National Proposed Universal Background Checks as compared to State Law

[Jcon268]

I'm making this thread so maybe someone with more insight on the matter can enlighten me as to how the "Universal Background Check" bills that they are proposing at a national level would effectively compared to laws such we have in Oregon. As all Oregonians are aware, there is no gunshow loophole here. I can't sell or buy from someone in a parking lot legally and as far as I'm aware I can't transfer a firearm to a family member without using an FFL either. So...

I'm curious what ramifications a UBGC would have on States such as Oregon where we already have such laws. Not looking for official legal advice but I'm also not looking for opinions that don't have some basis in legality.

Most of the pro-gun arguments I've heard against UBGCs involve a gun registry being created. I'm curious if this differs from what we have in Oregon or even Washington and to what degree.

Read More

 

[BSG 75]

and as far as I'm aware I can't transfer a firearm to a family member without using an FFL either.

That's incorrect. Oregon makes exceptions for family members.

(4) The requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not apply to:


(a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.


(b) The transfer of a firearm as part of a firearm turn-in or buyback event, in which a law enforcement agency receives or purchases firearms from members of the public.


(c) The transfer of a firearm to:


(A) A transferor's spouse or domestic partner;


(B) A transferor's parent or stepparent;


(C) A transferor's child or stepchild;


(D) A transferor's sibling;


(E) A transferor's grandparent;


(F) A transferor's grandchild;


(G) A transferor's aunt or uncle;


(H) A transferor's first cousin;


(I) A transferor's niece or nephew; or


(J) The spouse or domestic partner of a person specified in subparagraphs (B) to (I) of this paragraph.

ORS 166.435 – Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons

As used in this section, (a) “Transfer” means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not…

www.oregonlaws.org

A national law would be modeled on the "universal" background check laws already in effect in 11 states - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington - so the effects of a national law on people in Oregon and Washington would be minimal to none. One possible negative change would be removing the exception for family members.

 

[User 1234]

It could affect the existing C&R transfer exception for C&R FFLs in Washington law.

 

[Jcon268]

That's incorrect. Oregon makes exceptions for family members.



A national law would be modeled on the "universal" background check laws already in effect in 11 states - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington - so the effects of a national law on people in Oregon and Washington would be minimal to none. One possible negative change would be removing the exception for family members.

"That's incorrect. Oregon makes exceptions for family members"

I was unaware. I guess I've always chose to play it safe in a state run by anti gun leftists. So I can transfer any gun to my dad without consequence?...



"A national law would be modeled on the "universal" background check laws already in effect in 11 states - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington - so the effects of a national law on people in Oregon and Washington would be minimal to none. One possible negative change would be removing the exception for family members."

This was my thought. All gun laws are infringements but I've never had troubles in our state. That COULD change through a Federal BGC

 

[bikemutt]

"That's incorrect. Oregon makes exceptions for family members"

So I can transfer any gun to my dad without consequence?...

In WA, and I believe OR, that's true, as long as the person transferring has no reason to believe the person being transferred to is a prohibited person, both parties reside in the same State, and all the other rules.

 

[BSG 75]

I was unaware. I guess I've always chose to play it safe in a state run by anti gun leftists. So I can transfer any gun to my dad without consequence?...

Yes, if

1. You are both residents of the same state
2. He is not a prohibited person
3. It is not an NFA item (machine gun, short barrel rifle, etc.)

 

[Jcon268]

Yes, if

1. You are both residents of the same state
2. He is not a prohibited person
3. It is not an NFA item (machine gun, short barrel rifle, etc.)

I'm sure that would all change in a Federally mandated Universal BGC.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Back to the OP's question, HOW does UBC change what we already have to submit to with BGC! Does not the FBI quarterback BGC already? If so, how does UBC change things, How would they "improve" things, and how much additional infringement would these bring to us, WE THE PEOPLE!

 

[Jcon268]

In WA, and I believe OR, that's true, as long as the person transferring has no reason to believe the person being transferred to is a prohibited person, both parties reside in the same State, and all the other rules.

It's just crazy that people, including myself, don't even know our basic rights as gun owners because we assume all the worst...then I only come to learn this as they're trying to violate that very same right.

 

[bikemutt]

Back to the OP's question, HOW does UBC change what we already have to submit to with BGC! Does not the FBI quarterback BGC already? If so, how does UBC change things, How would they "improve" things, and how much additional infringement would these bring to us, WE THE PEOPLE!

To answer the question it changes nothing for us. Unless they narrow the scope to exclude immediate family members.

I want to see how they "solve" the problem of straw sales, good luck with that one,

 

[Mark W.]

What a Federal UBGC would change is it would get them up one more rung on the ladder to their goal. Cause when nothing a out "mass shootings " changed they would just move to the next thing to sharp about until they get that rung and so on.

 

[Jcon268]

What a Federal UBGC would change is it would get them up one more rung on the ladder to their goal. Cause when nothing a out "mass shootings " changed they would just move to the next thing to sharp about until they get that rung and so on.

Understood. I can just picture the the anti-gunners around here saying something like "see, nothing would change for you" but really we all know that having control is their end game.

 

[ARFrog]

I have not reflected on this a whole lot but my initial thought is that I would rather have a Federal background check than difference ones being applied or abused in different ways by each individual state.

The issues here are that back ground checks are based on data bases. Which ones are being used?

- Are they up to date? It seems this was not so in the Texas military base shooting from a few years ago.

- Are they comprehensive? It seems that some elements like mental health are not included and different governmental departments (FBI and military) don't interface well.

- Why does one locale take 90 seconds to run while another takes 15 to 30+ days?

