will not change that firm stance.

For the past four years, fourteen Senate Republicans and Senator Betsy Johnson (D) have maintained a 15 vote coalition that has prevented any anti-gun bills from moving through the state Senate. I was instrumental in establishing that coalition.

Two of the fourteen Senate Republicans were defeated in the November 4th election. Although I will continue to strenuously oppose anti-gun laws, our coalition no longer has the votes in the Senate to stop or in any way alter their passage.

May I suggest that you and fellow passionate defenders of the Second Amendment focus your attention on developing two more strong no votes from among the Senate Democrat Caucus?


Best regards,


Doug"

I was very sad that the voters fell for the anti-gun BS about these supporters and elected anti-gun senators. I hope we can keep the damage at a minimum and those voters wake up.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Ok for a second lets say this passes, why on earth would it not be a free service? Why wouldnt two CHL holders be able to trade or sell without having to get a BGC?
Would there be a private service that would allow an indevidual to call from home and do their own "paperwork"?

I dont support this AT ALL Im just saying.. If they wanted to pertain to the FUDDS they'd promote those things to otherwise fool the non patriot firearm owners.

And whats this about having to pay for a transfer to loan a family member a firearm? bubblegum that, why would I pay a stranger to loan my family member a firearm?
What if I "forgot" my firearm at their house, they in turn forgot one of theirs at mine? I also have a bad memory.. What if I "thought" I owned their said firearm? I mean, I own quite a few.. Maybe I purchased it a while back and forgot about it?

These laws really are only about harassment and control when you start looking at it and asking questions the antis cant answer.