Oregon background bill postponed

[bakersman345]

Just heard over the radio they are "postponing" the decision because Democrats are rushing it and that many people didn't get to testify the other day.

-- I still think its a done deal, but would love to be wrong. I live under 594 but at least the people in my state had a vote ( even if most didn't) unlike you folks in Oregon.

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

It's basically South I594 if you look at who is funding and lobbying this POC bill.

We the people need to make our own laws to protect our rights and make these politicians pass them or RECALL THEIR AZZ'S!!!

 

[bakersman345]

I love how there is zero evidence that these laws will stop jack, but they pass them anyway. I'm so sick of the sheeple that buy into the crap.

i work in Portland have to have conversations with ultra liberal D-bags, even if my augments are sound the gang mentality still makes me out to look like a dingle berry.

this wouldn't bother me (because I'm right) if it weren't for all the people that listen to our "conversations" that are on the fence and automatically lean towards the larger group even if they are dead wrong.

-- as a side note I have convinced 3 people to go out and buy a gun. I dont care if they ever use it or practice, (I want them too) the point is something clicked and they understood they had a right to self preservation and that they aren't scary or dangerous.

 

[BDA.45]

-- as a side note I have convinced 3 people to go out and buy a gun. I dont care if they ever use it or practice, (I want them too) the point is something clicked and they understood they had a right to self preservation and that they aren't scary or dangerous.[/QUOTE]


Well, convince them to. Get the training, shoot with them for fun....I got an idea, bring them to a match and have them see for themselves what the firearms community is about. They'll learn safety, handling, marksmanship etc...They'll get to see first hand how strict shooting sports are and how that carries over. They'll also get to see how helpful other shooters are when problems arise. Were NOT evil people. Compare it to football or the Ducks or something they can relate to. Don't just say you "convinced people to buy a gun because".....That equates to uneducated firearms owners....which brings us to our current problem, people are uneducated about firearms....

 

[Member 5605]

Crazy thing is you can't make a law and then demand people follow it.

Because we know that works GREAT for

• the speed limit
• underage drinking
• felons owning firearms
• murders
• suicides (against the law to attempt, not to commit)
• illegals
• uninsured drivers
• unlicensed drivers
• pedophiles
• stealing
• rape
• list goes on and on....

Sure glad it's worked for the above list so we can now focus on more people to kneel down.

941-No Comply

Favorite words I heard from yesterday was the Sheriff who said that they have discretion to choose to go after misdemeanors or not and he will chose not to.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Say it out LOUD PEOPLE.....I WILL NOT COMPLY, ONE MORE TIME (this time put some sac into it)
I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!! Feels good don't it?

Awesome, my fellow gun owners to the South, now you know what we up here have been going through...

 

[U201491]

Not only Will not comply, but Add ..............zero, flat zero........... compromises on the 2nd.
NO MORE !

 

[Caveman Jim]

Not only Will not comply, but Add ..............zero, flat zero........... compromises on the 2nd.
NO MORE !

That's the spirit that the so called pro 2A liberals cringe when heard!!!! We need to get in their face with the truth that Demorats eventually want to TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Partsproduction]

I wrote a letter of thanks to Kim Thatcher who offered the amendment that added provision for licenses to have some mark showing potential sellers that the holder is not legally able to buy a gun, which seems to me to be a good way to deflect the bloomies;
Honorable Ms Thatcher,
I read tonight that you set forth an amendment of some kind that answers the supposed reasons for SB941 but doesn't strip us of our 2nd amendment rights. I think Bloomberg is behind all this and it won't stop until the people are defrauded of our rights, one after the other. But I do love to see a champion holding up the flag in the storm, and this time it was you!
Thank you.

 

[Partsproduction]

For those who didn't get the notice, here it is;


From: "Oregon Firearms Federation" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 2:12:21 PM
Subject: Gun Registration Bill Postponed.

Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization
.
04.02.15

Action on the gun owner registration bill, SB 941, was postponed today until Monday.



The reason was because of an amendment that was proposed by Senator Kim Thatcher.



The amendment would eliminate the proposed expensive, intrusive and inaccurate background checks that would be required for private transfers, and replace them with a system whereby only prohibited persons would be identified.



Although the details would need some fine tuning, how it would work would be this: If you are a prohibited person, your driver's license would include an indicator, just as it does now for corrective lenses or organ donors.



Non prohibited persons would have no change. If you wanted to transfer a firearm you would only need to see the back of the recipients driver's license or state ID card. If there is no prohibitor the transfer is made with no background check, no fee, no registration and no paperwork.

There will be no record of the transfer and no list of guns or gun owners.



Transfers at dealers would have no changes, except a dealer would have the advantage of knowing beforehand that a person was going to be denied and could save himself the time and expense of running the check.



Because of the speed at which bills and amendments are created, there is no question that there will need to be technical adjustments, but it does put the gun grabbers in an interesting situation. It basically gives them everything they have demanded (a way to prevent transfers to prohibited people) but without the registration they claim they were not seeking. (Of course they are lying about that so now what will they say?)

If the background check system is as easy and reliable as the anti-gun crowd claims it is, they should be totally on board with this idea. Monday promises to be interesting.


Yesterday we told you about HB 3093. This bill would allow certain people who have permits to carry concealed handguns in other states to carry in Oregon. We said we thought the bill was a bad idea. Some folks misunderstood our stand. Our objection was not to allowing non residents to carry in Oregon. We've been working on that for many years. Our objection was to allowing the State Police to decide which states they would recognize. This was a power they had in the past and refused to recognize a single state.

Our preference would be to do away with permits and move to Constitutional Carry as more and more states are doing, but we would support starting with recognizing other states. We do not want the State Police to decide which ones. We are working on amendments which should address this issue. If they are adopted, the bill will be a great first step in ending Oregon's absurd policy of not recognizing a single other state's permit.

In a touch of interesting timing, we have been informed that Columbia County has added its name to the list of counties standing up for the Second Amendment. To the people who worked tirelessly to make that happen, thank you!














Forward this email



This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] |
Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Oregon Firearms Federation | Box 556 | Canby | OR | 97013

 

[bakersman345]

-- as a side note I have convinced 3 people to go out and buy a gun. I dont care if they ever use it or practice, (I want them too) the point is something clicked and they understood they had a right to self preservation and that they aren't scary or dangerous.

Well, convince them to. Get the training, shoot with them for fun....I got an idea, bring them to a match and have them see for themselves what the firearms community is about. They'll learn safety, handling, marksmanship etc...They'll get to see first hand how strict shooting sports are and how that carries over. They'll also get to see how helpful other shooters are when problems arise. Were NOT evil people. Compare it to football or the Ducks or something they can relate to. Don't just say you "convinced people to buy a gun because".....That equates to uneducated firearms owners....which brings us to our current problem, people are uneducated about firearms....[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean I really want them to be non active uneducated firearm owners. I've been out to the range with 2 of them so far. I was saying that it's a step in the right direction and there are less people that are "afraid"(unknowing) of firearms. Now they can teach their children about a simple freedom we enjoy, and expose them before they are brain washed by the antis. I didn't get to fire a gun until I was 18, that's all it took. For me It was an eye opener and the first step to building my political ideology, the first time I realized that the leftist were far more unreasonable (most of the time) then my other choices.

 

[Stomper]

IMHO, that is a very clever antidote to the anti-2A's, as well as an EFFECTIVE means for us everyday schmoe's to know that we aren't selling to a prohibited person WITHOUT submitting to a defacto gun registry.

Now, playing "debil's advocate" on a few points.

How does that proposed amendment deal with the anti's argument pertaining to:

1. Current restraining orders.

2. "Misdemeanor" violent domestic abusers.

