Oregon background bill postponed

[bakersman345]

If they pass it, the best compromise is the cpl/ pre approved background. With out having to send it to the state just a picture for our private records, like most of us do now with the B.O.S already.
- the upside might mean more people with cpl's.

 

[rdt]

this is not just about OUR rights, it's about ALL out rights!!!!!!

the chl method, in terms of strategy, further divides us from future gun owners. also it essentially and legally concedes the need for private sale bcgs! that is not out goal at all!

do you mean to say that as long as YOU are not inconvenienced, everyone else can have their rights obstructed?

even if everyone in the state gets a chl, and then we all vote in constitutional carry, the law and precedent is to require bcgs for private sales.

on the other hand if we get constitutional carry and we have ODL/state ID card "prohibited person" stamps, there is still no private sale bcg.

the bcg is total gun registration.

the chl is partial gun owner registration.

totally different beasts

 

[rdt]

a hypothetical boost to chl #s IS NOT worth a real acquiescence to universal bcg/registration.

 

[bakersman345]

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.

#4-- the issue I have with that Ks who gets to decide who gets their rights striped away, where di we draw the line? Many people have seen a doctor for mild depression or anxiety. Should they lose there right? What about a rape victim with mild ptsd?
-- I'm sure you were referring to the law that's already there about being court ordered to a mental hospital, but if they had it there way 500,000 soldiers would lose their right. Sometimes people lose their marbles and kill people. We all can agree taking guns wont solve that. You can always get a blade or manufacture a bomb.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Register Socialists in Oregon not Firearms

 

[etrain16]

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.

I'm just trying to think of ideas that help prevent loss of further rights. If nothing stops the current UBC bill, then we're all screwed. Offering a less offensive alternative may be the best option under the current heavily anti-gun administration. I'm not against the ODL idea, I just don't think it has much of a chance to pass for reasons I've already stated. At least for current CHL holders, well, we're already registered, so what do we lose? As for the future folks inconvenienced by having to either get a CHL or a background check for each purchase, how is that any different from the bill they're on the cusp of passing now? The only difference is that even CHL holders will still be required to get a BGC, so you're still recorded/registered for EVERY purchase. I still think the CHL plan could be a viable option that is less intrusive to gun owners. I know not everyone agrees with that, but we've got to find any way possible to block that UBC bill from going through. And if all we have to offer is constitutional carry, they'll completely ignore us and push it through. The ODL amendment slowed them down, for now. It remains to be seen what they'll do with it.

 

[chris61182]

I heard on NPR a little bit ago Prozanski defending felon's rights, he was saying something about this being a scarlet letter. I can't find this online yet, can anyone else find a link about it?

 

[BanjoGeek]

Over 20 years ago the late Mike Percival put forth an idea for a designation on current drivers licenses that allows purchase of a firearm without any further checks. Naturally the individual would have to be vetted through the local sherrif and bear the cost of having the designation placed on the government issued ID. It did not fly during the initial phases due to Oregon State Police officer Major Renfrow having much the same attitude as sen prozanski. I didn't like the good major involved as the police are there to enforce laws, not create them. I did not lay my life on the line in order to have a police state. Then comes the great jane cease, head of the DMV and she didn't want her employees deciding who should and should not be able to purchase a firearm. Never mind the DMV employees merely have to be able to read to implement this law. That was prior to the computer system disaster the cease woman created. Overall, I think the idea was doomed because it had some logic and was quite simple. Too much for the commies up on rock hill to comprehend.

 

[Mr.B]

I heard on NPR a little bit ago Prozanski defending felon's rights, he was saying something about this being a scarlet letter. I can't find this online yet, can anyone else find a link about it?

Don't want a scarlet letter, don't be a felon. Felon's rights...............what about law abiding citizens rights? Prozanski needs to be shipped to the commie country of his choice. I will donate to his airfare. One way, of course.

 

[wayoutwest]

I heard on NPR a little bit ago Prozanski defending felon's rights, he was saying something about this being a scarlet letter. I can't find this online yet, can anyone else find a link about it?

Chris I also heard that same thing on the radio this moring...

 

[U201491]

Register Socialists in Oregon not Firearms

There is a better solution for them . That is too kind. They dont deserve that. [emoji109]

 

[PiratePast40]

#4-- the issue I have with that Ks who gets to decide who gets their rights striped away, where di we draw the line? Many people have seen a doctor for mild depression or anxiety. Should they lose there right? What about a rape victim with mild ptsd? .......

Putting it in those terms makes this bill even more cruel and obscene. One more time, the "party of compassion" is targeting those most likely to need protection.

 

[Roger65]

Forgive me if I am misreading this, but does that amendment require EVERYONE IN THE STATE to go out and get a new drivers license RIGHT NOW?

Because that is going to fly like a lead balloon. The average Joe who doesn't care about any of this is going to be as happy to do that as they were to pay the road tax.

