Oregon Instant Background Approval

[sparky923]

That's not a right being denied…..

That's just loosing out on a good "deal." You still had the option to get the gun. It just wasn't financially worth it at that point.

Delays happen.
Getting put in the que happens.

Getting DENIED as a legal gun owner/law abiding citizen is another story.

Be a good little citizen and pick up that can.

 

[Member 53328]

Be a good little citizen and pick up that can.

…… if you're talking suppressor than yes, I have a few of those.

Not sure what you're trying to get at. Not like I care.

 

[FireArm]

I found an interesting thing about my checks. I share an IRL name with a felon out east somewhere so I am used to getting holds while they sort that stuff out. But about a month ago I forgot to put my social on the paperwork and it got punched in without it. Instant approval. Tried again a few weeks ago and intentionally left it off, still instant approval. That makes two for two, and I have no idea why. I have been putting my social on that paperwork basically since forever and have always had problems with delays. Sometimes the bureaucratic gods smile on you it seems, and no one knows why.

gonna try that

 

[Mark W.]

After a decade of buying firearms and it never taking more then 15 mins to get an approval, With a recently renewed CHL (held since 1991)in my pocket and a recent purchase just months before. And not so much as a conversation with the law. I went into a gun shop in Keizer to buy a Uburti Winchester model 1885 single shot rifle with a 32" barrel. Put my Social on the form. And within 20 min I was delayed...........After 62 days of fighting to get the rifle released getting a lawyer involved, even actually talking to the Lieutenant at OSP in charge of BGC's to find out what the hang up was (no way to fix it myself during the covid crap due to it being something involving Multnomah co records and they were closed for the duration) I finally got Rick Lewis my State rep to intervene and within 24 hours I guess he lit them up pretty good) I had a call from the BGC dept. explaining the hang up they were blaming someone who did not file some info about a traffic stop in 1981 properly in my file!!!! I had passed 2 dozen or more BGC's before this happened. And that if I went back to the store and did a new 4473 (as it had been over 30 days) that it would be approved immediately and I could finally get my $1500 rifle that had now cost me more then $2000 with lawyer fee's etc.

SO you just never know what bull fart the state can come up with.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I found an interesting thing about my checks. I share an IRL name with a felon out east somewhere so I am used to getting holds while they sort that stuff out. But about a month ago I forgot to put my social on the paperwork and it got punched in without it. Instant approval. Tried again a few weeks ago and intentionally left it off, still instant approval. That makes two for two, and I have no idea why. I have been putting my social on that paperwork basically since forever and have always had problems with delays. Sometimes the bureaucratic gods smile on you it seems, and no one knows why.

I would never put social on a 4473. It's not required. Why give gov more info than bare minimum required?

 

[Mikej]

I would never put social on a 4473. It's not required. Why give gov more info than bare minimum required?

Never had a problem, probably because of my last name. Never saw a need to put the ss#. Wifey's last name is quite common. I don't think she's put her ss# either.

 

[lucusloc]

I would never put social on a 4473. It's not required. Why give gov more info than bare minimum required?

In theory it is supposed to help people like me clear the BGC faster by providing proof that I am indeed a separate and distinct individual from others who share my name. And let's face it, it's not like withholding your SSN is hiding anything from them; the government already has your SSN since they are the ones who provided it. If they want to cross link your SSN with your 4473 it is probably less than 5 minutes of work for them to do that.

So the calculus is to provide one more bit of info they already have in exchange for a faster processing time so your "taxed time" is less. That is a pretty simple calculation to make if all you are considering is cost to you. If you are including "feels" and "implied message" and other subjective measures, then sure there are lots of arguments to not include anything you do not absolutely have to, but I doubt very much the ATF actually cares one way or the other. I mean, what are they even going to do with you SSN other than stick into a database and sit on it? They already have literally everything else important about you on the form.

The real puzzle is why providing the SSN seems to slow down the process, when it is supposed to be a distinct identifier that should speed it up instead.

