Its not a wishing thing. If you live in an area where people are actually complying with the UBC law, I didn't, you absolutely can get an FFL and do transfers to your hearts delight.
Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?
- Thread starter Warp
- Start date
- Status
Its not a wishing thing. If you live in an area where people are actually complying with the UBC law, I didn't, you absolutely can get an FFL and do transfers to your hearts delight.
gbran
Member
Sounds like too many Californians moved to Oregon and wanted it to be more like home.
If by Californians you mean Mayor Bloomberg and the Oregon legislature then yes. Normally they put stuff like this in front of the people for a vote. This time they didnt. Rammed it right through the legislature and had it signed by an unelected governor. Wonder why.
morcey2
Member
It's an "improvement" in the same way that losing both legs above the knees is a "weight loss program".
Since this is the second time you said that I guess I'll shed some light on what actually happened. The Oregon legislature has been trying to pass UBCs for years but they didn't have the votes. In 2014 the key swing vote needed to pass UBCs was up for reelection. Chuck Riley (a Democrat) took money from Mom's Demand Action it the full light of day, and said if elected he would work to pass UBCs. He won, the next session UBCs were introduced again, they passed. There was a recall effort against Riley that failed.
Had UBCs been on the ballot they would have passed by a landslide just like in Washington. UBCs passed in Washington not because gun owners didn't turn out but because plenty of gun owners support UBCs as I do.
On UBCs in Oregon. The process is no different than a gun purchased from a dealer. The cost is $10 to Oregon (who runs their own checks) and the records are kept for 5 years. The law also has a good section on temporary transfers. I've done one private transfer since the law passed, and my FFL charged $15.
Time will tell how effective the measure is. Washington did something even more important at the same time which will swamp the effect from UBCs but that is off topic for THR.
If it would have passed by a landslide then let it pass by a landlside and don't do backroom deals to sneak it down the throats of the public. That is not how far reaching laws are usually passed in Oregon. Another case where PDX and the I-5 corridor decides whats best for the little people. I for one think that after what happened in Washington where pretty much nothing changed after implementation of the ballot initiative that the people of Oregon might not have been so easily duped into buying the anti gun propaganda.
Passing a bill through the legislature is much cheaper than doing a ballot initiative AND the correct way to do things. We elect representatives to represent us in Salem. This is the case of the majority passing something supported by the majority. Yes the majority of Oregonians live in Portland and alone the I5 corridor.
If people opposed to UBCs truly believe they are in the majority there is nothing stopping them from doing a ballot initiative to overturn the UBC law. They won't because they know they don't have the votes.
EDIT: Ballot initiatives are for thing truly controversial (like legalizing marijuana) or where the legislature blocks the will of the people (UBCs in Washington)
If people opposed to UBCs truly believe they are in the majority there is nothing stopping them from doing a ballot initiative to overturn the UBC law. They won't because they know they don't have the votes.
EDIT: Ballot initiatives are for thing truly controversial (like legalizing marijuana) or where the legislature blocks the will of the people (UBCs in Washington)
You don't find UBC's to be "truly controversial" ? Really? Want to run down the list of frivoulous crap that has been passed by ballot initiatives in Oregon? Draconian measure aimed at restricting RKBA are the same as raising the income tax .003%? Allowing an unelected governor to sign off on major legislation while the ink was still wet from a basically undebated bill from a slim majority in the legislature is OK? If they thought the people would have voted it in they should have allowed for the ballot initiative process to work its way out and allowed a public debate. Not that the majority restricting the rights of a whole people is OK but it would have at least a veneer of legitimacy.
Last edited:
No UBCs are not controversial, not in a place like Oregon.
Yes the governor is appointed not elected. That is because the GOP candidate couldn't even defeat an unpopular governor embroiled in scandal. She will be elected to finish the term in November and her signature on UBCs won't be a factor.
EDIT - UBCs don't limited anyone's right to own a gun.
Yes the governor is appointed not elected. That is because the GOP candidate couldn't even defeat an unpopular governor embroiled in scandal. She will be elected to finish the term in November and her signature on UBCs won't be a factor.
EDIT - UBCs don't limited anyone's right to own a gun.
