Oregon SB941 Has Reduced Gun Crime in Oregon...

[Jonnyuma]

... said no one... EVER.

Out of frustration and curiosity I Googl'd the following:
"Proof that SB941 has reduced gun crime in Oregon".
And:
"Has SB941 reduced gun crime in Oregon?".

Know what I got?
Stupid propaganda from Ceasefire OR and Everytown dated 2015 pushing this stupid thing. I was expecting some cherry-picked and/or doctored stats to support their actions... at least LIE to me, tell me your satisfied with the the results. Tell me something. I'll prove your a liar in the end, but u gotta give me SOMETHING to work with.

Nope. Not a single written or spoken word has been wasted justifying this abomination after-the-fact. Nothing.

Google asks: must include "proof"?
YES, GOOGLE! PROOF! I know how to spell "5 year old propaganda" and if that's what I was looking for, that's what I would have searched.

The frustration reached a crescendo this morning because of a gun that I want to buy from a member here but multiple layers of government bueracracy and idiocy are preventing two grownass men from participating in a simple act of private commerce as old as time.

My Mom always taught me not to hate...
Sorry Mom, it ain't workin'.
Right now... I hate.

/rant

Read More

 

[CountryGent]

Out of curiosity, did you find any relevant case law in your travels? I looked into it some time ago and found a whole lot of nothing. Thanks.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Out of curiosity, did you find any relevant case law in your travels? I looked into it some time ago and found a whole lot of nothing. Thanks.

I did not.
3 pages in I quit looking.

 

[BPOR11]

Tell me something. I'll prove your a liar in the end, but u gotta give me SOMETHING to work with.

There ya go.

 

[WillametteWill]

... said no one... EVER.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner for best catchy headline on NWF! Also, great reminder and something we need to remind our fence-sitting friends and relatives come election time. And a great question to ask our current pols during town hall meetings, etc.

Thanks for reminding us (what we already knew).

 

[Unka-Boo]

Follow up question....has anyone been charged under it?

 

[CountryGent]

I did not.
3 pages in I quit looking.

OK, I had similar results.

Follow up question....has anyone been charged under it?

Granted it was a while ago, but I couldn't find a single case.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Follow up question....has anyone been charged under it?

Good question.
I'd say, "probably".
Most likely a tack-on charge to be dropped in the plea.
Hits from Oregon Live and The Oregonian (all pre-passage) made me think that those were about as deep as the search was going to go.
If this thing could in any way be spun as a success, it woulda been front and center... they'd be running on it.

The fact is, they don't care. The "elites" dismissal of us is thunderous in its silence.

 

[3MTA3]

The only way to show whether it has or has not is to compare the predicted trend of gun crimes based on the history prior to the day it took affect with the measured rate post that date.

We do know that for the last few decades that gun crime has been decreasing, so we need to see if there has been an increase or decrease or no significant change in that rate.

My suspicion is that there will be no significant change from the pre-existing trend. It would still be interesting to see the data.

 

[Stomper]

Pre or post SB941, the crims will continue to get their guns the way they always have... either steal them outright or buy from them from other crims, who bought them from other crims, who in turn bought them from crims who stole them.... but the anti-2A polies already knew that.

 

[tiggers97]

I had a similar experience when looking at the 2000 ballot measure 5 (implement background checks at gun shows for private sales).

What I found:
1. NO evidence of impact (sources: newspaper articles, FBI and CDc statistics). Even emailed Ginney Burdicks office as she championed the ballot, but never received a response. She called gun shows "places were families used to go to on a Sunday afternoon, but now a place where criminals flocked to".
1a. Using gun control logic, it caused "gun violence" to stop dropping, and caused a bump in murders in the Portland area for a few years.

2. One article from WW that actually asked the Portland police if it had an impact gave a tepid "we have seen no change".

3. In 2007, Ginney Burdick was invited to WA house of representatives for testimony as they were debating a similar bill (they didn't pass it at the time).
3a Instead of talking about reduction in crime, "gun violence", etc. (because there was none) All she talked about was how challenging and rewarding it was to pass the ballot measure. Going so far as to call rural Oregon "the belly of the beast". They eventually cut her off. Its on re

And that's it. 20 years now of post data to analyze, there isn't a drop of evidence it's done anything. More revealing is the language used to support the ballot measure, and how similar it sounds to today's rhetoric (especially SB9941), with the same empty promises of "doing something".