 

[orygun]

I got delayed week before last transferring a used gun. The guy at the gunshop said he's noticed that a lot of people had been getting delayed, but followed that statement up by adding, "I'll probably be calling you early tomorrow." Yep. 9:20am the next day I got the "all clear".
Besides that, once way back in 2000 and one time 3 years ago transferring a gun in Washington, I've been nearly instant every time. I've had a CHL in this state since 1990 or so, too.
Who knows the reason(s). It does have to pass through a state agency, ya know?

 

[Member 53328]

I always add my SSN

After the amount of times I wrote it on paperwork in the military I don't even think about it when filling out a 4473 now…..

I would think a SSN would help the process rather than hurt it. But nothing surprises me nowadays. Especially when you see the minimum wage employees who are implementing your information for the BGC…..

We are talking about the government here…. Whether it be federal or state. DMV, VA, LE, medical, etc. they don't care about us and they aren't in a hurry to help.

 

[lucusloc]

That's not a right being denied…..

That's just loosing out on a good "deal." You still had the option to get the gun. It just wasn't financially worth it at that point.

Delays happen.
Getting put in the que happens.

Getting DENIED as a legal gun owner/law abiding citizen is another story.

It is a right denied. Just because it was not explicit does not make it any less the reality of the situation. Or are you saying that the equivalent of a $4500 tax on NFA items in the 1930s was not a denial-by-economics to poor people to exercise their rights? At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

A tax on time is the same thing, only targeting people who do not have that as a free resource instead of money. If your lack of time prevents you from exercising that right then you were defacto denied. Can't pay the tax cant exercise the right; DENIED. Just because they are trying to boil that frog slowly does not mean they are not cranking up the heat. 3 day waiting periods, then 10 day, then maybe a month. . . or for NFA items try a year at times. . . Anyone not willing to put in the time is denied their rights by default. It's just done so in a way they can twist it and blame the victim for not "making the choice" to "participate in the process," as if that is something everyone can do and there are not people out there for whom this is not an insurmountable burden.

Don't make excuses for them, call it what it is. A right delayed is a right denied, at least for those moments. If you can delay long enough that the person has to walk away it is a right permanently denied. Don't blame the victim because they did not make the choice to be further extorted by the system.

 

[Member 53328]

It is a right denied. Just because it was not explicit does not make it any less the reality of the situation. Or are you saying that the equivalent of a $4500 tax on NFA items in the 1930s was not a denial-by-economics to poor people to exercise their rights? At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

A tax on time is the same thing, only targeting people who do not have that as a free resource instead of money. If your lack of time prevents you from exercising that right then you were defacto denied. Can't pay the tax cant exercise the right; DENIED. Just because they are trying to boil that frog slowly does not mean they are not cranking up the heat. 3 day waiting periods, then 10 day, then maybe a month. . . or for NFA items try a year at times. . . Anyone not willing to put in the time is denied their rights by default. It's just done so in a way they can twist it and blame the victim for not "making the choice" to "participate in the process," as if that is something everyone can do and there are not people out there for whom this is not an insurmountable burden.

Don't make excuses for them, call it what it is. A right delayed is a right denied, at least for those moments. If you can delay long enough that the person has to walk away it is a right permanently denied. Don't blame the victim because they did not make the choice to be further extorted by the system.

I disagree. You're just impatient.

If you can't afford a $10.00 background check then why are you buying a gun…. How did you fill up your tank, buy ammo, or afford the gun in the first place?

Dealers gotta make money too.

I live in reality.

 

[lucusloc]

I disagree. You're just impatient.

I live in reality.

I reiterate my standing question; At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

This is not a question of reality, the reality is quite clears once the principle is understood. The only question is one of degrees; at what point do you personally think the tax is too high, and why should you think that your particular threshold is universal to everyone else.

 

[Member 53328]

I reiterate my standing question; At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

This is not a question of reality, the reality is quite clears once the principle is understood. The only question is one of degrees; at what point do you personally think the tax is too high, and why should you think that your particular threshold is universal to everyone else.

