Oregon Oregon Legislature - LC 1051

[Norm0931]

"Removes Department of State Police as designated state point of contact for purposes of National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Requires gun dealer to obtain authorization to transfer firearm directly from system."

My bill has been drafted! Encourage your state legislators in Oregon to sign on as co-sponsors of this bill with Senator Brian Boquist! Lets end the $10 gun tax, get rid of Kate Brown's registry, and remove the faulty system in Salem.

Read More

 

[fxdc]

Oh hell yeah!

 

[captqc]

That's a good start! The best defense is a good offense!

 

[Norm0931]

That's a good start! The best defense is a good offense!

That was my thinking. Even if it dies we can hammer them about intent and how this bill would actually make Oregonians safer, but the gun grabbers are corrupt and opposed to any compromise, etc.

 

[Norm0931]

So, after speaking with Kevin at OFF and thinking about this myself I came up with a couple changes to the bill. The first change is purely language-based because the people that wrote the bill don't have any idea how either system works. That's easy.

However, the next changes are a bit more controversial.

Basically, what I'm thinking is, dealers will switch to the NICS system. This will cost Oregonians less, no $10 tax (and since that $10 doesn't go to fund background checks, we all damn well know it's a tax), the FBI system is more secure and farther reaching that Oregon's, it's also run more efficiently, AND it expunges approved transactions every 24 hours. Downside is that it's a lot more difficult to appeal a denial currently (granted this may very likely change in Jan).

However, OSP would maintain a minimal background check unit specifically for private transfers. Currently, you can call OSP and run a background for a private transfer only at a gun show. We'd expand this to anywhere. So, you can skip going to a gun shop and paying the transfer fee, but still kick some cash to the state for the background.

Now comes the really rough section. The reality of our situation is that the Dems are going to pass whatever they want. My thought is that we include the removal of the 3-day delay turnover (you are delayed and can take possession after 3 days if no response). I agree, it's bubblegumty that they can perpetually delay you. However, they're going to pass that bill regardless. If we force them to "compromise" with the background check changes, it makes them look bad in the media by exposing their lack of compromise if they don't go with the changes we ask for.

Thoughts? Please, Oregon is not Idaho, we're playing with a stacked deck against us. Flat out stone-walling is not going to get us anywhere. We're going to have to make some deals that partially suck, but that's the reality of Oregon's political climate.

 

[Norm0931]

So, no one has any opinion on this?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Any chance of over turning some of Gov''ness browns actions, like the mandated OSP "Hold" on 4473 data collected at time of transfer? I like the idea of removing OSP completely from the process.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I don't think that they will compromise with anything the other side brings to the table.... They are in control and will do what they want, it's proven... SB941....

 

[FireArm]

Might as well just write a bill to remove sb941... id go for that.

 

[nammac]

SB941 is worthless and unenforceable as proven by the Lake Oswego pastors clear violation and self proclamation of transfer to another person without said background check...

A small compromise to get the state out of the background check process and circumvent their state registration database.... I'm all for that...

Edited to correct my phones incorrect autocorrection.... Grrrrr....

 

[ozmosis]

Sound like a good idea.

 

[BanjoGeek]

I like this, it is something that the anti's have to spend some time and resources opposing and they will. If it is presented in a professional manner then it is a win for us no matter the outcome. We need to flood the Oregon legislature with bills such as this in order to make our presence known not to the anti's in state govt but the general public. Show ourselves in a professional manner rather than gun toting camo'ed up people braying like a donkey about the "cold dead hands."

 

[maddog]

My Senator is Richard Devlin, chance of him signing on is slim to none. This is a good bill for us, and I'm all for it. Julie Parrish is my Rep and we can count on her continued support of gun proponents in the House. I'm glad to hear this Norm0931!

 

[tiggers97]

My Senator is Richard Devlin, chance of him signing on is slim to none.

