SB 941 Now in House Committee

[tkdguy]

Democrats that really believe that criminals are getting firearms from people like most of us on this board have these non-bizarre delusions; statistically improbable events. But the people "pushing" this legislation are dangerous, in my opinion; and their like-mindedness seems to be fascist. I'm thinking that if these people were in power they would knock down doors and confiscate weapons. I have not seen people like this appear to be so dangerous as to publicly lie to the masses. Their followers are the same types of people that turned in Jews to the SS during WW II. Very dangerous times we live in?

 

[CoastRange57]

KATU Channel 2 news right now !!

 

[ob1]

KATU...the worst of the worst.

SO....anyone have an insight as to how long this would take to become enacted if passed and signed?

 

[etrain16]

KATU...the worst of the worst.

SO....anyone have an insight as to how long this would take to become enacted if passed and signed?

Immediately. Because of the 'emergency' clause, as soon as the Governor signs it, it's law. That could be as early as this week, at the latest, likely next week. Unless some miracle happens in the House this week and reps on the D side turn against this in a large number, this will likely be law very soon.

 

[ob1]

"emergency clause"...Kind of like "executive order". (or sign it quick before it's challenged).

Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi on Christmas Eve with the 'bamacare' vote.

I still think a picket line at Kate's house would be in order. The time for "good manners" is over.

 

[tkdguy]

"emergency clause"...Kind of like "executive order". (or sign it quick before it's challenged).

Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi on Christmas Eve with the 'bamacare' vote.

I still think a picket line at Kate's house would be in order. The time for "good manners" is over.

Yes, correct. There are good sources of tactics authored by Jeff Hedgpeth "Rules for Radials DEFEATED-- A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinshy Tactics". This is available on Amazon cheep. About 8 bucks. We'd need an administrative network to do this. The Alinsky tactics have been used against the pro-gun crowd in these recent event when Van Hoyle marginalized "extremists" while she and her brothers were acting like fascists.

 

[tkdguy]

LETS KEEP FIRING PRO-GUN EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS AGAINST THIS 941 BILL IN THE FACE OF AN ANTICIPATED HOUSE VOTE.

I just sent out another email to all house demo-rats against this bill a few minutes ago. tkdguy

 

[clash]

Throwing in transfers even temporary transfers is the most difficult to swallow portion of this. Also let it be the sellers responsibility to not sell to sketchy people. The means exist now to check things out.
Everyone knows this is a big step towards registration. I am Truly against that.

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

 

[Norm0931]

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

No, this law isn't my solution. The fact that gun owners CAN and DO regulate themselves prove that this law is unnecessary. Even if they passed a law requiring UBC if we utilized the federal NICS system instead of FICS it would lower the cost of the transfer, free up funds from FICS for other things, and FORCE our Federal Attorney to stop stalking her male employees and start doing her job. Also, it would ensure that no data on the firearms involved in the transfer were collected directly by the government. There is still the hard copy of the 4473, but it is nearly impossible to track those after the gun is sold as new.

 

[tkdguy]

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

 

[tkdguy]

Personally I have met a few people on this board that sell firearms and have not met one that would appear to sell to shady people. As a forensic psychologist (criminal) those that I evaluate get their guns through theft or within their own criminal subculture. Stolen guns are easy to find and offered for sale through criminal elements. Some drug dealers give handguns away for free to eliminate the competition.

 

[Asp]

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

Sure they have a point, and for my own personal records I can decide to sell a firearm with or without a bill of sale. This is for my records. I also ask people if they can show Oregon ID and a CHL.

The only time I ever felt a concerned about a sale I was going to make was when someone suggested I meet him in/beside a graveyard.

I've bought from many nice, kind, and fair people only here (NWFA). Sold all kinds of things.
Most people buying or selling a firearm have been kind and fair. For both parties I prefer to deal in a place with a lot of cameras. Although I did drive once to a far away town (got lost too), to buy from a dealer in the late evening.

