Oregon - universal background checks


PDA






Ryanxia
January 10, 2014, 10:33 AM
Watch your butts. Get active real quick, contact your reps and spread the word to others to do the same. Sounds like you only need to sway a few democratic votes let the republicans know you're behind their decision to reject this Bill and others like it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/gun_control_sponsor_of_oregon.html

The debate over universal background checks on gun sales is returning to the Oregon Legislature, and this time the billís author says heíll have the votes to pass it.

ďI feel that when that bill goes to the floor we will have the votes that we need,Ē Prozanski said Thursday.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oregon - universal background checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Old Fuff
January 10, 2014, 12:04 PM
Well the Democrats had the votes in Colorado to pass their platform-based gun control legislation - and look what it got them. :eek:

It doesn't hurt to point this out in other states... :evil:

Ryanxia
January 10, 2014, 12:47 PM
That's true Old Fuff, but some states do not have the legal option to recall state senators like CO does.

Either way, hopefully this spreads and the Oregon folks light a fire under this.

Old Fuff
January 10, 2014, 04:41 PM
... but some states do not have the legal option to recall state senators like CO does.

They donít have to. On a national as well as local basis Democrats far underestimated what the reaction to their gun control vision might be in many central, southern and western states. Now this unexpected threat to many of theyíre candidates, in the not too far away mid-term elections this coming November is becoming more clear.

That in itself might call for caution, but the additional problems with Obamacare must add to the partyís unease in many states. If they get pounded with mail they might decide that this isnít the best time to kick the hornetís nest.

horsemen61
January 10, 2014, 04:44 PM
Called a friend who lives up there and he made some calls we will have to wait and see what happens

MErl
January 10, 2014, 05:36 PM
Fuff, I'm of the opinion that if the folks in charge here had just passed UBC and not the other stuff, there would not have been any recalls. They may be willing to test that out in Oregon.

Ryanxia
January 11, 2014, 10:27 AM
Fuff, I'm of the opinion that if the folks in charge here had just passed UBC and not the other stuff, there would not have been any recalls. They may be willing to test that out in Oregon.
Hopefully there will still be an outcry in Oregon. "Universal background checks" (ie. registration) is far worse than a mag capacity limit.

When there was a push in my state for gun control, it barely passed in the state senate and went to the governor, we were confident that the governor would veto it but even so I made several little 2"x4" cards with his office number and the Bill number for people to tell him to oppose and put it up around my local gunshop and online here on the forums. He struck it down.

WalterSobchak
January 11, 2014, 11:34 AM
I called several times and wrote emails to all the reps.

This is going to be a close one. As there seems to be a lot of support on the metro areas which increasingly seem to dictate the politics of the state.

Old Fuff
January 11, 2014, 12:41 PM
This is going to be a close one. As there seems to be a lot of support on the metro areas which increasingly seem to dictate the politics of the state.

You are absolutely right, and that's the reason gun control bills have recently been passed in other states.

But if other unrelated issues (such as Obamacare) turn off a lot of voters, and you add to them the pro-gun vote, the overall result might change expected results in many races. In mid-term elections it's usual for whichever party is in control to lose some seats as voters with an axe to grind make more effort to get out and vote.

I am sure that urban Democrats would like to pass a UBC bill, but if their mail runs strongly against it they may have second thoughts. Also Democrats who have to run for election or re-election in rural districts may have a serious problem. :uhoh:

The trick is to be sure they know it. ;)

Ryanxia
January 13, 2014, 08:20 AM
Well said OldFuff, if the representatives hear enough opposition from their constituents it may be enough to sway their votes. Happens quite often, a lot of times behind the scenes when we don't even hear about it.

If you're in Oregon or have friends/family, get the word out to them pronto!

22-rimfire
January 14, 2014, 10:11 AM
My sense is that both Oregon and Washington are becoming more and more liberal like Colorado and the sentiment is controlled by the metro areas which have the greatest population density/numbers.

Definitely time for action to voice your support or lack of support for the proposed law.

Universal Background Checks (UBCs) are not necessarily gun registration. I would need more information to support that claim made above.

MErl
January 14, 2014, 10:20 AM
UBC are one little law (or ignored law) from becoming a registry of firearms. Look for the post from Ryanxia about ATF scanning FFL records wholesale. ATF cannot legally make a database from those records but they are either doing it or having ready to go if allowed (or most likely, contracting out to some private company that can legally do it)

Good luck out there.

