OR Senate Bill 941 - UBC

[barrintp]

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.

I think it's about registering firearms you can't make this "Law" work if you don't know who owns what. And yes ol' Floyd is all about harassing law abiding gun owners.

 

[barrintp]

<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

View attachment 222223
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]

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

I believe OFF is saying MDA plan a "lobbying day" for 4/1 or 4/2 which would be a great day to have a counter lobbying.

 

[bolus]

Since this will most likely pass, how do we start a recall? I'd love for the legislators to see a recall process starting the exact day it passes.

edit: found it
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/recall.aspx

Anyone up for starting a recall process on the forum here? we can get ready for the day it passes.

 

[barrintp]

I think you start with recall petition's

 

[papahepcat]

I sent an email for written testimony (email for sending that is [email protected], btw) to the committee. I get the feeling that it'll pass regardless. They have the votes. I can get all worked up as much as I want, but that's the stark reality.

So in my email, I asked if they'd consider an amendment giving an exception to CHL holders. I also mentioned that we go through a weighty national background check and have to renew every four years. Given the circumstance, I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[barrintp]

I sent an email for written testimony (email for sending that is [email protected], btw) to the committee. I get the feeling that it'll pass regardless. They have the votes. I can get all worked up as much as I want, but that's the stark reality.

So in my email, I asked if they'd consider an amendment giving an exception to CHL holders. I also mentioned that we go through a weighty national background check and have to renew every four years. Given the circumstance, I don't think that's unreasonable.

They may have the votes but lets hope a few of them are worried about pissing off their district.

 

[tkdguy]

I hope everyone is writing their Senators and Reps. Thanks. tkdguy

 

[barrintp]

I hope everyone is writing their Senators and Reps. Thanks. tkdguy

Always!!! I write them all.

 

[barrintp]

Y'all better wake up. As Washington goes, so goes Oregon. I recommend joining Oregon Firearms Federation *today*, as they are doing more in this state than anyone to defend all the gun rights you value. On their web page today you can find out how to fight this bill instead of talking about it. If this bill passes without a honest knock down fight we are well on the way to gun registration and seizure. If anyone here has been following what's been happening in the different counties you will see this bill for what it is: a desperate measure by our government to render us defenseless.

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-owner-registration-bill-introduced

I'm an active member of OFF and respond to their alerts and love the auto mailer. I also donate as I can afford as you said they do more in this State to protect our rights!

 

[tunus]

They have only 2 votes advantage in the Senate. There are must be at least two Dem senators who are nervous about pissing their district off. Anyone care to identify them?

Sen Riley is my rep and he barely beat Sen Star in November. Sadly Riley is a co-sponsor. I emailed him and asked he withdraws support immediately but he is as anti as Prozanski.

 

[pokerace]

Prozanski brings to mind the witch burners of Salem.

 

[barrintp]

Boy howdy!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I believe OFF is saying MDA plan a "lobbying day" for 4/1 or 4/2 which would be a great day to have a counter lobbying.

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

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Since this will most likely pass, how do we start a recall? I'd love for the legislators to see a recall process starting the exact day it passes.

edit: found it
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/recall.aspx

Anyone up for starting a recall process on the forum here? we can get ready for the day it passes.

It may be "for sure" in the Senate, but how about the House?

 

[Dave Workman]

NWF gets an hon mention:

Wednesday hearing on Oregon UBC bill

A public hearing before the Oregon state Senate Judiciary Committee on legislation mandating so-called "universal background checks" for virtually all firearms transfers is slated Wednesday at 8 a.m. and yesterday's Salem Statesman-Journal had a story about "five things" people should know about the measure."

<broken link removed>

 

[bolus]

It may be "for sure" in the Senate, but how about the House?

Im throwing up another thread about a recall here in a minute. I want to be ready. Recall petitions need to be very coordinated and only have a small time window to initiate the recall.

I want the House to know that we are already gathering steam for a recall if it passes. we know it works in Colorado. The next email my rep gets from me is to not beg for their help but to say that your job is at risk if you go forward and keep ignoring us.

 

[barrintp]

Im throwing up another thread about a recall here in a minute. I want to be ready. Recall petitions need to be very coordinated and only have a small time window to initiate the recall.

I want the House to know that we are already gathering steam for a recall if it passes. we know it works in Colorado. The next email my rep gets from me is to not beg for their help but to say that your job is at risk if you go forward and keep ignoring us.

Well said!!!

 

[Trothkin]

Sen Riley is my rep and he barely beat Sen Star in November. Sadly Riley is a co-sponsor. I emailed him and asked he withdraws support immediately but he is as anti as Prozanski.

I went to Chuck Riley's meet and greet this past Saturday in North Plains. He is all about this UBC bill and will not change his mind. His comment was that he campaigned on UBC and beat his opponent who campaigned against UBC so in his mind he won because of it. I wouldn't say he is as rabidly anti-gun as Prozanski. We asked him if he would support any other limits on firearms, specifically magazine limits and gun bans. He said no he would not. Unfortunately he is a politician and you can't take anything any of them say to the bank, so to say.

We also had a lengthy discussion on the Bill itself and what changes would make it acceptable to us, because this is going to pass, bet on it. He took notes and is going to see if he can propose an amendment to the bill exempting current CHL holders from the UBC when purchasing a firearm. He also said he will look into the possibility of changing the language of the Bill from "transfers" to "sales". Once again I don't know if he will do this but he seemed open to the suggestions of changing these items.

Hoping for the best.

