Oregon - universal background checks

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!

Midwest said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

steelerdude99 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

In response to what I wrote earlier...

Midwest said:

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.

...

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!"

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!

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.

The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) is a great source of both information and inspiration.

Very active and mobilized to support our rights.

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!

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

UBC is done in this legislative session.

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

But then there is always next session.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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: I would be shocked if FFL's in Oregon are not required to have a state and local business license to operate

Click to expand...

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.

Old Fuff: I would be shocked if FFL's in Oregon are not required to have a state and local business license to operate.

Click to expand...

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 !

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

didn't find a state license for gun dealers

Click to expand...

Thats because there isn't one.

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