3. Dishonorably discharged "veterans".

4. Anyone with a "mental health" flag.

5. Not being an authorized and/or legal and/or resident alien.

6. Anyone who couldn't pass a Form-4473 BGC for any other reason I don't currently know about.

Don't get me wrong, some notorious people in those categories have slipped through and passed a Form-4473 BGC, then gone forth and committed heinous acts due to the "system" not working because the "system" is lame and you can't "legislate away" evil, I'm talking about addressing the (sure to come) arguments against this (desireable and mostly effective) amendment on the aforementioned points I made.

 

[etrain16]

IMHO, that is a very clever antidote to the anti-2A's, as well as an EFFECTIVE means for us everyday schmoe's to know that we aren't selling to a prohibited person WITHOUT submitting to a defacto gun registry.

Now, playing "debil's advocate" on a few points.

How does that proposed amendment deal with the anti's argument pertaining to:

1. Current restraining orders.

2. "Misdemeanor" violent domestic abusers.

3. Dishonorably discharged "veterans".

4. Anyone with a "mental health" flag.

5. Not being an authorized and/or legal and/or resident alien.

6. Anyone who couldn't pass a Form-4473 BGC for any other reason I don't currently know about.

Don't get me wrong, some notorious people in those categories have slipped through and passed a Form-4473 BGC, then gone forth and committed heinous acts due to the "system" not working because the "system" is lame and you can't "legislate away" evil, I'm talking about addressing the (sure to come) arguments against this (desireable and mostly effective) amendment on the aforementioned points I made.

I was thinking along similar lines. In my mind, the better solution is to make a current CHL the default BGC for anyone that has one. So instead of having to change everyone's driver's licenses, take licenses many of us already have, and simply make them acceptable in place of a BGC - whether for private sales, gun shows or through dealers/FFL's. If you have a current CHL, no BGC is needed, period. If you don't have CHL, then you have to do a BGC.

Now I know there are those that would poo poo that idea in a heartbeat as just another compromise, but I'm trying to think of an idea that doesn't add even more requirements to what we already have (save for those that refuse to get a CHL), and actually would lessen restrictions on us by dropping the BGC requirement when we buy from a dealer. I would see it as a net win for us. I could be up for that. I think we could even convince the folks in Salem that they would lose a lot of the current opposition to their bill if they would make this allowance. Honestly, I like the idea better than the ODL idea. If people don't want to do the BGC, then get the CHL. In that way, we'd probably add more CHL holders into the system too, which makes our numbers grow in the eyes of the state.

And honestly, considering that anyone who has a CHL has been through a background check and has been fingerprinted, how could they fight against this when it gives them exactly what they claim they want, without giving us the potential registration we don't want and they keep saying they won't do. We could make them out as bold faced liars and hypocrites if they fought against this plan, and force them to go on the defensive as to why they wouldn't accept such a reasonable and common sense plan

Maybe Kim Thatcher needs to have an idea like this brought to her too?

 

[rdt]

it is a nice juke, policy wise.

I think we need to move forward with the recalls still. these recent representatives seem to be party line types, and they are interested in chipping away at all kinds of different rights not just 2A. until some of them are replaced they have the votes to pull this type of action.

I have to say the DL method puts everyone's 2A rights in the hands of our ever popular DMV and their iron clad computer system.… the chl method could create a more ominous "first time buying" perception. I meet people all the time that don't own a gun cause they don't want to go though "all that registration paperwork." I explain the truth of the matter to them and the lightbulb turns on, but I mention this because public perception of the law is not the law, and "you must have a chl to buy a gun" could become the perception.

but I'm just nitpicking. either way there is a gun-stripping back door we need to guard but at least with the ODL stamp we would have a fortress to take shelter from the Bloomberg registration storm. so to speak

 

[etrain16]

it is a nice juke, policy wise.

