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

[PiratePast40]

DireWolf, my opinion (for what it's worth), is that you're falling into their trap. The whole idea behind these "controls" is that controlling "things", will save lives. The concept is flawed because "things" don't commit crimes, people do. Let's look at the FOID card required in Illinois. We know that Chicago has one of the countrys highest incidence of violence and there is a significant amount of violence committed with a gun. So what was the effect of the FOID and strict gun laws? Nothing! The fact remains that no matter how many hoops law abiding people jump through, criminals will still break the law. The other falacy of the FOID card is that by itself, it provides no assurance that the person holding it has not violated the conditions of issue since the time of issue. That means that you would still need to run a background check, at each use, to verify that the card holder is still legal to posses it.

When we go back to the supposed purpose of gun control, we see that the purpose is to protect people but the laws have no effect since, it doesn't matter to the criminal how many laws are passed. They just don't care. The thought that we, as firearms users, should give up something as an act of contrition for the acts of criminals is absurd. We're not like children holding our breath until we get our way. In fact it's the other way around. Those that choose to pursue laws that do nothing to address the real problem are (IMHO) the ones committing the moral transgression.

 

[Jamie6.5]

FOID = Firearm Owner's Infringement Doctrine.

Not even a nice try Direwolf.
The opportunity for political ideologies to play fast and loose with definitions like "mentally deficient/unstable" and "reasonable regulation" is one that must be avoided at all costs.

The phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed" is VERY clear and concise.

 

[DireWolf]

DireWolf, my opinion (for what it's worth), is that you're falling into their trap. The whole idea behind these "controls" is that controlling "things", will save lives. The concept is flawed because "things" don't commit crimes, people do. Let's look at the FOID card required in Illinois. We know that Chicago has one of the countrys highest incidence of violence and there is a significant amount of violence committed with a gun. So what was the effect of the FOID and strict gun laws? Nothing! The fact remains that no matter how many hoops law abiding people jump through, criminals will still break the law. The other falacy of the FOID card is that by itself, it provides no assurance that the person holding it has not violated the conditions of issue since the time of issue. That means that you would still need to run a background check, at each use, to verify that the card holder is still legal to posses it.

When we go back to the supposed purpose of gun control, we see that the purpose is to protect people but the laws have no effect since, it doesn't matter to the criminal how many laws are passed. They just don't care. The thought that we, as firearms users, should give up something as an act of contrition for the acts of criminals is absurd. We're not like children holding our breath until we get our way. In fact it's the other way around. Those that choose to pursue laws that do nothing to address the real problem are (IMHO) the ones committing the moral transgression.

If you read what I wrote, it was an idea that leaves "things" out of it, and some of the things you warn about I addressed. Don't focus on the fact that that they have something called a FOID in IL, and go down the Chicago hole. NOLA has no FOID and is way worse in terms of gun stats. It's a ficticious idea. I made it up. Don't bog it down with the trees, look at the forest.

I am not falling into anything. I realize that something needs to be done, and think being part of the solution is better than not. Everything I had suggested *already* exists. Checks for gun purchases. Checks for CHLs.

Can you tell me how that idea infringes on the 2A, without going into unrelated tangents?

New restrictions - no.

Repackage and tweek what's on the books - yes.

Those that choose to pursue laws that do nothing to address the real problem are (IMHO) the ones committing the moral transgression.

What is the problem then, and what is a reasonable fix*?

*= cannot be a new law, cannot violate privacy or HIPPA, and addresses concerns of mentally ill and criminals getting firearms

The problem I have with some of this, I hear dfrom many people what will not work, but nothing towards something that will, besides "nothing". I cannot think of a situation where proactive is not better than reactive, IMO. "Nothing" is getting us "nowhere".

 

[DireWolf]

FOID = Firearm Owner's Infringement Doctrine.

Not even a nice try Direwolf.
The opportunity for political ideologies to play fast and loose with definitions like "mentally deficient/unstable" and "reasonable regulation" is one that must be avoided at all costs.

The phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed" is VERY clear and concise.

As usual, no contribution. And completely out of context with SCOTUS precident.

Call it a Big Bird card if it makes you feel better.

Give me a reason, not an empty platitude.

 

[chariot13]

DireWolf, is that you're falling into their trap.