22-rimfire
January 14, 2014, 11:13 AM
I agree MErl about one little law.... or step in the death by many cuts philosophy.

It's hard to discern truth from fiction in many cases when you don't actually know the person involved.

Old Fuff
January 14, 2014, 11:41 AM
Universal Background Checks (UBCs) are not necessarily gun registration. I would need more information to support that claim made above.

So far, all of the USB bills and proposals that have been brought up at both federal and state levels require that private sales or other transactions/transfers of firearms be brockered through an FFL. Exceptions are few and usually limited to inter-family ones.

An FFL is required to keep information concerning both the seller and buyer, as well as the firearm(s) in their bound book; and then have the buyer fill out a #4473 form. Between the two enough written information is collected to support a viable registration data base.

What UBC backers want is not a background check, but universal #4473 forms. :uhoh:

22-rimfire
January 14, 2014, 01:32 PM
I personally would like to get rid of all the paper work, but that won't happen. :D

But yes, there is plenty of information to support the creation of a registry of firearms with the 4473's. It is what I have always feared and folks mentioning BATFE scanning all 4473's supports this theory if it is true.

Queen_of_Thunder
January 14, 2014, 02:36 PM
UBC's are defacto registration schemes.

Ryanxia
January 14, 2014, 04:08 PM
UBC's are defacto registration schemes.
Which is why Americans should be as concerned if not more than any magazine/hardware restriction.

shootingthebreeze
January 15, 2014, 08:15 AM
I don't see anything wrong with the Oregon bill- it patches a loop hole forcing registration of private sales of firearms.
I have to add another comment: I am a firearm owner and have a CPL; I also have 20 years military service, retired. I did not renew my subscription with the NRA due to its refusal to sit down and hash out sane firearm control measures in the US. Instead, the NRA has poured millions to stall any firearm control to make the US safer.
Security is another thing: firearms should be locked and secured to keep them out of hands of criminals and the kid who decides to shoot up a school. Penalties for unsecured weapons should be initiated.
Now, because saner firearm controls have been blocked on and on you are starting to have a quilt like landscape of firearm laws throughout the US at state level. Some laws will be good some bad.
I have always said that if the US does not start enacting stricter laws and does not seal firearm loopholes the Second Amendment itself will be in danger. If you want to have firearms and protect the Second Amendment then you better compromise in making America safer from firearm violence.
I also don't want to hear the tired argument that criminals will get weapons; sure they will, and eventually they will be caught or killed.
Security is the one thing I'm a stickler with. Unless I carry and have control over my firearm all others are locked. And I have ADT another layer of protection. There is no excuse that a kid can get a hold of a firearm and use it to fire up a school. I am about fed up hearing about school violence in America and it has to stop.
By being rigid about sealing firearm loopholes and starting a sane firearm control dialogue in this country has now resulted in a quilt like pattern of laws in America. Be rigid, support the NRA, and welcome the new reality of state enacted laws in the future.

Ryanxia
January 15, 2014, 09:26 AM
I don't see anything wrong with the Oregon bill- it patches a loop hole forcing registration of private sales of firearms.
I have to add another comment: I am a firearm owner and have a CPL; I also have 20 years military service, retired. I did not renew my subscription with the NRA due to its refusal to sit down and hash out sane firearm control measures in the US. Instead, the NRA has poured millions to stall any firearm control to make the US safer.
Security is another thing: firearms should be locked and secured to keep them out of hands of criminals and the kid who decides to shoot up a school. Penalties for unsecured weapons should be initiated.
Now, because saner firearm controls have been blocked on and on you are starting to have a quilt like landscape of firearm laws throughout the US at state level. Some laws will be good some bad.
I have always said that if the US does not start enacting stricter laws and does not seal firearm loopholes the Second Amendment itself will be in danger. If you want to have firearms and protect the Second Amendment then you better compromise in making America safer from firearm violence.
I also don't want to hear the tired argument that criminals will get weapons; sure they will, and eventually they will be caught or killed.
Security is the one thing I'm a stickler with. Unless I carry and have control over my firearm all others are locked. And I have ADT another layer of protection. There is no excuse that a kid can get a hold of a firearm and use it to fire up a school. I am about fed up hearing about school violence in America and it has to stop.
By being rigid about sealing firearm loopholes and starting a sane firearm control dialogue in this country has now resulted in a quilt like pattern of laws in America. Be rigid, support the NRA, and welcome the new reality of state enacted laws in the future.
With all due respect your entire post made me sick. Sounds like a spokesman for Bloomberg or Feinstein. The majority of NRA members (which IS the NRA) disagree with your point of view in that we should compromise and allow an illegal registration (yes it's illegal on current federal laws).

