Oregon penalty for not doing a background check

[284guy]

Explain for everyone how laws or penalties deter someone willing to commit homicide, then suicide.

He may have killed himself to avoid prison time. Not even a good attempt at a straw man.
Strike 2

 

[uberguy]

So I'm trying to follow along with your logic here.

If there were no gun available, the ex-husband or boyfriend would have stayed a good guy and not harmed the woman. Mere access to a firearm turned him into a homicidal/suicidal criminal. If not for the gun, all would be right in the world. Does that about sum it up?

And in regards to "He may have killed himself to avoid prison time."

Then, the law and the penalties utterly failed as a preventative measure.

Thanks for making my point even more clear.

 

[284guy]

So I'm trying to follow along with your logic here.

If there were no gun available, the ex-husband or boyfriend would have stayed a good guy and not harmed the woman. Mere access to a firearm turned him into a homicidal/suicidal criminal. If not for the gun, all would be right in the world. Does that about sum it up?

And in regards to "He may have killed himself to avoid prison time."

Then, the law and the penalties utterly failed as a preventative measure.

Thanks for making my point even more clear.

The mental gymnastics it takes to follow that is exhausting. Had n
He not had access to that gun, he may have cooled off and the situation might have been avoided.
The thought of punishment may have made him take the cowards way out. Who knows? You didn't have a point, let alone did I strengthen it. Lol

 

[oneharmonic]

Amazing, isn't it? A few short years ago, what the FFL did (if they were a private party) was perfectly legal.

But an FFL by definition isn't a private party, so even a few years ago before Oregon had a background check rule for private party transfers, this FFL would have still been required to do a background check. This isn't about the "anti's playbook", it's about following the law, plain and simple.

 

[uberguy]

Now that's funny. Pretend you win, when no credible points were articulated. There's a name for that, rhymes with roll. And no, guns don't cause violence - consider the bubble popped.

 

[leadcounsel]

It's just never ending with these gun control lunatics. They have absolutely no brains.

So when will Shell gas station be liable for arson fires? When will knife sellers be liable for murders? When will the holder of a garage sale be liable for the murder from the tire iron he sold?

 

[284guy]

Now that's funny. Pretend you win, when no credible points were articulated. There's a name for that, rhymes with roll. And no, guns don't cause violence - consider the bubble popped.

At least we agree you had no credible points. No, guns don't cause violence, but they can be an easy tool for cowards.

 

[284guy]

It's just never ending with these gun control lunatics. They have absolutely no brains.

So when will Shell gas station be liable for arson fires? When will knife sellers be liable for murders? When will the holder of a garage sale be liable for the murder from the tire iron he sold?

It's not illegal to sell gas, a knife, etc. You're purposely missing the point.

 

[Ops]

don't break the law and youll be fine. to bad its only 60 days in jail.

 

[leadcounsel]

But an FFL by definition isn't a private party, so even a few years ago before Oregon had a background check rule for private party transfers, this FFL would have still been required to do a background check. This isn't about the "anti's playbook", it's about following the law, plain and simple.

Say wha....??!! The reason we HAVE background checks is the Brady Bunch and their nonsense under Clinton. I'm a law abiding guy and understand your point. But you must admit that the goal posts are continually moved to restrict gun rights. And this IS the anti's playbook.

In just 6 years in Washington, the antis
* Eliminated private transfers requiring an FFL;
* Have driven FFLs out of Seattle and out of business in the state (several moved or closed or are on the verge of closing);
* In July, it gets harder and more expensive yet with mandatory classes and additional fees;
* New longer wait periods without exception for permit holders;
* The combination of these makes it far harder and more expensive to transfer a gun.

In summary, we might say that they now require an FFL for a transfer but there's no more FFLs or the fees are so high or inconvenient that transfers are impractical... thereby eliminating transfers.

 

[uberguy]

At least we agree you had no credible points. No, guns don't cause violence, but they can be an easy tool for cowards.

Changing the subject? Happens when one has no legitimate point.

The evolution was that yeah, the FFL was guilty of committing a prosecutable crime and will do time for it. But then became a question as to the justification for a lifetime ban of future arms purchases, for a non-violent offense. None was credibly provided, yet somehow the position taken is you win.

Makes about as much sense as the other commentary, which is to say not at all. But by all means, keep pretending to the hearts content, after all it's what feels good.

It's my view that the SCOTUS will eventually reverse that provision in law.

 

[leadcounsel]

don't break the law and youll be fine. to bad its only 60 days in jail.

It's not illegal to sell gas, a knife, etc. You're purposely missing the point.

Oh, so gas and knives and bats are totally harmless then?

FYI, thousands of people are murdered by people using easily obtained over-the-counter objects like clubs and knives and gas and other things. Why are guns singled out? Could it be a larger motivation by leftists to control us...?

 

[284guy]

Changing the subject? Happens when one has no legitimate point.