I think we need to move forward with the recalls still. these recent representatives seem to be party line types, and they are interested in chipping away at all kinds of different rights not just 2A. until some of them are replaced they have the votes to pull this type of action.

I have to say the DL method puts everyone's 2A rights in the hands of our ever popular DMV and their iron clad computer system.… the chl method could create a more ominous "first time buying" perception. I meet people all the time that don't own a gun cause they don't want to go though "all that registration paperwork." I explain the truth of the matter to them and the lightbulb turns on, but I mention this because public perception of the law is not the law, and "you must have a chl to buy a gun" could become the perception.

but I'm just nitpicking. either way there is a gun-stripping back door we need to guard but at least with the ODL stamp we would have a fortress to take shelter from the Bloomberg registration storm. so to speak

It's not a perfect option, to be sure. But considering what we're facing, it's a better option. They basically have the votes to do what they want. We're fighting to keep them from doing that. While I and many others would like to see them do away with many of the gun laws, such as the requirement of a CHL to conceal carry, this isn't the time or place to make that happen, it simply won't happen. But, we can put them on the defensive with such a proposal. As for the perception being that you need a CHL to buy a gun, that's simply education. You can still buy a gun without a CHL, but you would have to do a BGC, which you already have to do at a dealer or gun show. It would eliminate the private sale option without a BGC for non-CHL holders, and I'd rather not see that go away, but honestly, they'r on the cusp of taking that away already. We can bubblegum and moan about what we don't want them to do, or we can offer options that offer benefits more in our favor, less in theirs. The best thing about the CHL idea is that without the requirement for a BGC, there is no registration, which is a good thing.

I'm open to hearing other options, but time is about out. I emailed Sen. Thatcher this morning about the CHL idea as an alternative to the ODL amendment. We'll see if she shows any interest.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I was thinking along similar lines. In my mind, the better solution is to make a current CHL the default BGC for anyone that has one. So instead of having to change everyone's driver's licenses, take licenses many of us already have, and simply make them acceptable in place of a BGC - whether for private sales, gun shows or through dealers/FFL's. If you have a current CHL, no BGC is needed, period. If you don't have CHL, then you have to do a BGC.

Now I know there are those that would poo poo that idea in a heartbeat as just another compromise, but I'm trying to think of an idea that doesn't add even more requirements to what we already have (save for those that refuse to get a CHL), and actually would lessen restrictions on us by dropping the BGC requirement when we buy from a dealer. I would see it as a net win for us. I could be up for that. I think we could even convince the folks in Salem that they would lose a lot of the current opposition to their bill if they would make this allowance. Honestly, I like the idea better than the ODL idea. If people don't want to do the BGC, then get the CHL. In that way, we'd probably add more CHL holders into the system too, which makes our numbers grow in the eyes of the state.

And honestly, considering that anyone who has a CHL has been through a background check and has been fingerprinted, how could they fight against this when it gives them exactly what they claim they want, without giving us the potential registration we don't want and they keep saying they won't do. We could make them out as bold faced liars and hypocrites if they fought against this plan, and force them to go on the defensive as to why they wouldn't accept such a reasonable and common sense plan

Maybe Kim Thatcher needs to have an idea like this brought to her too?

So, as long as you have asked permission of the state, and submitted to their legal and personal intrusions and registrations you can buy a gun with less encumbrances?
Are you serious?
Why would you rather have the law-abiding registered, rather than the known law-breakers registered?
Sorry etrain, but that makes NO SENSE to me.

Thatcher's plan makes the most sense to me on multiple levels.
1) It "marks" the lawbreakers not the law-abiding.
2) It avoids the gun registration aspects of the proposed UBC bill.
3) It really does stand the best chance of "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals."
4) It is a law that would still work if we should eventually arrive at the point where we adopt constitutional carry in Oregon. Which should be every gun owners goal.