There are more deaths from drunk driving every year than from firearms in the U.S. but if you value your safety over this one tool so much, I'll help you pack. I hear England is nice. :)

shootingthebreeze
January 15, 2014, 10:16 AM
Ryanxia, just because I own firearms does not mean I agree with those who resist saner firearm laws in the US.
I served my country so I'm here to stay, thank you very much.
Freedom of speech and expression means that views may not agree with other views. This site exists so that pro and con views can be expressed in a civil way. The key provision I had for my service in the military was (and still is) that I may not agree with you but I will die defending your right to express your belief.

Ryanxia
January 15, 2014, 10:42 AM
You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Many of us have already decided though to stand up against illegal registration which is all these 'universal background checks' do. If you're ok with the government breaking it's own laws and don't believe that registration is the first step towards confiscation (as has already been proven here in the U.S. in California and New York) that's fine. We disagree and will continue to exercise our Rights to not let these proposed Bills become law.

shootingthebreeze
January 15, 2014, 12:30 PM
As a side, I don't agree with Bloomberg-he is anti firearm. His agenda goes way beyond firearm control. Many others say as well but think otherwise and are anti Second Amendment.
My central point, the very crucial point I made above is this: if the NRA does not bend, and remains inflexible more quilt like laws state wide will be enacted, some good many bad. If inflexibility remains by firearm owners towards firearm control (i.e deny weapons to mentally ill, penalties for not securing weapons, sealing existing loop holes) then expect more quilt like laws at the state level springing up.
The real danger I see is that through inflexibility towards a dialog to keep America safe from firearm violence the Second Amendment itself might come under fire. Legislators are fickle people and can turn when least expected.
A willow tree bends, never breaks-and my concern with inflexibility is that soon, each state, county, city, village will have its own firearm laws which will cripple the Second Amendment to the point that each person will have to have a legal manual to go to the firing range!! That's my concern in national inflexibility and refusing to have a dialog on making firearms safer in America. That is what the NRA has not done. It has remained inflexible on this issue.
I have a few friends who are firearm owners and have CPLs who feel the same way as I do.

Ryanxia
January 15, 2014, 01:04 PM
If you want to discuss the NRA's policies feel free to start a thread about that. It really has nothing to do with my thread about Oregon. This was meant as a plan of action and/or making people aware of the upcoming Bill there so people can spread the word to friends/family that live in that state. If you don't think it should be fought, fine, you've made your point.
Back on track to the original discussion, if anyone is in Oregon and/or knows about any grassroots organizations involved feel free to post some info.

Bob Bonillas
February 7, 2014, 06:38 PM
Shooting the breeze, I am diametrically opposed to your position and your opinion.

steelerdude99
February 8, 2014, 08:24 AM
As a side, I don't agree with Bloomberg-he is anti firearm. His agenda goes way beyond firearm control. Many others say as well but think otherwise and are anti Second Amendment.
My central point, the very crucial point I made above is this: if the NRA does not bend, and remains inflexible more quilt like laws state wide will be enacted, some good many bad. If inflexibility remains by firearm owners towards firearm control (i.e deny weapons to mentally ill, penalties for not securing weapons, sealing existing loop holes) then expect more quilt like laws at the state level springing up.
The real danger I see is that through inflexibility towards a dialog to keep America safe from firearm violence the Second Amendment itself might come under fire. Legislators are fickle people and can turn when least expected.
A willow tree bends, never breaks-and my concern with inflexibility is that soon, each state, county, city, village will have its own firearm laws which will cripple the Second Amendment to the point that each person will have to have a legal manual to go to the firing range!! That's my concern in national inflexibility and refusing to have a dialog on making firearms safer in America. That is what the NRA has not done. It has remained inflexible on this issue.
I have a few friends who are firearm owners and have CPLs who feel the same way as I do.

Without the NRA, we here in the USA would all just be former gun owners in a similar way to what happened in the U.K and Australia. Standing up to anti-gun politicians chipping away at rights is not being "inflexible". The anti-gun crowd would like to use any and all disqualifying factors such as mentally illness in firearms ownership. Then they would search out anyone with a hint of depression, PTSD and the many other diagnosed mental illnesses, and then declare them all at once as unable to own firearms without due process.

