Oregon State Police: M114 is “very complex” and “on hold”, sample application

[ocarolan]

Looks like OSP posted a mock-up app today, maybe to satisfy a state official like Rosenblum. It's accompanied by a press release calling M114 "very complex" and "on hold". (Release is back-dated "Dec 7" but posted an hour ago today)

Oregon State Police News via Flashalert.net

Overall seems the app intent is put liability on the applicant for honesty rather than do actual vetting of mental health history, etc.

Read More

 

[CorvallisOr]

Not "vetting" mental health history is fine. Who wants the state to read the file of some therapist they met once 20 years ago?

 

[NinjaTard]

Do we think they'll ever discuss that part about the permit that really bothers me, which is by obtaining the permit you're going onto a publicly searchable list with my name, address, and list of owned firearms (I assume only the ones I buy once I have a permit).
The more people I talk with who DID NOT KNOW what they were voting for/against leads me to wonder if they'll just sweep the fine details under the rug as much as possible. I don't even know if there's enough Democrats that would care for full understanding to make a difference.

Fun related story: my co-worker (I think Green party or Libertarian) just dropped that she's going to get her first gun this weekend before they're illegal. I told her she was too late and can't unless she has a permit that doesn't exist yet which she can't get because she hasn't gotten a training class that hasn't been created yet. She was shocked, assuming 114 started Jan. 1st and completely unaware of the background check mosh pit, then disgusted they can start a law before having the moving parts in place to enforce it. We had a very eye opening conversation which was sad for me and infuriating for her.

 

[Greg S]

Yea, the real backlog of their voting choice is just starting. Just wait. There is over 30k in the Que and another 10k CCH in a separate Que which keeps growing.

Now all purchase permits require a name check to add to the quagmire. Timely manner?

 

[Robert Hood]

Hopefully it doesn't get to this point. This could take a long time to get resolved in court.

 

[Mark W.]

Ah how is this any different then a 4473? Sure it ads the photograph and full finger prints. But its basically the same thing we been doing for years. Granted you add on the other requirements like the training and its a bigger PITA. But do they really have anywhere more to look into a persons background then they do based on a 4473.

This all just stupid duplication.

 

[Robert Hood]

Ah how is this any different then a 4473? Sure it ads the photograph and full finger prints. But its basically the same thing we been doing for years. Granted you add on the other requirements like the training and its a bigger PITA. But do they really have anywhere more to look into a persons background then they do based on a 4473.

This all just stupid duplication.

Before this law, the OSP destroys records after 5 years. The new way is a searchable database. that attaches purchases to your address. California just had a recent breach of their data base that I am not sure is fixed to this day.

 

[Member 24198]

Not "vetting" mental health history is fine. Who wants the state to read the file of some therapist they met once 20 years ago?

 

[Cavedweller]

Do we think they'll ever discuss that part about the permit that really bothers me, which is by obtaining the permit you're going onto a publicly searchable list with my name, address, and list of owned firearms (I assume only the ones I buy once I have a permit).

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

 

[tkdguy]

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

You can bet that no journalist will deliver a FOIA request nor the AG will ever made a mistake and accidentially release the list of gun permit holders. Maybe you do not remember that was up and running about 10-15 years ago--to publish a list of CHL holders?

 

[Cavedweller]

Overall seems the app intent is put liability on the applicant for honesty rather than do actual vetting of mental health history, etc.

Not "vetting" mental health history is fine. Who wants the state to read the file of some therapist they met once 20 years ago?

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of the thing. The idea is supposed to be to prevent wackos from getting guns, not to be able to add more charges because an offender lied on a form. It only guarantees that the law will fail to accomplish anything, thus requiring stricter measures.

Not that I am in favor of any of it, mind you.

 

[156256Hunter]

Plus the administrative rules still need to be drafted (and objected to if appropriate), so more answers might float up from there

 

[Cavedweller]

You can bet that no journalist will deliver a FOIA request nor the AG will ever made a mistake and accidentially release the list of gun permit holders. Maybe you do not remember that was up and running about 10-15 years ago--to publish a list of CHL holders?

Not saying it can't happen. But the law does not explicitly grant the public access to this information, as some have implied. As I have said before, there are enough reprehensible aspects of this abomination to criticize without getting hyperbolic.

 

[RedRover]

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

Yet, it also doesn't state that it is NOT 'public', NOR 'searchable by the public'.
The way that statutes/laws work is that: unless something is declared as prohibited/illegal, it is presumed to be not prohibited/legal. It's easier to state what isn't allowed, rather than what is allowed under the law.

Without such protections in place, it could easily be presumed that such a 'list' could be accessed with a simple public records request.

 

[tkdguy]

Not saying it can't happen. But the law does not explicitly grant the public access to this information, as some have implied. As I have said before, there are enough reprehensible aspects of this abomination to criticize without getting hyperbolic.

Does anybody on this board or voters that opposed 114 trust the intentions of the 114 proponents or those that advocate it's forward movement and administration?

 

[Koda]

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

the latest OFF alert says its required to be public.

Whiplash – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[FireArm]

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

4 copies floating around in State govt employee hands and you think that list wont make it public?


"The OSP could not say if all of the personal information required by the measure would be be public. (The measure requires it.)"

 

[oa98pistol512]

Do we think they'll ever discuss that part about the permit that really bothers me, which is by obtaining the permit you're going onto a publicly searchable list with my name, address, and list of owned firearms (I assume only the ones I buy once I have a permit).
The more people I talk with who DID NOT KNOW what they were voting for/against leads me to wonder if they'll just sweep the fine details under the rug as much as possible. I don't even know if there's enough Democrats that would care for full understanding to make a difference.

Fun related story: my co-worker (I think Green party or Libertarian) just dropped that she's going to get her first gun this weekend before they're illegal. I told her she was too late and can't unless she has a permit that doesn't exist yet which she can't get because she hasn't gotten a training class that hasn't been created yet. She was shocked, assuming 114 started Jan. 1st and completely unaware of the background check mosh pit, then disgusted they can start a law before having the moving parts in place to enforce it. We had a very eye opening conversation which was sad for me and infuriating for her.

My concern is a anti gun person looks you up ,what you own and then makes a claim you pulled a gun on them and give a full description of said gun because of that database. But not even a democrat would sink that low right?

 

[Plunger45]

The form looks like a form 4473 crossed with a rental agreement.

 

[msgriff]

Nowhere in the measure does it state that the database will be searchable by the public. It only says that it will be electronic and searchable. "Public" does not appear in the text.

I believe that all records are subject to public inspection, unless specifically exempted by statute. 114 did not include any exemptions. The State does not have to maintain records as an online searchable database.

Oregon's Public Records Law