SB 941 passed. Now what?

[Martini_Up]

What are these RIGHTS you guys are speaking of? I'm pretty sure if you understood the definition, you would be calling them, PRIVILEGES instead.

 

[Just Jim]

What are these RIGHTS you guys are speaking of? I'm pretty sure if you understood the definition, you would be calling them, PRIVILEGES instead.

Constitution spells out our God given rights and it clearly states "shall not be infringed". Putting a fee or tax on buying and selling guns is an infringement. They are going to make it where the poor can not buy a gun to defend themselves due to the high cost.

 

[GUNARCHER]

A boycott is an action that denies support---why not a list of 2nd amendment friendly alternatives compared to known anti gun sources?

Best place to purchase ---food, clothing, etc

Best place to go for recreation

When Kroger stood up to MDA, their business picked up. How many business owners would turn away from us as customers? Especially if their competition is doing better. When we make a difference we should advertise--to the business community.

Don't do business with --------, go to Kroger. For example

 

[Just Jim]

A boycott is an action that denies support---why not a list of 2nd amendment friendly alternatives compared to known anti gun sources?

Best place to purchase ---food, clothing, etc

Best place to go for recreation

When Kroger stood up to MDA, their business picked up. How many business owners would turn away from us as customers? Especially if their competition is doing better. When we make a difference we should advertise--to the business community.

Don't do business with --------, go to Kroger. For example

Now that's a good idea, support those who support gun ownership and don't buy at those businesses that dont. It's a boycott that works on the commercial level and you can still pick and choose what parts of state funding you want to boycott. Vote with your money, it's the most power you have.

 

[jim97701]

I have a great Idea - the state should assign liquor stores the additional duty of providing BGCs. I mean then they would have a 2nd job to perform after handing a bottle of booze to a person and taking their money.

Or, maybe they could have them done in a courthouse or a police station. That way once all the bad-guys line up to get their background checks, they could just arrest them right there.

I guess the liquor store would love that, never knowing if their being robbed or transferring a weapon! (LOL maybe both).
Police station or Courthouse is a great idea, then they could just arrest everyone that came in and grab a gun for taking them into a prohibited area.

Maybe they should do it at banks? That might prove interesting

 

[etrain16]

I guess the liquor store would love that, never knowing if their being robbed or transferring a weapon! (LOL maybe both).
Police station or Courthouse is a great idea, then they could just arrest everyone that came in and grab a gun for taking them into a prohibited area.

Maybe they should do it at banks? That might prove interesting

It would be just like the fools in Salem to pass such a law - I could actually imagine them adding something like a courthouse to the list of legal FFL transfers, all the while not having a single clue it's a prohibited place.

 

[Skier]

A boycott is an action that denies support---why not a list of 2nd amendment friendly alternatives compared to known anti gun sources?

Best place to purchase ---food, clothing, etc

Best place to go for recreation

When Kroger stood up to MDA, their business picked up. How many business owners would turn away from us as customers? Especially if their competition is doing better. When we make a difference we should advertise--to the business community.

Don't do business with --------, go to Kroger. For example

I stopped going to Starbucks a while ago... They don't like Guns, they were trying to support race baiting with written statements on their cups as they handed them out, and then the CEO basically said that "we believe in tolerance, so if you believe in traditional marriage, we don't want your business, sell your stocks if you have any, and spend/invest somewhere else," so at his request, I'll happily buy coffee elsewhere (not to mention that their coffee often tastes burnt).

 

[Freefallen]

I may have missed this comment as well.

It seems to me before bills are written and legislation is put into motion, the wiser way to go would be to get the "heavy hitters" involved. For example, I think we all can agree, we have the right to bear and keep firearms, I think we can all agree, we do need systems in place to keep firearms in the right hands and out of the wrong hands. I would think the wiser way to go would be to get representatives of OFF and NRA to sit down with reps from Anti gun groups. Start a dialog of what should this, gun bill, look like. Obviously we are not going to sell Mp5's at the local dollar store. Maybe there is common ground that could be found working together instead of one side pushing the far left, and the other pushing the far right.

I mean for the most part we are taught as children to work and play with others. At what point did that change as adults? I can respect anyones opinion and not agree. I can also find common ground and build from that point. We don't need a government body controlled by one side or the other. Certainly we the people don't need one side bought and paid for to push an agenda that doesn't line up with our State. So why is it that our government leadership, top to bottom, cannot seem to work with the groups that have the interest in the bills, like OFF, NRA and the anti group?

If this were about abortion they would be having conversations with the Vatican and Women's rights. If it related to drunk driving, which kills more than any gun, they would speak to MADD and OLCC. It seems to me to be common sense to work with both sides who have that population behind them.

 

[Just Jim]

I may have missed this comment as well.

It seems to me before bills are written and legislation is put into motion, the wiser way to go would be to get the "heavy hitters" involved. For example, I think we all can agree, we have the right to bear and keep firearms, I think we can all agree, we do need systems in place to keep firearms in the right hands and out of the wrong hands. I would think the wiser way to go would be to get representatives of OFF and NRA to sit down with reps from Anti gun groups. Start a dialog of what should this, gun bill, look like. Obviously we are not going to sell Mp5's at the local dollar store. Maybe there is common ground that could be found working together instead of one side pushing the far left, and the other pushing the far right.

I mean for the most part we are taught as children to work and play with others. At what point did that change as adults? I can respect anyones opinion and not agree. I can also find common ground and build from that point. We don't need a government body controlled by one side or the other. Certainly we the people don't need one side bought and paid for to push an agenda that doesn't line up with our State. So why is it that our government leadership, top to bottom, cannot seem to work with the groups that have the interest in the bills, like OFF, NRA and the anti group?

