Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Universal background checks in Oregon - how long till a bill is proposed?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by PiratePast40, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    The reason I'm asking is because of the couple at last weeks rally who were interviewing anyone they could. They were open about being for gun control, especially registration, and were asking why gun owners would be opposed. Obviously, it's been proposed on the national level but it hasn't yet been proposed in Oregon. Wondering if it could be slipped into this session.

    Could it be because Oregon has allready closed "the gun show loophole" and that's as far as it will go?

    Guess I should back up here a little and explain that I equate universal background checks to registration because the checks establish the initial database, and is in itself a form of registrion, at least in Oregon.
     
  2. DireWolf

    DireWolf Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    192
    IL has the FOID.

    What if states ran better background checks, and issued FOIDs that were like DLs, with restrictions (i.e. age restrictions, CHL, etc.) - signature, pictures, etc.

    Pass the check, get a FOID, no background check again? Checks get done, and no idividual registrations.
     
  3. civilian75

    civilian75 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    627
    GOG and (deleted member) like this.
  4. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    ^^^^that sucks!
     
  5. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    214
    I don't think any of Burdick's measures are going to pass. The "closing of the gun show loophole" is enough for most of the moderate Democrats.
     
  6. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    This is what I'm worried about:

    gun-polljpg-1cb1298b6d0d4d9b.jpg

    gun-polljpg-1cb1298b6d0d4d9b.jpg
     
  7. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    This is what I'm worried about:

    View attachment 56170

    Note what it says: "Universal Background Checks for Gun Owners" Not "gun purchases", but "gun owners".

    In the spectrum of worst to least-worst, the proposals for background checks are:

    1) Universal Background checks for OWNERS, coupled with each gun's SERIAL NUMBER.
    2) Universal Background checks for all PURCHASERS, coupled with each gun's SERIAL NUMBER
    3) Background checks at Gun shows and FFLs, coupled with each gun's SERIAL NUMBER (The current Oregon Law)
    4) Universal Background checks for OWNERS (check the owner, but not the gun's S/N)
    5) Background checks at FFL's , coupled with each gun's S/N (Current Federal Law)
    6) Background checks for FFL's, but only the purchaser, not the gun's S/N.
    7) No background check necessary

    My main problem with background checks is that the current (and some proposed) law allows/requires the background check to include the gun make, model, S/N. The purpose of the background check is to qualify the PERSON, not the GUN.

    Of course, any background check is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

    But this survey that the Oregonian did included a proposal for universal background checks being required for all GUN OWNERS ... and that is very scary!


    In summary: We should fight this in several ways

    A) No UNIVERSAL (face-to-face personal sales) background checks.
    B) Any required background check should be for the PURCHASER. It should not include any information about the GUN, nor for the SELLER.
    C) Remove the current requirement for including the gun's S/N on current background check processes.
     
  8. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    How about none of the above? "...shall not be infringed."

    Remember, it's not about guns although that's how all this nonsense is being sold, it's about control.
     
  9. chris61182

    chris61182 A little west of Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    38
    Talking with my house rep (D) a week back, he was surprised to hear it hadn't been introduced yet, but it definitely sounds like these things are being discussed and planned behind closed doors.
     
  10. DireWolf

    DireWolf Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    192
    I think this is a pretty good compromise.

    - Focuses on removing those from the ownership pool that shouldn't/can't buy (mentally ill, criminals, etc.),

    - Satisfies public desire for background checks,

    - Provide a card to the person with certifications (CHL) or restrictions (based on age),

    - Tie it into databases so it is invalid if cardholder commits a qualifying crime,

    - Show it at purchase for a firearm at a shop, just like getting carded for alcohol,

    - No gun registration

    - FTF sales can request if they want for personal records - i.e. FOID card #, instead of a DL

    It seems to be a reasonable compromise to me, addresses some of the greater public's concerns, without worries about registration of firearms. Also would get rid of a good bit of admin costs for a background check for every purchase.
     
  11. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    One of the reasons we left California was to escape the fascist gun laws. I understand the need to keep guns out of criminals hands, but not at a price to our Second Amendment rights.
     
  12. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    DireWolf: You missed the point. #4 is for gun OWNERS -- not just purchasers. Therefore, if you already own a gun, you need a background check. Clearly this is NOT a step in the right direction.

