Oregon Oregon Legislature - LC 1051

[maddog]

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.

I completely agree. I've written several times over the years and have never received a response back. I'll keep trying. And next time, I'm going to call his office and try that.

 

[Oathkeeper1775]

Thanks Norm! The bill would work for me in Yamhill County.

I share the pessimism because SB 176 cannot make it out of committe.

Looking at your bill; is there a way the Left could win by re-writing it?

 

[Norm0931]

Thanks Norm! The bill would work for me in Yamhill County.

I share the pessimism because SB 176 cannot make it out of committe.

Looking at your bill; is there a way the Left could win by re-writing it?

That's always the fear, right? I've considered that. They can always throw on random amendments Not much I can do about that except fight them in the media.

 

[thorborg]

So, no one has any opinion on this?

I'll opine.
"Deals that partially suck" ? Totally suck, I'll not make deals with the devil even for a half a suck, "They are going to pass what they want anyway?" And if they get any help from you or me then shame on us. "it makes them look bad in the media by exposing their lack of compromise" Compromise is for color choices, not my life! This reads like they have ever cared about their image to those not already in their choir, poor excuse to lay in bed with them.
Every tiny root if left as a compromise will eventually grow large enough to lift and split a slab of concrete.
So goes God given rights.

 

[PaulB47]

AND it expunges approved transactions every 24 hours.

Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you too.

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.

I don't believe it is wise to cooperate with the trampling of rights. This sort of political maneuvering in the end only works to the advantage of tyrants. It's like those Jews ("Kapos") in the ghettos helping the Nazis police the ghettos and load the cattle cars in an orderly fashion.

I'd rather work at limiting the damage

You are not limiting the damage. You are enabling it.

The proper way to fight an immoral and unconstitutional law is to ignore it, and to encourage others to flout it. That at least does not require the licking of boots.

 

[Hawaiian]

I don't care much about the 3 day hold. None of the FFL's I deal with will release the firearm without approval no matter how long it takes.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Articles: Why Liberals Love Compromise

Compromise has gotten us to a level that we may never be able to dig out from.... and to use the word compromise in blue states lables any R as a RINO....... my

 

[maddog]

It seems like every "compromise" made in this State since I've been here costs me time, money, freedoms, or all three. Time for blue to give.

 

[BanjoGeek]

Folks, step back and take a breather. We have a man that is attempting to put forth some legislative proposals that will maybe work on our behalf. This has been sadly lacking for us for a long time not only here in Oregon but at the national level. There is where I have a problem with the NRA not having lawmakers and attorneys drafting legislation that the demos have to spend their time and resources combating. (Yes, I am a member of the NRA) We need activity that makes "them" expend some energy rather than us fighting "their" attempts to bring about the defeat of the 2nd amendment. Please stop trying to pick it apart with endless nit picking, just go with it and the nit pickers please come up with another bill for "them" to have to contend with. We're gonna spend all day playing with the bat and forget to swing at the ball. And, no, I'm not gong to put together a bill, it takes a better mind that what I have to work with.

 

[Norm0931]

Honestly, once again, THIS IS OREGON. What political party controls the State House of Representatives? And the Senate? And the Governorship? And the Oregon Supreme Court? What's their party platform on gun rights? In case you don't know, here is their official platform.

11. We support the 2 nd Amendment and believe that hunting and responsible gun ownership are traditions worth preserving for future generations. 12. We support completed background checks for all gun sales. 13. We believe measures for reducing firearm-related injuries and deaths can be enacted in terms that pose no threat to the 2 nd Amendment and no threat to responsible personal firearm ownership and use.

Did the "no compromise" ranting of "shall not be infringed" stop Universal Background Checks?

We can either have a full plate of bubblegum loaf or a smaller bubblegum sandwich with bacon. Not eating it isn't an option in this state. If you don't realize that then you really need to come to grips with reality.

Anyone that has chimed in with "No compromise under any circumstances" have a bill or lawsuit or ANYTHING that could possibly further gun rights in the state of Oregon or at the bare minimum lessen the blow from the Anti-Gun Majority of Government that runs the state of Oregon? Explain to me how ignoring the problem and bubbleguming on a gun forum is somehow going to make the Democrats not pass California gun control in Oregon. If you've got something, share it! If it's got a snowball's chance in hell of working, I'll support you. But just sitting at your keyboard on your soapbox is lazy and worthless.

 

[PaulB47]

I have no problem with people who want to stroke legislators and beg them for crumbs of liberty. Hell, even I will admit that the intermediate step of concealed carry licenses now seems to be leading to "constitutional carry". Back in the day I was against that compromise.

But I'm sorry, I just don't think changing from begging for permission from state bureaucrats, to begging permission from federal bureaucrats, is much of an advance. Much less when you voluntarily go along with the notion that people can be indefinitely denied. That is just madness. And you are simply assuming the prohibitionists can accomplish that on their own, when it's just an assumption backed by a simple-minded counting of D's vs R's - as if no D legislator will have qualms about disarming his innocent constituents forever.

At some point, people have to say NO. When are you going to give up on dealing with these scum and just say NO? When will you stop compromising? I don't care what laws Bloomberg buys. I'm no longer paying attention to any of them. Most advances in liberty come from breaking the law, not from making deals with tyrants.