If this were about abortion they would be having conversations with the Vatican and Women's rights. If it related to drunk driving, which kills more than any gun, they would speak to MADD and OLCC. It seems to me to be common sense to work with both sides who have that population behind them.

Common ground depends on trust, do you trust people that run a law through they way these people have?

 

[Freefallen]

Common ground depends on trust, do you trust people that run a law through they way these people have?

The common ground comes from both sides coming together. I think OFF, NRA do have gun rights in mind, as I think ant-gun groups have their agenda in mind. I support 2A, so I trust that OFF, NRA are looking out for those interest. Now if they should step out and say something to the oppose that, then of course that would change.

The common ground doesn't come from the government. That is my point.

 

[RVTECH]

I firmly believe the liquor store idea has 'legs' - the state is forcing us top buy overpriced booze from state 'franchise' stores so why not attach a firearm transfer action to them? Reality being what it is though without the state creating a requirement for anyone to transfer them WILL ultimately reduce private sales due to inconvenience. Make no mistake about it - this was figured into the 'big picture'. Time will tell as 'we' the private public start to attempt to utilize FFLs for transfers.

 

[Just Jim]

The common ground comes from both sides coming together. I think OFF, NRA do have gun rights in mind, as I think ant-gun groups have their agenda in mind. I support 2A, so I trust that OFF, NRA are looking out for those interest. Now if they should step out and say something to the oppose that, then of course that would change.

The common ground doesn't come from the government. That is my point.

You can't have common ground when one side can't be trusted, it just can't be reached. Government wants their agenda and was willing to use tactics that are corrupt to achieve what they want. They never asked for normal input on the bill and just shoved it down the throat of the public. Those tactics mean the goal will not be achieved, it will go further underground.

They say they wanted the guns out of the hands of criminals yet turned honest people into criminals if they sell their property without paying heavy fees and taxation. It was shoved down out throats just like obamacare, seems every time they get full control they can't be trusted.

 

[Just Jim]

I firmly believe the liquor store idea has 'legs' - the state is forcing us top buy overpriced booze from state 'franchise' stores so why not attach a firearm transfer action to them? Reality being what it is though without the state creating a requirement for anyone to transfer them WILL ultimately reduce private sales due to inconvenience. Make no mistake about it - this was figured into the 'big picture'. Time will tell as 'we' the private public start to attempt to utilize FFLs for transfers.

Like the gunshow, you travel to it and find a gun you want from Joe Smith a private guy. He has to take you to a dealer willing to do the transfer for a fee, probably $50+ dollars depending how well the system flows. The paperwork is made out and kept by the dealer and the phone call made. Instant check is normally ten to 40 minutes if you pass. If you don't pass you lose your money because the dealer will want it up front. No matter what you will pay for the paperwork.

You then have to deal with the government when you get back home. If you can pass after a mistaken identity or an ex spouse nailing you then you have to hunt the seller down and get him back to the dealer to finish the deal. Obviously they will make it very difficult to buy a legal gun.

 

[RVTECH]

If you don't pass you lose your money because the dealer will want it up front

Probably the exception rather than the rule but like applying for a job one should know if they will pass a UA - or the BC if buying a gun BEFORE entering into the transaction.

 

[Grumpy]

Not a lawyer and don't play one on TV so do yer due diligence but . . .

I believe we can still do a private sale at a gun show by calling the state directly and paying $10.00.
See page 3 Section 3. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941.

The definition of a gun show is "an event where more than 25 firearms are on site and available for transfer"
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.432 - see 2b
Doesn't say the asking price for 24 of them can't be oh say $10,000 each.

The person who organizes the "gun show" is required to post subsection 1 and 2 from this http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.438

and provide non FFL holders with this form to record the transfer.
<broken link removed>

Still costs $10.00 to do the check over the phone, firearm is "registered" with the state (at least 5 years) and massive PITA, but better than a drive to the FFL and $40.00 transfer fee on top of $10.00 background check.

 

[RVTECH]

I believe we can still do a private sale at a gun show by calling the state directly and paying $10.00.

Thought of this myself but why would it be limited to a gun show? I always thought WE had the same opportunity as an FFL to conduct a BGC on the phone for the $10.

 

[Grumpy]

I think those were "voluntary" private transfer BGC's. I'm guessing in the past they dealt with these very labor intensive BCG's to collect the revenue and add to the registry. With mandatory BCG's on private transfers, forcing you to go an FFL gets all that data much more cheaply - the FFL enters the data into the computer instead of an OSP employee.

 

[Freefallen]

You can't have common ground when one side can't be trusted, it just can't be reached. Government wants their agenda and was willing to use tactics that are corrupt to achieve what they want. They never asked for normal input on the bill and just shoved it down the throat of the public. Those tactics mean the goal will not be achieved, it will go further underground.

They say they wanted the guns out of the hands of criminals yet turned honest people into criminals if they sell their property without paying heavy fees and taxation. It was shoved down out throats just like obamacare, seems every time they get full control they can't be trusted.

Maybe my point was lost both times. The point is government would not have any ground other than to write the bill as agreed. My point is more idealistic than realistic.

If your looking for agreement, then yes clearly our current government does not hold our best interest in mind and no longer work for the people, but again that is my point and the problem

 

[dirtysteve]

umm...buy 80% lowers? FUKM

 

[The Heretic]

umm...buy 80% lowers? FUKM

This might be a niche market that could expand beyond ARs.