Everyone gets a gun for free. Happy now?

Cause that's a reality…. lol. Sounds like socialism but they don't like guns….

$10.00 - $30.00 isn't high for a BGC.

 

[lucusloc]

Everyone gets a gun for free. Happy now?

Cause that's a reality…. lol.

Straw man argument is straw man.

We are not talking about the principle, incidental and otherwise necessary costs incurred between free parties in an economic transaction. We are talking about the imposed costs on that transaction by a third party with the explicit goal to hinder that otherwise free transaction.

Please try to follow the argument and respond to that argument, not some argument construct that was never made.

 

[Member 53328]

Straw man argument is straw man.

We are not talking about the principle, incidental and otherwise necessary costs incurred between free parties in an economic transaction. We are talking about the imposed costs on that transaction by a third party with the explicit goal to hinder that otherwise free transaction.

Please try to follow the argument and respond to that argument, not some argument construct that was never made.

You and your fancy words. Haha.

So how much should a background cost in your opinion? Cause in Oregon that's the only extra (imposed) "fee" you're paying to take a gun home after purchase.

We're not talking about NFA items. Just a run of the mill pistol or rifle.

Would you be happier if the dealer just marked up the price to include the BGC fee?

Does not seeing it as a separate line item make you feel better?

Or will you complain about the price at that point too?

lol.

Background checks aren't going to go away….

 

[lucusloc]

You and your fancy words. Haha.

So how much should a background cost in your opinion? Cause in Oregon that's the only extra "fee" you're paying to take a gun home after purchase.

We're not talking about NFA items. Just a run of the mill pistol or rifle.

Would you be happier if the dealer just marked up the price to include the BGC fee?

Does not seeing it as a separate line item make you feel better?

Or will you complain about the price at that point too?

lol.

Background checks aren't going to go away….

I reiterate my standing question; At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

If you cannot understand and answer that question honestly then you will never understand my argument.

And we must remember that we are talking about more than just money. Time is a resource too, and the imposition on time can be a much greater burden for some than any monetary imposition. There are already states out there that have implemented mandatory waiting periods, and then increased those wait times by degrees.

And do not try to straw man my argument into "all taxation is theft". I am just going to nip that in the bud right now. It costs money to run a civilization, government has a necessary place in that civilization, and the most proper and egalitarian way to fund that government is for everyone to chip in according to their means; i.e. participate in a taxed system.

Finally, we all recognize that taxes can be used by government to regulate behavior. If a behavior has a large indirect cost to the public (think "tragedy of the commons" type stuff) I think most people will agree that a tax on that activity that will offset the public burden is entirely appropriate.

The question, then, is how appropriate is it to burden an activity that is recognized as a basic right with some kind of tax (time, money, something else)? How much additional economic burden should a third party (like the government) impose on stuff like food and water, basic housing, medical care and (in this particular conversation) the access to arms?

Again, this is not asking how much those things should cost. Any activity has an associated cost and it is a basic first principle that a person performing an activity for someone else should be compensated for that performance. And it follows that that compensation should be freely negotiated between the parties, and if no deal can be hashed out then the transaction simply will not happen. Food, housing, medical care and arms all cost time, money and other resources to produce, and the person producing them should get just compensation from the person consuming them. The only question is how much should a third party (i.e. the government in this case) put their finger on the scale of such a transaction? And we should answer that knowing full well that even the tiniest of pressures could push someone out of the transaction entirely, as that addition burden could be more than they can bear.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

In theory it is supposed to help people like me clear the BGC faster by providing proof that I am indeed a separate and distinct individual from others who share my name. And let's face it, it's not like withholding your SSN is hiding anything from them; the government already has your SSN since they are the ones who provided it. If they want to cross link your SSN with your 4473 it is probably less than 5 minutes of work for them to do that.