 

[hollowbase]

I worked with a guy who was from Virginia and he told me that his concealed carry permit or whatever they call it back there, allowed him to circumvent the background check since he had already had one in order to get the permit.

 

[etrain16]

So, as long as you have asked permission of the state, and submitted to their legal and personal intrusions and registrations you can buy a gun with less encumbrances?
Are you serious?
Why would you rather have the law-abiding registered, rather than the known law-breakers registered?
Sorry etrain, but that makes NO SENSE to me.

Thatcher's plan makes the most sense to me on multiple levels.
1) It "marks" the lawbreakers not the law-abiding.
2) It avoids the gun registration aspects of the proposed UBC bill.
3) It really does stand the best chance of "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals."
4) It is a law that would still work if we should eventually arrive at the point where we adopt constitutional carry in Oregon. Which should be every gun owners goal.

Don't get me wrong Jamie, I'm not a fan of having to be registered for anything. But, I'm working on the idea that many of us already have CHL's and that these guys already have the votes they need to push their more restrictive UBC through, soon. The CHL idea doesn't add further registration of gun owners beyond what they already have. What it does do is give more freedom to those of us that already have them, and to those that will get them in the future by saying they won't have to pass BGC's for future purchases.

I am not opposed to Thatcher's plan, but I can see the opposition blowing big holes in it. From cost, to implementation to potential for discrimination, they'll probably tear it apart. The CHL's already exist. As for keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, kids can't get them, so you prevent teens from buying guns (at least in the minds of the anti's). Criminals can't get CHL's. so you keep the guns out of their hands too. Of course that does nothing for illegal gun sales, but UBC's won't stop those either.

The sad fact is, that to carry concealed in certain parts of this state, you already have to have a CHL. Constitutional carry, if it ever were to happen here, is a long way off. What isn't a long way off are the substantial number of votes in favor of this UBC bill that would still require you to have a CHL to carry as well. I'm simply proposing we use what's already there rather than put even more restrictions on gun owners. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's an option to consider.

 

[rdt]

i favor the ODL method

it puts power over 2A rights in the hands of DMV, but it's better than all likely alternatives and short-circuits the most effective anti-2A ploy.

that it requires education is exactly my point. it requires that now. the current laws are hard enough for the brainwashed to comprehend. I think the chl method does not undermine the bcg/registration movement, but instead is an incrental compromise. the chl method does not give us the opportunity to say we already have "prohibited person sales" prevented.

the ODL method is by far the best. it gives us the best footing to move forward

 

[Jamie6.5]

Don't get me wrong Jamie, I'm not a fan of having to be registered for anything. But, I'm working on the idea that many of us already have CHL's. It doesn't add further registration of gun owners beyond what they already have. What it does do is give more freedom to those of us that already have them, and to those that will get them in the future by saying they won't have to pass BGC's for future purchases.

I am not opposed to Thatcher's plan, but I can see the opposition blowing big holes in it. From cost, to implementation to potential for discrimination, they'll probably tear it apart. The CHL's already exist. As for keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, kids can't get them, so you prevent teens from buying guns (at least in the minds of the anti's). Criminals can't get CHL's. so you keep the guns out of their hands too. Of course that does nothing for illegal gun sales, but UBC's won't stop those either.

The sad fact is, that to carry concealed in certain parts of this state, you already have to have a CHL. Constitutional carry, if it ever were to happen here, is a long way off. What isn't a long way off are the substantial number of votes in favor of this UBC bill that would still require you to have a CHL to carry as well. I'm simply proposing we use what's already there rather than put even more restrictions on gun owners. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's an option to consider.

Sorry etrain, I'll never submit to a scheme that registers the law abiders and subjects everyone else to proctological exams to prevent law-breakers from gun purchases. That is just plain wrong.

Register law breakers not guns and/or their owners.

As far as implementation expense goes, there is no comparison. The currently proposed UBC bill would cost way more that just moving criminal records, that are already on file, to an indicator on an ODL.