Apparently some states only have background checks for new sales while others like California have requirements for all sales - both new and private party transfers (PPTs). Is this the end of the world - no. Is it burdensome - maybe.

I am more concerned about:

- the piecemeal use of different programs / databases as a means to frustrate usage and as a revenue source - one for purchases, one for ammo, one for parts, etc. and while they are maybe good for employment of government workers, I am not sure they are particularly useful in stoping "gun violence." For example, it has been stated that in the first month of ammo background checks in California approximately 106 restricted ones were stopped along with about 10,000 others who should have been qualified.

- what carve outs are there? If I have a FFL03 (C&R) so why do I need additional hoops or licenses (like California Certificate of Eligibility) to purchase eligible fire arms or ammo? Why do I have delivery restrictions - it is not like I have not disclosed where I reside. Likewise, what are family accommodations for transfer - both from in and out of state?

- if I am eligible to buy a firearm, buy ammo, have an additional license and a background checks for a FFL03, then why with requisite training can't I have a CCW?

So, I am still thinking about this... But this is my so far.

 

[ma96782]

You open up a whole new/bigger can of worms, when you go national.

Think maybe.....

1) Waiting periods. Then, why not....1, 2, or 3 years, etc....?
2) Psychological screening requirements prior to approval.
3) Requirement for regular health checkups with a family doctor.
4) Requirement for drug testing/screening prior to approval.
5) Fingerprinting requirements.
6) Gun registration. Ammo purchase requirements. 24/7 warrantless arsenal checks. Yeah, why not?
7) Etc....etc.....etc....

Don't let them re-write the 2nd A.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

"Shall not be infringed," means what it says.



The 2nd A is the people's right, call it an insurance policy against govt. tyranny.

Aloha, Mark

 

[User 1234]

The first problem with national gun control laws is that you have San Francisco and Detroit politicians who ruined their cities with liberal policies now dictating how people in rural Idaho should live and how free the government will allow them to be. That is, quite simply, BS.

 

[ARFrog]

You open up a whole new/bigger can of worms, when you go national.

You may be right but it seems that in the last 10 years or so we have done a better job of fighting off gun legislation at the national level than at the state level. Case in point, just look at the abundance of new gun laws in California, Oregon and the voter approved ones in Washington State.

My main point was against the competing "death by 1,000 cuts" that we have seen locally recently and the question of why should gun rights in one state be different than that of another. A 2A right is a right that should not be infringed based on our address. It should not be more of a right (or less) based on geographical borders.

The number items that you mention are things that could also happen at the state level - all you need is one party progressive rule and it is Katie bar the door.

 

[ma96782]

Good observation(s) ARFrog.

And well... "initiative votes" funded by outsiders didn't/doesn't/hasn't helped WA gun owners.

Then....
What would have happened if the legislature was doing their jobs? Oh yeah....they get campaign contributions too.

Oh well.....
That's the system.

And, what about the Constitution?

Well.....
It doesn't help when people think that it actually reads as..........

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

"Shall not be infringed," isn't a suggestion. And then, the SCOTUS doesn't want to address the issue. So, for better or worst....we got, what we got.

Aloha, Mark

PS....the other night I also looked up the WA State Constitution. It reads:

Article I Section 24
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Hummmm...."individual citizen" and "shall not be impaired."

 

[The Heretic]

The big difference, or rather similarity, and therefor danger, IMO is that I am pretty sure they will duplicate the requirement for a serial number, make and type of firearm for every transfer, private or otherwise.

At that point, you have a universal (national) gun registry.

Once you have that registry, give it a decade for the records to accumulate and then you can start confiscating guns. Add in records for gun parts and ammo (*cough* California *cough*) and now you have a list of people to start knocking on their doors. Don't think there are enough cops to do that? There are enough for individual households. Only takes a couple dozen to knock on your door. Think neighbors are going to come to your aid? Nope, they will stand around with their phones sending video to Instagram/etc. while the cops haul you away in cuffs.

For the people who say "they don't want your guns", they have not been paying attention lately - or for a while now actually.

There is no "slippery slope" - we are looking at the abyss people.

 

[ma96782]

The following post is not meant to be singling out any one in particular.

+++++


It didn't take long for Hitler and his friends to control Germany, Then, extend his reign throughout Europe and beyond. Note, how it's done......

Did you note what she said about keeping your guns? In case you missed it.....

"Keep your guns and buy more guns and stack up on your ammo."

But it sounds like a lot of those NAZI type of gun laws have already been slowly creeping into American society. YES, under the disguise of the laws being "reasonable." Yup.... And have you taken note of...….how many in Congress (and even within the general population) who are already calling for more? Right. Stricter gun controls, along the same general lines of the NAZI gun control laws. And then, some have even called for an out and out abolishment of the 2nd A.

So, how long will it be/can we last...... after the 2nd A falls?

BUT, But, but.....Checks and balances.

Rrrright. My firearms, in my hands, is my insurance policy against a dictatorial/tyrannical ruler having his/her way with America. Think of it as the people's, check and balance.

But it wasn't only Hitler......
YES, think about how Hitler's Generals and the military were willing to carry out his orders.

Will that/could that happen in America?

I hope not. But, just having hope isn't always enough.

Aloha, Mark

PS....AS A SIDE NOTE. If you haven't already seen it. Checkout the movie, "Generation War." It's touted as a sort of German, "Band Of Brothers." I think that Amazon Prime or Vudu (and possibly other online movie services) has it. I made my purchase (2 disc DVD set) through an on line seller. YES, it's subtitled in ENGLISH.

 

[PiratePast40]

I believe the SC church shooting is a case where the background laws were in place but either a government agency or local local governments chose not to report as required.