We are already at point of the 2nd Amendment being UNDER FIRE from both the federal and many state governments. After the gun-control legislation failure at the federal level, gun control groups are working on smaller objectives such as Oregon, Washington State and (now I hear) New Hampshire.

chuck

Midwest
February 8, 2014, 09:28 AM
So instead of DiFi and Carolyn (The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up) McCarthy screaming for gun control in the national media. Now they have Bloomberg and Gabby making the rounds from state to state making the pitch on a more local level and out of the national spotlight for UBC. Bloomie is/was in New Hampshire pushing for UBC. Gabby has been traveling to other states on her semi low keyed UBC tour.

Any kind of UBC proposal must be defeated. UBC is registration! If UBC passes, the burden will eventually be on you to prove that you didn't acquire a certain firearm illegally after UBC passed. You can always say that you received the firearm before the law went into effect, being able to prove it will be another matter. If UBC is passed, not just in Oregon and New Hampshire, but throughout the U.S. What will be the 'next step' ? Do we really want to find out? No, we stop it here and now.

And it is not just a matter for today, but more importantly for our future generation. Do you really want your grand children or great grand children to ask you how we lost our gun rights and how come we didn't do anything to stop it?

Do we really want our future generation to end up like another Australia or the UK where self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm? If we don't stop UBC and other draconian firearm legislation from happening, we will eventually end up like Australia and the UK where the criminals outgun the citizens.

If we let UBC and other these other types draconian legislation pass, we have... essentially pissed on the graves of all the fine men and woman who fought and died for this country in order for us to be free. If we weaken our gun rights, we have weaken ourselves as a nation. The Founding Fathers of this nation must be turning in their graves over the way we have willingly allowed our rights thrown away over 20 second soundbites, bogus news opinion polls and politicians who lie in order to get reelected.

Are we that shallow of a nation to allow our God given rights to be trashed under the banner of 'reasonable restrictions'. Apparently, it appears that some of us are. At least in those states that passed draconian anti-gun legislation in the last year or so.

Can you look in the mirror and honestly say that you have done everything you could to fight these oppressive and draconian laws? Can you tell your grand and great grand children you did everything in your power to fight to preserve their gun rights as well as ours today?

No UBC, not now, not ever, not anywhere!

steelerdude99
February 8, 2014, 10:01 AM
...
Any kind of UBC proposal must be defeated. UBC is registration! If UBC passes, the burden will eventually be on you to prove that you didn't acquire a certain firearm illegally after UBC passed. You can always say that you received the firearm before the law went into effect, being able to prove it will be another matter.

There is no doubt that UBC's law enforcement agents will challenge a person's ownership for any and all firearms in their possession. It will definitely be a guilty until proven innocent scenario. "No receipt? You're outta luck." Even documentation provided by those who own a firearm can be challenged. What if the store is no longer is business "to substantiate your claim of ownership". I would not expect ATF to act on your behalf to locate old records and undermine either their case or a state's case. Any interaction with law enforcement will end up a "when was it acquired and was it legally acquired" records search rather than just a "is it stolen search". What about pre-GCA of '68 guns?

chuck

Ironclad
February 8, 2014, 10:01 AM
Shootingthebreeze:

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but the idea that we have to compromise and give up part of our rights to keep any of our rights is pretty weak sauce.

What if somebody offered you the same deal about the First Amendment ("Well you can speak out about the government, but not the President himself. If you don't yield on this, we won't let you talk at all.")?

Our how about the eighth amendment? (" We want you to agree to cruel punishment, but not unusual. If you don't comply we will push for cruel and unusual")

The idea that if we compromise they will be happy and back off is bogus. They will push until we have nothing, then find another right to destroy. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk.

Dig in and never back down. And when the opportunity presents itself, push the line back and regain some rights.

Midwest
February 8, 2014, 10:19 AM
There is no doubt that UBC's law enforcement agents will challenge a person's ownership for any and all firearms in their possession. It will definitely be a guilty until proven innocent scenario. "No receipt? You're outta luck." Even documentation provided by those who own a firearm can be challenged. What if the store is no longer is business "to substantiate your claim of ownership". I would not expect ATF to act on your behalf to locate old records and undermine either their case or a state's case. Any interaction with law enforcement will end up a "when was it acquired and was it legally acquired" records search rather than just a "is it stolen search". What about pre-GCA of '68 guns?

chuck
Exactly and then 'the next step' will be to call for all firearms to be declared through UBC and tied to one particular owner. Whatever firearms are in your possession will have to go through UBC and entered in a database and you will get a receipt 'proving you own it' .