 

[CAMc]

I am surprised at the number of folks that are willing to consider SB 941 with Thatcher's amendment.

Any way you look at it, you are still losing. The burden of proof is still on you, and that is bubblegum backwards.

If this bill passes, in any form, we have all lost.

 

[balaperdida]

I am loathe to admit that sometimes the Feds have a better method. Background checks is one. As every (I hope!) gun owner knows, the background check is required when buying a gun from a FFL, unless the buyer holds a CHL (OR), CWL (ID), CPL? (WA), etc. issued by the State of residence. No BC is required for any FTF. Disqualified individuals still are forbidden to obtain firearms by any means. IIRC, this whole scheme was established in GCA68.

Possibly less well known is that the first attempt to impose the GFSZA was rejected as being unConstitutional. Nevertheless, Congress put their empty heads together and said "Hey! Let's use the Commerce clause!" They did so by including a phrase that invokes the Act for any firearm that has moved in interstate or foreign commerce. This made Uncle Joe Biden (the originator) and the Supremes happy, so the GFSZA became law. (No, not Diana Ross Supremes.) (BTW, I still believe the GFSZA is unconstitutional. But, I also believe the prohibitions for minor possession under GCA68 are also unconstitutional. Makes no difference.)

What's my point? Perhaps there is a legal genius on the Forum who could investigate (pro bono, of course) the possibility that primacy of the Federal system, under the Commerce clause, could be invoked against WA I594 and OR SB941 for any firearm that has been in interstate or foreign commerce, just as it was to get the GFSZA approved by the courts.

The GCA68 system is well established. We are extremely unlikely to return to pre-GCA68 times, but law-abiding gun owners should be able to make use of this 46-year history.

Just my $0.02, I am still not a lawyer. YMMV. Where ae my meds?

 

[Partsproduction]

Agreed with the concept that only those who have proven by actual evil actions are subject to further scrutiny and/or rejection of any or all firearms rights, but I would take it further, they lose the right to vote and to run for public office, driving privileges (A car can be used as a lethal weapon just as an Airbus can) pilot privileges (Naturally) and all rights, period! If the censure of the many deprive any of rights let them take them all. Lets see if the demonrats are up to THAT! Why should firearms rights be any less valued than any others in the BOR?

 

[balaperdida]

Agreed with the concept that only those who have proven by actual evil actions are subject to further scrutiny and/or rejection of any or all firearms rights, but I would take it further, they lose the right to vote and to run for public office, driving privileges (A car can be used as a lethal weapon just as an Airbus can) pilot privileges (Naturally) and all rights, period! If the censure of the many deprive any of rights let them take them all. Lets see if the demonrats are up to THAT! Why should firearms rights be any less valued than any others in the BOR?

What you propose was known as the "outlaw" sentence. The sentence existed into the 20th century

 

[Jamie6.5]

I am surprised at the number of folks that are willing to consider SB 941 with Thatcher's amendment.

Any way you look at it, you are still losing. The burden of proof is still on you, and that is bubblegum backwards.

If this bill passes, in any form, we have all lost.

I'm only willing to accept Thatcher's amendment instead of the rest of that monstrosity.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Forgive me if I am misreading this, but does that amendment require EVERYONE IN THE STATE to go out and get a new drivers license RIGHT NOW?

Because that is going to fly like a lead balloon. The average Joe who doesn't care about any of this is going to be as happy to do that as they were to pay the road tax.

No it doesn't. You don't get your ODL at the DMV anymore anyway. They mail it to you.
So the state just mails everyone that needs a "no gun" indicator their new marked license.
Done.
Anyone that is supposed to have one that presents the wrong one in a traffic stop loses theirs for 90-180 days.
Done.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I'm just trying to think of ideas that help prevent loss of further rights. If nothing stops the current UBC bill, then we're all screwed. Offering a less offensive alternative may be the best option under the current heavily anti-gun administration. I'm not against the ODL idea, I just don't think it has much of a chance to pass for reasons I've already stated. At least for current CHL holders, well, we're already registered, so what do we lose? As for the future folks inconvenienced by having to either get a CHL or a background check for each purchase, how is that any different from the bill they're on the cusp of passing now? The only difference is that even CHL holders will still be required to get a BGC, so you're still recorded/registered for EVERY purchase. I still think the CHL plan could be a viable option that is less intrusive to gun owners. I know not everyone agrees with that, but we've got to find any way possible to block that UBC bill from going through. And if all we have to offer is constitutional carry, they'll completely ignore us and push it through. The ODL amendment slowed them down, for now. It remains to be seen what they'll do with it.

I don't want the currently worded bill passed, and will work to recall any that vote for it. As should we all.

Any legislator that votes to replace the current bill with Thatcher's idea gets my backing.
Any legislator that votes for the existing bill obviously wants guns and their owners registered.

Thatcher's idea is the only one that doesn't involve keeping a gun registry, and puts the onus on the violators instead of the law abiding.