If anything, the more anti-stereotype gun owners these politicians actually get to see and talk to, the better the chances we get thru to one or two (or three?) Which is all it really takes to get one of these bills stopped (or passed) in the senate.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Might as well just write a bill to remove sb941... id go for that.

And the Emergency Clause!!!!

 

[etrain16]

Thanks for working toward this Norm! One of my biggest complaints is the lack of pro-active gun legislation, aimed at bettering our rights here in Oregon. I think your proposed bill is a great step in the right direction. I agree we're working at an extreme disadvantage, but I could see this bill, even if it fails, brought up again and again, legislature after legislature, to really pound them about keeping a registry and restricting our rights.

I wonder too, if this doesn't work going through the legislature, if this could work as a ballot measure? Now that we'll have a SOS that will actually count the signatures rather than dismiss them out of hand, maybe it could actually work?

 

[Joe Link]

Now comes the really rough section. The reality of our situation is that the Dems are going to pass whatever they want. My thought is that we include the removal of the 3-day delay turnover (you are delayed and can take possession after 3 days if no response). I agree, it's bubblegumty that they can perpetually delay you. However, they're going to pass that bill regardless. If we force them to "compromise" with the background check changes, it makes them look bad in the media by exposing their lack of compromise if they don't go with the changes we ask for.

Thoughts? Please, Oregon is not Idaho, we're playing with a stacked deck against us. Flat out stone-walling is not going to get us anywhere. We're going to have to make some deals that partially suck, but that's the reality of Oregon's political climate.

As much as it sucks, this is our reality right now. We can stand on our soap boxes and shout until we're blue, but that's not going to change anything. In my opinion this is a net gain for gun owners.

I say go for it.

 

[HB of CJ]

Thank you. I am confused. You bill would chuck the state system for the national FBI system of back ground checks? Is this ultimately wise? Seems to me we would be just bowing to a bigger indifferent master?

Eliminating the three day delayed-then-transfer-language might be a very bad idea? Some control is better than no control? Or, am I reading this all wrong. Somebody correct me please. Just me. Respectfully.

What I would like is eliminating the gun show proprietor having the right to make his gun show into a free kill zone. Specifically demanding zero loaded weapons in the show. What about CC and law enforcement?

How about titling it "The Gun Show Safety Act"? Letting CC licensees and off duty law enforcement CC loaded at gun shows. Seems at many gun shows many carrying customers don't attend and walk away.

Getting back to the Oregon situation, I for one would have concerns with any language that even implies that we are thinking "defeatism" and not ultimate complete victory. Do not let the enemy see you sweat and stuff.

Respectfully. HB

 

[Norm0931]

Any chance of over turning some of Gov''ness browns actions, like the mandated OSP "Hold" on 4473 data collected at time of transfer? I like the idea of removing OSP completely from the process.

Switching to NICS would remove the hold because OSP would no longer be doing the majority of the checks. The NCIS system expunges every 24 hours.

 

[Norm0931]

Thank you. I am confused. You bill would chuck the state system for the national FBI system of back ground checks? Is this ultimately wise? Seems to me we would be just bowing to a bigger indifferent master?

The FBI system is much more secure and expunges every 24 hours. It's also free versus the $10 we pay now.

Eliminating the three day delayed-then-transfer-language might be a very bad idea? Some control is better than no control? Or, am I reading this all wrong. Somebody correct me please. Just me. Respectfully.

The three day delayed then transfer is something the Dems already have a bill that they are going to pass. It's going to be law no matter what. However, if we jump ahead of them and say it's us "Compromising" then we look better in the media.

Getting back to the Oregon situation, I for one would have concerns with any language that even implies that we are thinking "defeatism" and not ultimate complete victory. Do not let the enemy see you sweat and stuff.

That sounds great here and at a table with a bunch of gun owners. The reality is, this is Oregon, a very blue state. That kind of rhetoric is no different than Hillary demanding the electors pick her instead "because." I'd rather work at limiting the damage, improving our public perception, and getting small victories where we can than throwing a temper tantrum and being left out of the conversation.