This will be an amnesty period, and when it ends then all firearms "not tied to an owner" will no longer be allowed to be registered (tied to an owner) and cannot be sold, loaned or transferred..it will become contraband.

And the only firearms that will be available through the UBC are new firearms from the factory or all firearms that previously went through the 'amnesty' period. All other firearms will be contraband and there will be criminal penalties for having contraband firearms in ones possession.

And, it would not surprise me that when they go through the amnesty period they might refuse to enter into the UBC database a certain class of weapons. Thereby outlawing them (by mandate, or by column entry). This could happen on the spot while the owner is trying to have them entered in the database. But since they could not register those certain firearms, those firearms will become contraband after the amnesty.

So those who favor UBC and so called 'reasonable restrictions', have absolutely no idea, no clue where UBC will lead to. I hope this post makes one more aware to the fact that we are a step or two away from becoming another Australia or the UK with regards to gun rights..or the lack of.

steelerdude99
February 8, 2014, 01:43 PM
In response to what I wrote earlier... Exactly and then 'the next step' will be to call for all firearms to be declared through UBC and tied to one particular owner. Whatever firearms are in your possession will have to go through UBC and entered in a database and you will get a receipt 'proving you own it' .

This will be an amnesty period, and when it ends then all firearms "not tied to an owner" will no longer be allowed to be registered (tied to an owner) and cannot be sold, loaned or transferred..it will become contraband.

And the only firearms that will be available through the UBC are new firearms from the factory or all firearms that previously went through the 'amnesty' period. All other firearms will be contraband and there will be criminal penalties for having contraband firearms in ones possession.

And, it would not surprise me that when they go through the amnesty period they might refuse to enter into the UBC database a certain class of weapons. Thereby outlawing them (by mandate, or by column entry). This could happen on the spot while the owner is trying to have them entered in the database. But since they could not register those certain firearms, those firearms will become contraband after the amnesty.

...

Good point Midwest as you have expanded on what I speculated on in regards to what happens "later". After know'n who has what ... .GOV can do all kinds of bad things. Without teeth, UBC would be ineffective and unenforceable due to reasonable doubt of possession and/or ownership. BUT with registration, UBC would have been given fangs, talons and an appetite.

chuck

Ryanxia
February 10, 2014, 09:09 AM
Guys, shootingthebreeze has already gone on to make his own thread in General Discussion to discuss the merits and downfalls of UBC. This thread is for anyone that has information or a plan to help Oregon overcome their latest threat to their Rights.

Midwest
February 10, 2014, 09:44 AM
Guys, shootingthebreeze has already gone on to make his own thread in General Discussion to discuss the merits and downfalls of UBC. This thread is for anyone that has information or a plan to help Oregon overcome their latest threat to their Rights.
I propose that gun owners in Oregon use this phrase as their rallying cry against UBC. "No UBC, not now, not ever, not anywhere!"....

Make bumper stickers, leave flyers at LGS, sporting goods stores, Walmart etc. Start a Oregon gun owners podcast with No UBC as the main theme. Sometimes it is easier to digest information by listening to it instead of reading it, and practically everyone is listening to MP3's in their car anyway.

Call up the local talk radio stations during morning drive. You'd be surprised how many people listen to talk radio on their way to work in the morning.

We need to emphasize the fact that UBC is not only a bad idea, but give specific examples why it is a bad idea and how we could all work together to get it stopped. People must be aware how the law will affect them now and in the future. I gave several possible scenarios in my previous posts about what the end result could be.

Everyone should unite to collectively tell Gabby and Bloomberg to stay out of Oregon and it's legislature. Make it known that Gabby and Michael are not welcomed there and if they want to do some good, then they should donate to the Red Cross instead of harassing Oregon's law abiding gun owners.

Use the rallying cry "No UBC, not now, not ever, not anywhere!"

87jeep
February 11, 2014, 08:11 PM
Sad to see what is going on in Orygun. Lived there until 2001 & saw the problems up there with the Kommieforina imigration to the NW in the 90's. Hope you guys can hold out.

Portland is just a city of fruitcakes! :barf:

Tony k
February 12, 2014, 09:53 PM
I've been writing to Merkly and Wyden, but I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly who is my state level reps and senators are. Im in Wallowa County.