Go read a few of his posts. He is anti 2nd ammendment & wants as much regulation as possible on normal gun owners. Any further infringement let alone what is already there, is not something a pro 2nd ammendment American wants.

 

[snooopidydoo]

I will not comply..

 

[DireWolf]

Go read a few of his posts. He is anti 2nd ammendment & wants as much regulation as possible on normal gun owners. Any further infringement let alone what is already there, is not something a pro 2nd ammendment American wants.

A weak attempt at an insult, instead of a substantive comment.

From reading your posts, I suspect you do not have the capacity to do more than that, but I can always hope.

 

[Rathunter]

DireWolf,
Please explain how your improved universal background checks would have stopped or controlled the incidents at SandyHook or Clackamas Town Center.

 

[PiratePast40]

The falacy in all these arguments is that the gun owners must somehow come up with a solution to end evil acts committed during the history of humanity. It's not up to us to come up wth the solution, and we should not stand by while our rights are sacrificed by people who want to "do something". When are people going to get it through their heads, that punishing a certain class of society by registering them and restricting what they can buy or use, does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. And then when the people object, you want them to come up with a solution or you're going to keep punishing them.

I had nothing to do with Cain killing Abel and I don't know how to stop it from ever happening again. Maybe Obama can order the CDC to come up with the solution so we can all live in a land of unicorns, rainbows, and whirled peas.

 

[Jamie6.5]

As usual, no contribution. And completely out of context with SCOTUS precident.(sic)

Call it a Big Bird card if it makes you feel better.

Give me a reason, not an empty platitude.

I did give you a reason. One in complete agreement with the Chief Justice in the Heller ruling.
It's just too bad you misinterpreted the context of the SCOTUS' precedent with regard to regulation.

That being the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is as clear as good glass.
How would requiring citizens to ask for permission NOT constitute infringement?

To carry concealed in public? Maybe, it's worked so far, in and by states that require it.

To own generally, for the purpose of home/self defense? By the Federal Government?
NO, that doesn't pass muster, as confirmed in McDonald.

Not to mention that your scheme constitutes a defacto registration of gun owners. Which, in terms of threats to our liberties is second only to gun registration itself.
There is only one reason to register guns and/or their owners, and that is to provide data on who to take them from when the time comes.
Whether the justification for it comes one citizen at a time, or in groups.

 

[LogicBomb]

im gonna be hosting the first annual take your guns boating day real soon....who would lime to go?

 

[Modeler]

im gonna be hosting the first annual take your guns boating day real soon....who would lime to go?

You want witnesses? I'll go alone, thanks anyhow

 

[DireWolf]

DireWolf,
Please explain how your improved universal background checks would have stopped or controlled the incidents at SandyHook or Clackamas Town Center.

I never said it did would. I know that refusal to do anything while that list if OR Reps and Senators enact a bunch of restrictions and registrations also does nothing to prevent that.

Can you (or anyone) explain how having a card that proves you passed a background check that people have to subject themselves to today for new FFL purchase or a CHL is a further infringement on a person's 2a? I am getting pretty solidly dogpiled, but the dogs bring nothing but hyperbole and bumpersticker logic.

 

[chariot13]

I never said it did would. I know that refusal to do anything while that list if OR Reps and Senators enact a bunch of restrictions and registrations also does nothing to prevent that.

........ lol

Derp Derp

 

[PiratePast40]

I never said it did would. I know that refusal to do anything while that list if OR Reps and Senators enact a bunch of restrictions and registrations also does nothing to prevent that.

Can you (or anyone) explain how having a card that proves you passed a background check that people have to subject themselves to today for new FFL purchase or a CHL is a further infringement on a person's 2a? I am getting pretty solidly dogpiled, but the dogs bring nothing but hyperbole and bumpersticker logic.

You keep insisting that we do "something to atone for the sins of others" and perform some act of penance even though everyone agrees that it will do nothing to solve the problem. If for one second, I thought that standing on my head while eating a banana and whistling Dixie. would solve the problem of crime in this country, I'd do it in a second. But it won't. And neither will requiring citizens to obtain "papers" to prove that they are good upstanding citizens, bring a single victim of violence back to life.