 

[Norm0931]

I have no problem with people who want to stroke legislators and beg them for crumbs of liberty. Hell, even I will admit that the intermediate step of concealed carry licenses now seems to be leading to "constitutional carry". Back in the day I was against that compromise.

But I'm sorry, I just don't think changing from begging for permission from state bureaucrats, to begging permission from federal bureaucrats, is much of an advance. Much less when you voluntarily go along with the notion that people can be indefinitely denied. That is just madness. And you are simply assuming the prohibitionists can accomplish that on their own, when it's just an assumption backed by a simple-minded counting of D's vs R's - as if no D legislator will have qualms about disarming his innocent constituents forever.

At some point, people have to say NO. When are you going to give up on dealing with these scum and just say NO? When will you stop compromising? I don't care what laws Bloomberg buys. I'm no longer paying attention to any of them. Most advances in liberty come from breaking the law, not from making deals with tyrants.

Well, I'll share your press conferences from prison on my facebook page in support.

 

[Koda]

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.

I'm skeptical we are gaining anything by giving them opportunity to delay anyone indefinitely and making it more difficult, than it already is, to appeal a denial. Is that worth saving $10? The trick is convincing Oregon gun owners the state maintains a registry. And with UBC now in Oregon, the $10 is insignificant since the FFL still has to do it hes going to charge the going rate.

I personally would like to force a compromise for an amendment to existing law that eliminates the UBC for those with CHL's... but thats a pipe dream.

 

[Koda]

At some point, people have to say NO. When are you going to give up on dealing with these scum and just say NO? When will you stop compromising? I don't care what laws Bloomberg buys. I'm no longer paying attention to any of them. Most advances in liberty come from breaking the law, not from making deals with tyrants.

the problem with this plan is you have to have enough people fed up enough to be willing to die for the cause. Please dont ask us to bring snacks...
Until then your liberty survives only within democracy.

 

[Norm0931]

UPDATE:

So my three bills are SB 552, 553, and 554. All of the language in the initial bills I don't like. I understand how legislation is flawed when they first introduce it now. Basically, some college kid that works in Salem writes what they think the bill is supposed to be then turns it over. The problem is, you only get like 24 hours to turn it in to the Sec of State before you hit a time limit. So you end up submitting a flawed bill. I am meeting with Senator Boquist on Wednesday in Salem to get these bills amended properly to say what I wanted them to. I realize it's still a long shot, but I'd rather be doing something than sitting back waiting.

 

[bolus]

Good to see the law making process is still has flawed as it was 10 years ago. I helped with a bill to make Ariel Atom's legal to drive in Oregon. Some idiot who wrote it added that they could not be driven on the highway and had to always be a certain distance to a mechanic (plus a bunch of other stupid stuff). I could not even come up with something that stupid if I tried.

what is sad is when you realize all laws are made that way.

 

[etrain16]

UPDATE:

So my three bills are SB 552, 553, and 554. All of the language in the initial bills I don't like. I understand how legislation is flawed when they first introduce it now. Basically, some college kid that works in Salem writes what they think the bill is supposed to be then turns it over. The problem is, you only get like 24 hours to turn it in to the Sec of State before you hit a time limit. So you end up submitting a flawed bill. I am meeting with Senator Boquist on Wednesday in Salem to get these bills amended properly to say what I wanted them to. I realize it's still a long shot, but I'd rather be doing something than sitting back waiting.

Regardless of how it turns out, I applaud you for taking such proactive efforts on behalf of all Oregonians and their gun rights!!

 

[Norm0931]

Regardless of how it turns out, I applaud you for taking such proactive efforts on behalf of all Oregonians and their gun rights!!

Thanks etrain!

 

[Timbertodd]

Thank you Norm for your time and efforts.

 

[Koda]

First, with Kate brown using her executive power to force osp to make a 5 year log of purchases and transfers, thus making sb941 enforceable to those who decide to enforce it, will there be any language in the bill to put a stop to Oregon's new database?

Kate Brown did not enforce the OSP "5 year" gun registration, its been that way for many years before she slid into office.

Not to sound like a tin foil hat but I'm sure if that executive order was still in effect and pushed by the Dems, there's no reason osp can't store our information or duplicate the data to be stored.

you are correct, there is nothing in the law that says the OSP cannot make backups of the registry or how many backups or how they manage those backups to purge/delete backup information after 5 years.

I honestly am fine with osp... It's the fbi I don't trust. I have never had an unpleasant experience with osp. Intact...For a reason I did have to talk to them, I felt like they were some of the nicest most helpful people ever.

Your fine with the OSP as long as your on the good side of the law, which you are. Think about how that relationship will be if they ever banned a gun you might own, or high capacity mags... and the OSP is investigating you for that, say if you got pulled over for speeding and had something in your car.

I feel we could be treated with less care with the fbi. I realize most of what I said aren't questions. I'm very skeptical.

Again...I may be a giant tin foil for this but I don't believe the fbi doesn't break federal law and have a database on us and our guns.

yup, your correct... keep your tin foil hat on.