Yes, the price of freedom to sell my weapons to a free man (and ladies) is fair to me.
I'll pay for it.

Maybe we need a mandatory restriction on licenses/ID for convicted felons, qualifying criminals, and those who have been a ward of the State that says, "RIGHTS DENIED".

If they don't update their license after conviction, that would be a misdemeanor. We card people for cigarettes and booze, why not firearms? If a kid looks at me and says, "Mister can I bum a cig?" I usually say if you're old enough to smoke, you're old enough to buy your own. Or, "Show me some ID." Looking at an ID simplifies things. It puts more responsibility on the citizen, rather than taking it away from him or her.

I just don't want to make the horrible mistake of selling to a Californian resident who claims to be an Oregonian without his ID the day he wants to buy a firearm. I don't think I could ever forgive myself.

 

[etrain16]

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

So, I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. Because there is HUGE difference between a LAW requiring background checks on every sale and transfer versus a PERSONAL CHOICE that some folks make to request a CHL for their transactions. If you can't see that difference, then you're a bit lost. I should have the right to choose whether I run a check or whether I require a CHL, and you have the right not to buy from me.

But this LAW requires it for ALL transactions. If I want to sell to my father, I can't, without a BGC under this law, even though I know it's a perfectly safe transaction. I want to sell to a friend I've known for decades, well under the law I have to run a BGC. Sell to a guy I've never met, then yeah, I may require something more. And, if I do think you're sketchy, well, we're done, no sale for you.

So how does it go in your mind that because I would ask for a little more certainty for certain transactions must mean, by your conclusion, that I should support SB 941? That just doesn't work. It's bad logic.

 

[Jim Colvill]

I have an 03 Federal License. When I've purchased FTF I ask for the seller's ID. Why? Because it's required of me as an FFL to log the seller's id into my bound book. So far every deal has been cool with the idea and the info goes no further than my bound book and, in the highly unlikely instance of a review, the BATFE. I also have a CHL. Call it my good guy card, which I show to a seller to prove to them I am on the up and up.

Both of these are voluntary on my part.

The reason I and many others have mentioned this in letters, phone calls, and personal testimony is to make a concessionary morsel in the face of certain passage. It is, if I may use what has become a hackneyed phrase, a "common sense" move. That is why these two examples were being talked about.

It is clear the dominant party does not want any concession at all. We can say "we tried"

 

[Asp]

It is clear the dominant party does not want any concession at all. We can say "we tried"

No concession??? They believe we're (aiding) the criminals. They are making these laws to target us and deliberately make us criminals and/or to funnel us into one consolidated, easily identifiable, group. We're expendable to these people, because in their eyes we're not people.

 

[Jim Colvill]

No concession??? They believe we're (aiding) the criminals. They are making these laws to target us and deliberately make us criminals and/or to funnel us into one consolidated, easily identifiable, group. We're expendable to these people, because in their eyes we're not people.

Right.

This bill will pass barring intervention from higher deities. The question now is: "What are you going to do about it?" Do you keep working yourself into a lather on this and other boards to the point where you publicly advocate armed rebellion? Are you going to load your guns, stand on your roof raging and waving the Gadsden Flag and are you going to act on that and fire the first shot?

or

Are you going to keep your cool and continue working on your elected critters to prevent any further extension of gun laws you know are coming down the pike? Are you going to support candidates who will aid you? Are you, yourself, going to run for office?

These are the choices you have now.

 

[Jim Colvill]

Not every D is in on it. I received this response today from Jeff Barker (D) District 28:

Mr. Colvill,

Thank you for your email.


I oppose expanding Oregon's background check system (SB 941). As a retired police lieutenant with 31 years in law enforcement, and as a Democrat, I frequently remind my colleagues that we do not need to fear law abiding gun owners.

Thanks again for your email and please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue.