So the calculus is to provide one more bit of info they already have in exchange for a faster processing time so your "taxed time" is less. That is a pretty simple calculation to make if all you are considering is cost to you. If you are including "feels" and "implied message" and other subjective measures, then sure there are lots of arguments to not include anything you do not absolutely have to, but I doubt very much the ATF actually cares one way or the other. I mean, what are they even going to do with you SSN other than stick into a database and sit on it? They already have literally everything else important about you on the form.

The real puzzle is why providing the SSN seems to slow down the process, when it is supposed to be a distinct identifier that should speed it up instead.

People in the gun store can see it which alone is reason not enough to put it on there. Also I don't give it out for anything if it can be possibly avoided.

 

[Member 53328]

I reiterate my standing question; At what point does an intentionally burdensome tax become an implicit denial to people who cannot pay that tax?

If you cannot understand and answer that question honestly then you will never understand my argument.

And we must remember that we are talking about more than just money. Time is a resource too, and the imposition on time can be a much greater burden for some than any monetary imposition. There are already states out there that have implemented mandatory waiting periods, and then increased those wait times by degrees.

And do not try to straw man my argument into "all taxation is theft". I am just going to nip that in the bud right now. It costs money to run a civilization, government has a necessary place in that civilization, and the most proper and egalitarian way to fund that government is for everyone to chip in according to their means; i.e. participate in a taxed system.

Finally, we all recognize that taxes can be used by government to regulate behavior. If a behavior has a large indirect cost to the public (think "tragedy of the commons" type stuff) I think most people will agree that a tax on that activity that will offset the public burden is entirely appropriate.

The question, then, is how appropriate is it to burden an activity that is recognized as a basic right with some kind of tax (time, money, something else)? How much additional economic burden should a third party (like the government) impose on stuff like food and water, basic housing, medical care and (in this particular conversation) the access to arms?

Again, this is not asking how much those things should cost. Any activity has an associated cost and it is a basic first principle that a person performing an activity for someone else should be compensated for that performance. And it follows that that compensation should be freely negotiated between the parties, and if no deal can be hashed out then the transaction simply will not happen. Food, housing, medical care and arms all cost time, money and other resources to produce, and the person producing them should get just compensation from the person consuming them. The only question is how much should a third party (i.e. the government in this case) put their finger on the scale of such a transaction? And we should answer that knowing full well that even the tiniest of pressures could push someone out of the transaction entirely, as that addition burden could be more than they can bear.

That's a broad brush I'm not gunna paint with.

The answer for someone who lives paycheck to paycheck working at Tacobell is going to be different than that of someone who is a CEO of a thriving company.

Life is made up of choices. And those choices have benefits and consequences.

 

[lucusloc]

That's a broad brush I'm not gunna paint with.

The answer for someone who lives paycheck to paycheck working at Tacobell is going to be different than that of someone who is a CEO of a thriving company.

Exactly my point. And this is why such taxes can be such a problem; they are implicit denials to those who have less of that particular resource to work with. If you cannot afford to pay the tax then you are denied your ability to exercise that right.

 

[Member 53328]

Exactly my point. And this is why such taxes can be such a problem; they are implicit denials to those who have less of that particular resource to work with. If you cannot afford to pay the tax then you are denied your ability to exercise that right.

So it goes back to time and a monetary value.

It's not a denial if it was caused by the individual's poor life decisions.

That's like someone arguing, "I only want to work 8 hours a week and live off the government and have saved up enough money to buy a Hi-point. But…. I don't have the money or time to wait for my BGC so my right is being denied."

Work harder. I don't feel sorry for them.

Now who I do feel sorry for is the mom who just had a nasty divorce and the ex-husband is threatening her life and she is forced to wait a set amount of time before she can get her pistol to defend herself and her kids. And during to gap in time she is reliant on a piece of paper to protect her.

So yes I agree there are varying degrees to this. I have no issue with having to pay a minimal fee but being forced to wait a set period of time is an issue. But when it's ran by the government you better have nothing but time. Even though that wait may end up in the loss of life. That blood is on the hands of the government and those that voted in that legislation.

I have much more of an issue with time than I do with money.