The evolution was that yeah, the FFL was guilty of committing a prosecutable crime and will do time for it. But then became a question as to the justification for a lifetime ban of future arms purchases, for a non-violent offense. None was credibly provided, yet somehow the position taken is you win.

Makes about as much sense as the other commentary, which is to say not at all. But by all means, keep pretending to the hearts content, after all it's what feels good.

It's my view that the SCOTUS will eventually reverse that provision in law.

He's a felon, whats not to understand? His crime contributed to an innocent woman's death. Felons are often repeat offenders because they make bad decisions.
These are indisputable facts.
You don't have to like them, but you better accept them.

 

[284guy]

Oh, so gas and knives and bats are totally harmless then?

FYI, thousands of people are murdered by people using easily obtained over-the-counter objects like clubs and knives and gas and other things. Why are guns singled out? Could it be a larger motivation by leftists to control us...?

This gun was Knowingly, and ILLEGALLY sold to a man. Were the clubs, knives, etc? Apples and oranges.

 

[leadcounsel]

Out of curiosity for the "follow the law" crowd, what if the law is to turn in your firstborn to the state for sacrificing. No gun ownership allowed. And the governor gets to sleep with your daughters.

Is it still "follow the law." Or is there a logical boundary you might set?

I'll repeat that I'll follow the law for transfers, but I am intellectually aware of how ineffective and nonsensical it is at preventing crime.

The killer/suicide here could have accomplished this same act with rope, a knife, a bat, rat poison, or any number of cheap common items. This is intellectually dishonest in that it vilifies an object for political gain, and punishes a man for an irrelevant process man-made 'crime.'

 

[leadcounsel]

He's a felon, whats not to understand? His crime contributed to an innocent woman's death. Felons are often repeat offenders because they make bad decisions.
These are indisputable facts.
You don't have to like them, but you better accept them.

No, it did not. It is HIGHLY disputable and far too attenuated to claim that the gun sale contributed to the murder.

The man had to eat that day? Did Swanson contribute to the murder, because the chicken he ate gave him the strength to operate? He had to walk somewhere to get the gun or commit the murder, right? Did Nike contribute to his foot transportation needs? Without water he would not have survived long enough to commit the murder. Is the city water supply responsible for contributing to the murder?

Vilifying an object is exactly playing into the anti-gun narrative. The reality is he could have done this with a free piece of rope found on the ground or at a garage sale. Or a sharpened lawn mower blade. Or a rock from the yard. Would we vilify rope? It is so intellectually dishonest to vilify a common object when someone uses it for evil.

 

[Ops]

he broke the law. now he suffers the consequences. people are too butt hurt. he illegally gave someone a weapon whom went and killed a girl.

he should be going to jail for life. there's no excuse but it seems a lot here don't seem to care about her or her family which he helped kill.

so pathetic

 

[leadcounsel]

This gun was Knowingly, and ILLEGALLY sold to a man. Were the clubs, knives, etc? Apples and oranges.

So, tell us... if laws prevent murders, and illegal gun use, what law prevented these? What law might have prevented these?

The murderer already committed to violating laws against murder and suicide. Are you saying that if the seller had run a check, the murderer would have failed? And even if prevented from buying THAT gun, this murder would have been thwarted?

What new law would have prevented this?

 

[leadcounsel]

he broke the law. now he suffers the consequences. people are too butt hurt. he illegally gave someone a weapon whom went and killed a girl.

he should be going to jail for life. there's no excuse but it seems a lot here don't seem to care about her or her family which he helped kill.

so pathetic

What is pathetic is attempting to make this personal vs. an intellectual debate. Old habits die hard I suppose, probably why you're banned from TOS.

I care and I bet everyone cares about the victim. Putting a man in jail and blaming him and a gun for the action of a evil person who ignored laws against murder and suicide pathetic. I asked above and will ask you, what does that solve? What if instead of a gun, he has sold him a tire iron at a garage sale and that was the murder weapon? Is there any criminal culpability there, or just arbitrarily assigned to a gun because the leftists want to ban them and this is a step toward that goal?

So, what makes guns so special? Is it their ability to be concealed? Nope. Lots of concealable weapons like knives and poisons and bombs. Is it because they allow mass murder? Well, they are not unique there either. A terrorist in Nice killed more people with a stolen truck than the LV shooter killed with several AR15s with bump stocks.

So vilifying guns is total nonsense.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Every one take a breath here!

We do NOT know enough details of this to say for sure that a crime was actually committed here, as I posted earlier, we do not have the facts, and to take the word of the MSM is both highly suspect and dangerous given the intentions of the anti's and their desire to say " Look what we did, we enforced our law we forced down every ones throats"

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WENT DOWN HERE!
If the seller knowingly transferred a firearm to a known felon, then burn him at the stake, if he transferred it after the allotted waiting period with out an answer on the NICS, then Hold the phone, where is the crime?