How about if we all cut off a finger? Would that be enough sacrafice for you? Would that eradicate evil from the human race? Of course not, and neither will universal background checks because the bad guys don't care about laws. Were you aware that murder is illegal? Were you aware that people commit murder anyway? Jeez guy, get off your high horse. Just because you believe that someone should be punished doesn't mean it'll change anything

 

[DireWolf]

You keep insisting that we do "something to atone for the sins of others" and perform some act of penance even though everyone agrees that it will do nothing to solve the problem. If for one second, I thought that standing on my head while eating a banana and whistling Dixie. would solve the problem of crime in this country, I'd do it in a second. But it won't. And neither will requiring citizens to obtain "papers" to prove that they are good upstanding citizens, bring a single victim of violence back to life.

How about if we all cut off a finger? Would that be enough sacrafice for you? Would that eradicate evil from the human race? Of course not, and neither will universal background checks because the bad guys don't care about laws. Were you aware that murder is illegal? Were you aware that people commit murder anyway? Jeez guy, get off your high horse. Just because you believe that someone should be punished doesn't mean it'll change anything

I'll take that as a "No".

Just trying to think outside the box a bit.

You, and the the keyboard commando chariot13 have convinced me. I will simply berate anyone that says anything about trying to find a solution, and shout them down with hyperbole because I will not be capable of presenting a cogent argument. That should move things forward with the 70% polling in favor of universal background checks, mag limits, etc.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

 

[fallingblock]

I never said it did would. I know that refusal to do anything while that list if OR Reps and Senators enact a bunch of restrictions and registrations also does nothing to prevent that.

Can you (or anyone) explain how having a card that proves you passed a background check that people have to subject themselves to today for new FFL purchase or a CHL is a further infringement on a person's 2a? I am getting pretty solidly dogpiled, but the dogs bring nothing but hyperbole and bumpersticker logic.

I think what you are failing to see is that "they" are putting a requirement in to exercise our Constitutional Rights. These requirements do nothing to stop crime. They are revenue driven requirements that single out one group under the pretense of safety. Even the current background check/fee's are a infringement of our rights (a compromise that should NEVER have happened).

How's this sound?
In order to write anything or say anything in a public place that could be construed as controversial will need a background check. These background checks will require that you submit a written essay which will be read by some unknown person of unknown qualifications for: grammar, punctuation and spelling (it will also be required that anything you write or say must have a liberal slant to it so you may appease your inability to dig your heels in and just say "enough").

In enacting this bill, we will form a new government agency, thus creating 3000 new federal jobs. We have no idea how we will pay for these new positions, as we have already ear-marked any revenue we gain from this "requirement" for pet programs of the fence sitter representatives that we had to "buy" votes from.

There, I just put a requirement in to exercise our 1st amendment rights. Sounds pretty cool, considering that a vast majority of information out there is erroneous, poorly written and subject to opinion rather than facts. I personally know several grammar Nazis that would vote this in.

ANY legislation that pertains to our Rights as United States citizens must be a slow process. These knee-jerk bills have more consequences than benefits in the long run. Emotion driven laws (similar to the patriot act) grow like a cancer of EO's and far-reaching agency "flexibility".

ANY legislation that pertains to our Rights as United States citizens need to be passed/failed with NO riders, no pork, no cabooses or whatever cute little term is in vogue right now. These bills need to pass/fail on their own merit, PERIOD.

Folks speak of compromise like we (gun owners) went to this table with something to gain. We as gun owners did nothing wrong, yet we are talking compromise under the fallacy of safety. Understand, we have absolutely NOTHING to gain from compromise and everything to lose.

A vast majority of the EO's pertaining to gun control (or whatever spin that side decides is a less scary word) is nothing more than fluffing current laws. If our representatives want sound change, then enforce what's there and show us that it's not working. Then and only then will I willingly stand at a table and discuss compromise.

Unlike our current administration/elected officials; we do not fight for today, we fight for tomorrow. Our goal is to give our children the rights we have, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[duane black]

I'll take that as a "No".

Just trying to think outside the box a bit.

You, and the the keyboard commando chariot13 have convinced me. I will simply berate anyone that says anything about trying to find a solution, and shout them down with hyperbole because I will not be capable of presenting a cogent argument. That should move things forward with the 70% polling in favor of universal background checks, mag limits, etc.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

It is very likely a universal background check would pass constitutional muster post heller.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


I think this is one of those we will have to " take for the team ". Do I agree this will have any effect on reducing gun crime ? No.