Ryanxia
February 13, 2014, 07:24 AM
I've been writing to Merkly and Wyden, but I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly who is my state level reps and senators are. Im in Wallowa County.
This link might help Tony. Keep up the good work and spread the word.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html

WalterSobchak
March 6, 2014, 05:55 PM
The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) is a great source of both information and inspiration.

Very active and mobilized to support our rights.

Ryanxia
March 7, 2014, 02:54 PM
Update: Not exactly sure what it means, don't think it's dead, but see below.

Senate Feb 3, 2014 Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
Senate Feb 3, 2014 Referred to Judiciary.
Senate Feb 6, 2014 Public Hearing held.
Senate Feb 13, 2014 Work Session held.
Senate Feb 14, 2014 Recommendation: Without recommendation as to passage and be referred to Rules.
Senate Feb 14, 2014 Referred to Rules by order of the President.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Oregon-Gun-Law-SB1551/State-Law/14960

krupparms
March 7, 2014, 04:43 PM
With crime up & more cities & county's going broke & losing L.E. protection along I-5, things may change. The cities control most of the political control in Oregon. Alot of them have lost jobs & people are moving to the BIG CITIES. BIG CITY CRIME has moved to the cities &county's that are broke. Oregon citizens have responded! Gun sales are up, along w / applications for CCW permits . Most of the people I know carry or keep a car gun. It is a issue that quite a few fokes discuss. Calls to Wyden, Merkly & other representatives will help! Almost everyone here says NO to UBC!

JSH1
March 7, 2014, 08:06 PM
It is effectively dead. The sponsor has now switched focus and has introduced a bill to require FFL's to report all people that fail a background check to local and state law enforcement.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/03/expanded_gun_background_checks.html

Maia007
March 7, 2014, 10:12 PM
UBC is done in this legislative session.

Thank you OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation) and all who participated.

But then there is always next session.

Old Fuff
March 7, 2014, 10:35 PM
The sponsor has now switched focus and has introduced a bill to require FFL's to report all people that fail a background check to local and state law enforcement.

Hopefully someone will explain to him/her that the state (in this case Oregon) can't require a Federally Licensed Dealer to do anything. The can pass legislation to require Oregon gun dealers to get a state license, and stipulate what ever requirements they want.

Now won't that open a can of worms... :evil:

JSH1
March 8, 2014, 07:13 PM
Old Fuff: I would be shocked if FFL's in Oregon are not required to have a state and local business license to operate.

Old Fuff
March 9, 2014, 12:28 AM
Old Fuff: I would be shocked if FFL's in Oregon are not required to have a state and local business license to operate

I suppose, but it wouldn't in itself allow a business to sell firearms without also having an FFL. Since the federal license is issued by the federal government, it is the federal government that specifies the rules and regulations that govern FFL's. A state government has no authority to order them to do anything.

blarby
March 9, 2014, 04:12 AM
Old Fuff: I would be shocked if FFL's in Oregon are not required to have a state and local business license to operate.

As someone knee-deep in seeking to have one issued, I can tell you that the state couldn't care less- they defer to the county level.

There is no state license or requirement.

All the counties in my area care about are zoning issues.

The county wants to know what the city says. They say all thats required is a local (city) business license.

The city cares about zoning issues.

Its quite the irritation.....


Thanks again, OFF, for your hard work !

JSH1
March 9, 2014, 10:31 PM
Since the federal license is issued by the federal government, it is the federal government that specifies the rules and regulations that govern FFL's. A state government has no authority to order them to do anything.

The rules set by the federal government for FFL's set the minimum standards for a FFL. There are plenty of states that have additional requirements. For example, California requires a dealer hold the gun for a 10 day waiting period before the purchaser can take possession.

As someone knee-deep in seeking to have one issued, I can tell you that the state couldn't care less- they defer to the county level. Interesting. I was checking out Oregon state's website for business licenses and didn't find a state license for gun dealers. Some of the licenses are pretty funny though. For example, you have to have a state license to grow ginseng.

blarby
March 10, 2014, 01:17 AM
didn't find a state license for gun dealers

Thats because there isn't one.

Or one for ammunition manufacturers, as the hat i'm throwing in.

Ryanxia
March 10, 2014, 09:34 AM
That's great news! I'm glad you guys are free for a little longer.

If you enjoyed reading about "Oregon - universal background checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!