    Background checks in Oregon currently: For FFL transfers, for Gun shows -- and they INCLUDE the Gun S/N

    A step in the right direction: For FFL transfers, for Gun shows -- and they DO NOT include the Gun S/N
    A compromise: Universal for all transfers -- and they DO NOT include the GUN S/N
    A step backwards: Universal for all transfers -- they include the Gun S/N
    A major step backwards: Universal for all OWNERS -- with or without Gun S/N
     
  13. Modeler

    Modeler Molalla, Oregon Soccer Fan

    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    If it's really all about making sure the person buying is legal to buy, if that's the reason for background checks, then why do they need to record the S/N?
     
  14. Modeler

    Modeler Molalla, Oregon Soccer Fan

    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    This is the only way I would support a universal background check.
     
  15. PiratePast40

    PiratePast40 Willamette Valley Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    DireWolf - no it is not a step in the right direction. The only people who will submit to the checks are law abiding citizens who obey the laws now. Those that do not obey the law will still obtain their firarms as they allways have. The only effect this type of law has is to build databases of people who obey the law. Then some dimwitt is going to petition the state for access to the database so they can publish it to show haw many "gun nuts" are in their neighborhood. The list of "gun nuts" with their addresses will be victims of abuse, people who have filed for restraining orders, probation officers, security and prison guards, prosecuters and judges, LEO's, along with other law abiding citizens who will now face harrassment.

    No - we do not need to give anything to placate the control freaks!
     
  16. DireWolf

    DireWolf Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ah. No me gusta.

    I like it for purchasers.

    Go through the process once - maybe beefed up a bit on the mental health side, then boom: FOID issued. Person certified to purchase non-NFA firearms with no further checks. Add a safety course - get a 'C' endorsement for CC. Additional certs for NFA stuff, FFL, etc.

    I fail to see how this infringes on a person's 2A right. They are all things that are being done now, but centralizes things and makes transactions and retail sales easier and maybe cheaper.
     
  17. DireWolf

    DireWolf Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    192
    See my post above.

    These records already exist, do they not?
     
  18. ThePhonMan

    ThePhonMan Spokanistan Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    353
    I don’t see anybody proposing “reasonable” measures to require a background check and license to buy a pen, keyboard, typewriter (Google it), go to church, vote or any other constitutional right. So, following that line, let’s all encourage encroachment of all the other rights we hold dear for political expediency.

    I too am a refugee from The People’s Republik of Canweforkya and I left for all sorts of reasons, guns being one of the main issues. When I see what Cali did and see the same stupidity in other states and now on a federal level I shake my head in disbelief. Like all the wonderful laws and regulations in California have made that a better place to live?

    It’s a great place to be FROM but I’ll never go back.

    Now where do I go if Cali-like laws come to WA? Or the US in general?

    We need to support our friends in Oregon as they will support us when it’s our turn in the screws.

    United we stand, divided we fall.
     
  19. DireWolf

    DireWolf Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    192
    For one, some (many) want voter ID, so that's out.

    Other than that, there are no Constitutionally rights to buy a pen, keyboard, or typewriter. Those are silly comparisons. Especially considering that if you walk into a Cabelas and put money down on a firearm, you have to get a check run. Want to carry that pistol? Another check.

    Since these things are already done, and the SCOTUS has established that it is a right that can be regulated, explain how this idea infringes your 2A right further? It's not tied to a firearm, give the anti-gun crowd some assurances, may make transactions simpler, etc. All of these things are happening already.

    I'm just thinking out loud. When people dig their heels in, sometimes they are served a dish that tastes like crap. If the wheels are in motion (and that pic linked above shows it is), participating in the process will help point it in the right direction, better than standing on the sidelines screaming "No!". Senators/Reps have mostly made their decisions on many issues. What does holding your breath accomplish? The ability to say "I never voted for it!"? Fat lot of good that does us when BG checks, mag limits, and gun registrations are shoved down our throats.
     
  20. slingshot1943

    slingshot1943 salem or Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    321
    They got the gun show loophole thing and now they are back for more. It will never stop. No compromise will stop them. They hate the contitution and it's limits on their power grabbing.
     
    rocky3 and (deleted member) like this.