Reminded me of a story told to me by my father whom is retired now but at the time a Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff. He was having a conversation with a convicted drug dealer they made contact with. My father knew this person from prior contacts.

During the conversation the drug dealer explained he could get any gun he wanted and was able to get 200-300 guns a WEEK as trades for drugs. At one time he had a Cadillac trunk full of guns. This is in post Roberti/Roos California and we also had/have a law requiring all sales between private individuals to go through a FFL.

A very strong case can made against the effectiveness of these proposals just looking at California crime stats in urban areas ( Oakland ) over the past 25 years. I essentially was ran out of the bay area for lots of reasons, crime being one of them.

I watched Ca create " common sense " laws every year and all the while make Ca more dangerous than ever. A death by a thousand cuts was a common phrase on calguns. Now the democrat super majority is proposing the most infringing gun control laws ever proposed in the history of this country. These will very unlikely pass constitutional muster post heller.

I especially like the comment made that confiscating LEGALLY REGISTERED " assault weapons " is not off the table. I guess all those people saying registration leads to confiscation was onto something.

THIS is where common sense compromise gets you. I lived it. I will not live it again willingly.

 

[PiratePast40]

I'll take that as a "No".

Just trying to think outside the box a bit.

You, and the the keyboard commando chariot13 have convinced me. I will simply berate anyone that says anything about trying to find a solution, and shout them down with hyperbole because I will not be capable of presenting a cogent argument. That should move things forward with the 70% polling in favor of universal background checks, mag limits, etc.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

You know that owner registration will have absolutley no affect whatsoever on violence yet you insist on pushing the concept to make yourself look good. You are not looking for a solution at all. You're looking to find a way to say "look, I did something". "I'm a hero because I saved the lives of all the children".

How about you take up another cause, such as child pornography. Then you can fight for registration of all camera and computer owners since cameras are used to take the pictures and computers used to view them. You could then propose that memory cards be limited to 10 photos at a time, and that black cameras be banned because that's what the pornographers use.

Your assertions that we must endure some sort of pain, and that the pain is minor, to make up for the actions of criminals is ridiculous.

 

[ThePhonMan]

Since I tried the use of a metaphor as a literary device earlier and certain people missed it completely I will try an analogy this time.

We don't go a single month without some story about a school bus accident that has hurt or killed children. A 66 passenger bus weighs in at ~20,000 pounds. That's 10 tons of death (to use the media's sensationalizing techniques). Why don't we put more restrictions on school busses? Where's the hue and cry for more school bus safety? Where's the outrage and demand for action?

The simple reason is that the other 10's of millions of school children that were NOT injured or killed that day shows that the overall safety record of the bus doesn't warrant much if any change.

Not so with guns. Since guns are big bad killing machines there is a knee-jerk reaction that "we have to do something". The truth is NO WE DON'T. This is counterintuitive and doesn't satisfy our natural desire to help people but is also the correct reaction to tragic events. The "do something to make us all feel safer" crowd did exactly that in California for over 30 years. Same thing in New York, Illinois, etc. They all feel better but haven't improved anything, They've only made it worse.

I'm not saying that I will stubbornly ignore anything happening around me. I am saying that I will use reason, logic, and calm dialogue to discuss the issue and put it into the same context of any other constitutional right we possess. We have a representative republic government for a reason. Mass hysteria driven government policy doesn't work but representatives that fail to represent their constituents doesn't either.

Illinois is a great model. I know of a specific incident involving a gentleman who was hospitalized after having a heart attack and other medical complications. He let his "gun card" expire and while recovering at home was visited by local law enforcement one day because he was now in violation of the "spirit of the law". That's a great solution?

I don't plan to hold my breath, I will continue to actively engage any and all that will listen to logic and reason. But don't for a minute take that as giving up for the sake of being reasonable. History is replete with examples of reasonable compromise that don't lead to safer outcomes. I start every conversation asking why more is better when the current doesn't work.

Adam Lanza could have had over 200 separate charges filed against him if he had lived. I guess 201 would have prevented him from acting.