So called UBC's infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms. Requiring government permission to acquire or sell a gun is absolutely an infringement on keeping arms. One that doesn't even offer society a legitimate benefit in return (not that doing so would make it okay, because it wouldn't, just saying, it doesn't even do that)
jerkface11
Member
No they ban you from SELLING your property without government permission. As for it being "the will of the people" poppycock it was bought and paid for by Bloomberg.
You mean UBC's arent controversial in a place like Portland. The rest of Oregon isnt quite so cavalier with other peoples rights. UBC's limit the right of the people to buy and sell guns freely and as such are an infringement that will result in no "improvements" to public safety.
danez71
Member
This why these threads turn ugly.
It's politicians and the culture of the area, not Californians, that, do this.
Over the last DECADE:
NV has had almost 2X the net increase of Californians as compared to Oregon and 3X as compard to Washinton. (Comparisons are a percentage, not gross number)
AZ, as a %, is almost exactly the same as Oregon and 2X that of WA.
That's what the DATA shows.
AZ and NV have both gotten better over the last decade where-as WA and Oregon have gotten worse.
If a liberal (likely also anti 2A) Californian moves out, they're likely to choose Oregon or WA.
If a conservative Californian moves out they're likely to choose AZ, NV, or TX.
If you look at the threads on the CA gun forums, they all talk of moving out to AZ, TX, and NV..... not WA or Oregon.
It's politicians and the culture of the area, not Californians, that, do this.
Over the last DECADE:
NV has had almost 2X the net increase of Californians as compared to Oregon and 3X as compard to Washinton. (Comparisons are a percentage, not gross number)
AZ, as a %, is almost exactly the same as Oregon and 2X that of WA.
That's what the DATA shows.
AZ and NV have both gotten better over the last decade where-as WA and Oregon have gotten worse.
If a liberal (likely also anti 2A) Californian moves out, they're likely to choose Oregon or WA.
If a conservative Californian moves out they're likely to choose AZ, NV, or TX.
If you look at the threads on the CA gun forums, they all talk of moving out to AZ, TX, and NV..... not WA or Oregon.
UBCs do nothing to restrict a person's right to buy and sell guns as long as all parties involved can legally participate in the sale.
The majority of Oregon's population lives in Portland and along I5 so yes, that region holds sway. Democracy at work.
UBCs infringe on a person's supposed Right to buy and sell guns
Only if you disagree with the concept of prohibited persons.
This post/statement is false
Unless of course selling/transferring a gun/arm to a non-prohibited person is legal without a background check
jerkface11
Member
Like we said they ban you from selling them without government permission. Gloss over that all you like it's still the truth.
They do mean an additional cost is involved. $10 to the state to do what the feds do for free and $20 ( minimum ) to the dealer to do what he does for a fee. Add to it the additional inconvenience for no real return.
danez71
Member
This statement says ALOT.
CA has had UBC for decadeS. (As have a couple others)
I challenge you to find examples of crimes that were solved that the chain of custody was a significant factor in solving the crime.
The fact that CA, or any other state, doesn't trumpet the # should be a clue.
The fact that NONE of the Antis trumpet the # should be a bigger clue.
I understand that it's tough to say that X# of crimes were prevented because of UBCs.
But......Wouldnt be awesome if the antis could claim " 500 violent gun crimes were solved because of UBC and the chain of custody they provide"?
To be able to say that little Susie didn't die in vain because the murderer was caught thanks to the benefit of UBCs would be a powerful statement for the anti agenda.
But they don't make those claims because they cant.
danez71
Member
A large part of the reason the Constitution exists is to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority.
The word is 'infringe' ..... not 'prevent'.
steelerdude99
Member
Additionally all UBC laws want the serial number and date of what is transferred to be recorded. THAT, BY DEFINITION, IS REGISTRATION.
JSH1 has been a loud voice here on THR and an advocate for increasing the state's efforts in managing your rights. JSH's last few posts on this thread are no different. I disagree with the approach, the claimed "crime solving value"... and I disagree with the state's need for such information.
I know what the state wants; I just don't agree it's needed.
chuck
Yes, I have been a vocal supporter of UBCs. That is part of the mission of THR - To support responsible gun ownership.
I've taken upon myself to contradict the false message put out by the NRA that gun owners do not support background checks.
I've taken upon myself to contradict the false message put out by the NRA that gun owners do not support background checks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