Edited for grammar and additional comment.

 

[RVTECH]

She called gun shows "places were families used to go to on a Sunday afternoon, but now a place where criminals flocked to".

LOL!
I once read something by some obvious anti, liberal writer who referred to gun shows as a 'dark and murky world'

 

[Reed]

Good luck wit your search.

 

[cookie]

I buy all my guns through the gun show loop hole . Buying guns on the internet is good as well !!

 

[tiggers97]

I buy all my guns through the gun show loop hole . Buying guns on the internet is good as well !!

I download all my guns from the internetz. Just right after I download my dinner from foodnetwork.com!

 

[Jonnyuma]

3. In 2007, Ginney Burdick was invited to WA house of representatives for testimony as they were debating a similar bill (they didn't pass it at the time).
3a Instead of talking about reduction in crime, "gun violence", etc. (because there was none) All she talked about was how challenging and rewarding it was to pass the ballot measure. Going so far as to call rural Oregon "the belly of the beast.

What a tw@.

 

[CLT65]

Well no, as a matter of fact these laws didn't help. This is why we need more, and even more gun control, until we find the right combination of laws that WILL make a difference, and keep us safe.

Take Canada for example. They have progressively passed restrictions that gun control advocates only dream of here, and still they have mass killings. Even they haven't quite reached that magical level of authoritarian control that will remove the blood-lust from men's minds.

Maybe the UK is on the right track, with knives. It looks like we have a LONG way to go here in the U.S., folks. We need many more laws, ever increasing as we get the chance, until every last thing that can be used to hurt people is under the strictest control.

 

[StacattoP]

Wasn't there a pastor somewhere he in Oregon that won an ar15 in a raffle didn't have a safe so he let his buddy hold it in his safe for him and was charged under sb941?

 

[CLT65]

Wasn't there a pastor somewhere he in Oregon that won an ar15 in a raffle didn't have a safe so he let his buddy hold it in his safe for him and was charged under sb941?

As I recall, he spent thousands of his congregation's money to "win", and he did have a friend hold it for him, but the state refused to charge him because he's a gun control activist and his intent was to destroy the rifle.

 

[3MTA3]

Wasn't there a pastor somewhere he in Oregon that won an ar15 in a raffle didn't have a safe so he let his buddy hold it in his safe for him and was charged under sb941?

You or I would have been flushed down the toilet

Oregon pastor who won AR-15 raffle won't be charged

A suburban Portland pastor who won an AR-15 rifle in a raffle and then said he gave it to a gun-owning friend for safekeeping will not be prosecuted for transferring the weapon without conducting a background check, authorities said.

www.ctvnews.ca

"LAKE OSWEGO, Ore. -- A suburban Portland pastor who won an AR-15 rifle in a raffle and then said he gave it to a gun-owning friend for safekeeping will not be prosecuted for transferring the weapon without conducting a background check, authorities said.


Officials were investigating whether Rev. Jeremy Lucas may have violated a recent state law that makes transferring a gun without a background check illegal, even if the arrangement is between private parties and no money changes hands.


But investigators uncovered no evidence that Lucas, 45, actually transferred the gun and never determined the name of the gun-owning friend, Clackamas County District Attorney John S. Foote said in a letter to the Oregon State Police.

The letter was written on Sept. 9 and made public Thursday by state police.

Lucas didn't speak with investigators, state police said in a statement.

"Without the transferee in this case, I don't think we could ever have a prosecutable case," Foote wrote.

Lucas, a pastor at Christ Church Episcopal Parish in the affluent suburb of Lake Oswego about 10 miles south of Portland, said in interviews this summer that he spent about $3,000 in discretionary church funds to buy as many rifle raffle tickets as he could for a softball league fundraiser.

When he won, he passed a background check to take possession of the weapon.

He told The Washington Post in July that after he won the rifle, he gave it to a friend for temporary safe-keeping.

But a state law passed last year makes transferring a gun without a background check illegal, even if the arrangement is between private parties and no money changes hands. ..."