Jeff Barker

 

[3MTA3]

Not every D is in on it. I received this response today from Jeff Barker (D) District 28:

Mr. Colvill,

Thank you for your email.


I oppose expanding Oregon's background check system (SB 941). As a retired police lieutenant with 31 years in law enforcement, and as a Democrat, I frequently remind my colleagues that we do not need to fear law abiding gun owners.

Thanks again for your email and please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue.


Jeff Barker

Let's remember to let ALL the lawmakers who stand up for our rights know how much we appreciate their efforts.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Well isn't this very argument the opposition uses? "not sell to sketchy people"
So you are admitting the current system is flawed as it might allow sketchy people to buy firearms, which is why people here insist on conceal carry permits. Then why are we simultaneously opposing this law, but yet requiring conceal carry permits on those same private sales on this very forum?

This is precisely why we always lose the debate, and why rights are being erroded. Even we don't believe our own crap! How are we then supposed to voraciously fight for it?

I don't have the energy to seriously confront this because every time I show up to a private sale, I have to present a document that requires more paperwork and more backlog than a 1 minute background check. And that burden isn't asked of me from the government, it is from the so called people on my side. If you are so worried about selling to sketchy people, then isn't this law your solution? We need discipline in our ranks, and we also need to stop making the opposition's argument, or be man enough to admit that they have a point.

May be the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people. If you don't believe that, then you need to support SB941 instead of attacking it. Freedom has a price, and sometimes it's a harsh price to pay, but you can't have it both ways. If you aren't willing to pay it, then you don't deserve it.

You sound like a Sketchy person to me! I'll try and answer you anyway.

You say, " Maybe the price of freedom is the ability to sell to sketchy people", Partially correct. I would change that statement a bit. Maybe the price of freedom is the ability to accidently sell to people that later turn out to be sketchy?

You're not wanting to sell to thugs and meth heads, guys with major anger issues that have hurt women, are you?? For my own reasons and to avoid a Lawsuit I sometimes want some ID. Don't see how that affects you or how it means I agree with SB941.

There is no perfect system, SB941 won't do any better preventing people who want a gun for bad purposes from getting one.

I've sold guns to friends no DL no bill of sale, I've sold guns to aquaintances and sometimes asked to see a DL and get a Bill of sale. I never have sold to a stranger through an ad but I would at a minimum ask for a Bill of Sale and OR. DL, maybe more, My Choice! , I have the right to refuse service to anyone!

If this asinine law passes will I still have that choice?

What if I put up an ad to sell my handgun, meet the buyer at the gunshop to do a transfer and I don't like his attitude.
Maybe he's acting all aggressive, saying effin this and effin that, is a little twitchy, maybe I hear/see him in the parking lot threatening his woman or hitting his kid or he makes an illegal drug reference. Maybe there is just something about him, yet his BG checks out fine! Will some discrimination law force me go through with the sale? Will I have an option to back out?
Under this Law I see private sales going way underground to avoid the money and hassle of BG/transfer at a gunshop. People if they are selling a gun that has no paper trail will stop asking for DLs and Bills of sale and buyers won't oblige them anyway. This will be just one unintended consequence of SB941.

People like me that now do a minimum of, yes, PROFILING and ID checks etc. might decide not to, just to avoid a lot of hassle!
Sounds like maybe you should be promoting SB941 as you hate someone asking for ID anyway.

 

[ob1]

Yes, correct. There are good sources of tactics authored by Jeff Hedgpeth "Rules for Radials DEFEATED-- A Practical Guide for Defeating Obama/Alinshy Tactics". This is available on Amazon cheep. About 8 bucks. We'd need an administrative network to do this. The Alinsky tactics have been used against the pro-gun crowd in these recent event when Van Hoyle marginalized "extremists" while she and her brothers were acting like fascists.

"administrative network" Sounds like a job for the OFF. BTW.....Where is Kevin Starett these days ?