 

[pokerace]

From Sen. Doug Whitsett's News letter




Two bills that will significantly infringe on our Second Amendment rights to own and bear firearms are currently being debated in the Oregon Legislative Assembly. Both bills can be enacted with simple majority votes in each chamber. Because Democrats have strong majorities in both legislative chambers, both bills are very likely to be enacted on "party line" Democrat votes.

Senate Bill 941 is being called the "Oregon Firearms Safety Act." It mandates that both a private person who is transferring a firearm, and the person who is receiving the firearm, to appear in person before a licensed gun dealer, with the firearm to be transferred, to request a criminal background check prior to the transfer of possession of the firearm. The firearm may not be legally transferred until the criminal background check is successfully completed.

"Transfer" is defined to include the sale, gift, loan or lease of a firearm. Specific exceptions include transfers of possession between family members, inherited firearms among family members at the death of the owner, and transfers between law enforcement. Additional exemptions include certain temporary transfers such as for firearm repairs, at a shooting range or while hunting, and "for the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury and the provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious physical injury."

Failure to comply with the law will be a Class "A" Misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $6,250 fine. Conviction of a second or subsequent offense will be a Class "C" Felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

There is an emergency clause included in SB 941 that will prohibit it from being referred to the people to decide on a statewide vote. In my opinion, its only purpose is intended to block the people's constitutionally guaranteed right to review the work of the Legislative Assembly through direct democracy.

SB 941 is chief sponsored by Senators Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) and Ginny Burdick (D-Portland), and co-sponsored by 24 other Democrat legislators. The bill is being fast-tracked for a public hearing Tuesday, March 31 and a work session on Wednesday, April 1.

That's not the only proposed legislation that Second Amendment supporters should be prepared to oppose.

Senate Bill 525 prohibits the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who is subject to a restraining order issued by a court under the Family Abuse Prevention Act or that has been convicted of certain other misdemeanor crimes involving domestic violence.

The bill includes court-issued restraining orders that result from charges relating to the commission of any misdemeanor that involves, as an element of the crime, the use of physical force or a deadly weapon. The term "physical force" is not limited in statute and physical injury is defined to mean "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain."

This bill absolutely does NOT require a person to be convicted of any crime before the possession of a firearm and ammunition by that person is made unlawful. It merely requires a court hearing!

Specifically, the bill only requires that the person be subject to a restraining order issued by a court that was continued after a hearing, for which the person had actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by the judge.

The "Family Abuse Prevention Act" is wide-reaching. It defines "family or household members" to include spouses; former spouses; persons who are adults and are related by blood, marriage or adoption; persons who are or who have cohabited with one another; persons who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship with one another within the preceding two years and unmarried parents of a child.

It further describes various acts that are unlawful:

"Abuse" is described as attempting to cause bodily injury, or intentionally placing another in fear of imminent bodily injury.

"Intimidate" is explained to act in any manner that would reasonably be expected to threaten a person compelling or deterring conduct on the part of the person.

"Menace" means to act in a manner that would reasonably be expected to threaten a person.

"Molest" means to act, with hostile intent or injurious effect, in a manner that would reasonably be expected to annoy, disturb or persecute a person.

Under this bill, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly possesses a firearm and the possession is prohibited by virtue of a restraining order issued under provisions of the "Family Abuse and Prevention Act."

The penalty for violation of this law will be up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $6,250, or both.

It is easy to envision serious and even dangerous confrontations when law enforcement attempts to take all of the firearms and ammunition in the possession of a person who has only been accused of some form of family abuse. Further, the act continues the prohibition of the possession of firearms and ammunition for as long as the restraining order is in effect. In the event that the prohibition is the result of a conviction for a qualifying misdemeanor, the person appears to be prevented from possessing a firearm or ammunition until the conviction has been set aside, expunged or the person has been pardoned.

SB 525 is chief sponsored by Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham) and is co-sponsored by seven other Democrat Legislators and Representative John Huffman (R-The Dalles). SB 525 has already had a public hearing on March 25. At this time, no work session has been scheduled.

Every Oregon resident who is concerned about preserving our Second Amendment rights should be focused on these two bills. Both bills are being presented as acts to improve public safety and to protect the sanctity of the family. They are, in fact, anti-gun bills dressed up in camouflage.


Please remember--If we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.


Best Regards,


Doug

Senate District 28

 

[tunus]

I went to Chuck Riley's meet and greet this past Saturday in North Plains. He is all about this UBC bill and will not change his mind. His comment was that he campaigned on UBC and beat his opponent who campaigned against UBC so in his mind he won because of it. I wouldn't say he is as rabidly anti-gun as Prozanski. We asked him if he would support any other limits on firearms, specifically magazine limits and gun bans. He said no he would not. Unfortunately he is a politician and you can't take anything any of them say to the bank, so to say.

We also had a lengthy discussion on the Bill itself and what changes would make it acceptable to us, because this is going to pass, bet on it. He took notes and is going to see if he can propose an amendment to the bill exempting current CHL holders from the UBC when purchasing a firearm. He also said he will look into the possibility of changing the language of the Bill from "transfers" to "sales". Once again I don't know if he will do this but he seemed open to the suggestions of changing these items.

Hoping for the best.

He got only 281 votes more than Sen. Starr. The third candidate who is libertarian got over 3000 votes alone. So if you combined Starr's votes and the libertarian votes, Riley would have lost by more than 3000 votes. His logic that he is representing the will of the people is deeply flawed. He won because his campaign spent a ton of money airing lies about Starr and because Starr lost some votes to the libertarian candidate.