Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?

[jerkface11]

This is what we get when we get liberal friends to become gun owners. They don't advocate for the second amendment. They become the "gun owner" that gun control groups trot out when they don't want to look radical.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I'm sure that some gun owners do support the UBC concept. But to say that the majority do and the NRA is perpetrating a falsehood by claiming the majority don't? That's disingenuous at best. As Danez71 put forth, the arguments for it don't stack up to the arguments against. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

900F

 

[yugorpk]

There are collaborators in every war.

 

[Jackal]

We have i594 here in WA, requiring background checks for ALL transfers. To date, since it was implemented in Dec '14, not one person has been charged for violating it. Clearly it must be helping....

 

[2bfree]

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.

And you don't think 11 million spent on false advertising by Bloomberg and his group plus the fact we had a school shooting just weeks before had something to do with it ? How do you know most gun owners are for them ? I know I have never been asked and at 65 years old there has been plenty of time for someone to ask me. Just because you like them does not mean every one else does.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I do not see supporting bad gun laws as supporting responsible gun ownership.

From people I know, the NICS prohibited persons list has false positives.

One guy was an FFL. He had been a teenage clerk in a hotel that was robbed at a time when all employees would be listed as suspects until cleared by state bureau of investigation; he was cleared, but only the suspect part showed up on the BG check and then only decades later when old records were added to the database. He was contacted by ATF and told he had lied on his FFL application. Luckily for him, the TBI investigator was then chief of police in our home town and gave a statement that he had been cleared as a suspect.

Another guy was stopped at a routine traffic check, his name came back as a wanted federal fugitive, he was arrested, FBI came back: not the guy we are looking for. He had the presence of mind to get an official court paper showing disposition of his arrest (mistaken identity). He would go to the gunshop, get kicked back by the BG check system, then he and the dealer would fill out an appeals form with copies of the court disposition, and his appeal would go through.

From growing up in a low-income high-crime neighborhood, I also know that some of the really bad people know how to stay "off the books" so the NICS prohibited persons list probably has more false negatives, i.e. people not on the list but who should be, than it has true positives.

Anybody ever wonder why millions and millions of people are blocked by NICS BG checks as "prohibited persons" but hardly anyone is ever prosecuted for lying on the 4473 that they were not a prohibited person??? (Hint: prosecutions would reveal what a sham the prohibited persons list really is.)

Prohibited persons lists and background checks are feel good policy, that costs money to questionable benefit.

A lot of gun control is just hopefully beneficial. Look at the history of the Maryland and New York Ballistic Fingerprint Databases. Millions of tax dollars that could have been spendt on projects that supposedly have a measurable crime control benefit (police training, job training for low-icome youth, fixing broken windows), wasted on a pie-in-the-sky we-gotta-do-something program that even the formerly die-hard supporters have admitted did no good. I remember one commenter declare originally, I don't understand the bill, but if it's against guns and the NRA is against it, I'm for it. That's the mindset of the gun controllers. The Maryland State Police is stuck with a basement full of brass cartridge casings they don't want.

Personally I'm with the guy in the Weimar Republic Reichstag who warned about their first proposed gun law after WWI: it does the dignity of the law no good to pass unenforcable or useless legislation.

 

[HOOfan_1]

This is what we get when we get liberal friends to become gun owners. They don't advocate for the second amendment. They become the "gun owner" that gun control groups trot out when they don't want to look radical.

Exactly, being a gun owner doesn't mean being a RKBA advocate.

Rosie O'Donnell wants to be protected by armed body guards, but she doesn't think other people should be allowed to own a gun.

Sean Penn supposedly had a big gun collection, but didn't believe in the right of individuals to own a gun.

There are gun owners out there who would make Jim Zumbo blush.

IMO the "I'm a gun owner, but I want more gun control" crowd is much more insidious than the outright gun grabbers.

 

[X-Rap]

And this is what you get when the tent becomes to big. We get no political or financial support from those who advocate for more controls except their mandatory Pittman Robertson contribution.
As to prohibited persons, this has been a moving target since it's inception and it always narrows the field.

 

[Deanimator]

No UBCs are not controversial, not in a place like Oregon.

Jim Crow and lynching weren't "controversial" in Alabama in 1902 either.

 

[Deanimator]

There are collaborators in every war.

Clearly AHSA lives...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004) Screening Gun Buyers
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=93

Screening Gun Buyers

Enacted in 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required FFLs to conduct a background check on all handgun buyers and mandated a one-week waiting period before transferring the gun to the purchaser. A total of 32 states were required to implement the provisions of the Brady act. The remaining states[5] and the District of Columbia were exempted because they already required a background check of those buying handguns from FFLs. In 1998, the background check provisions of the Brady act were extended to include the sales of long guns and the waiting period requirement was removed when, as mandated by the initial act, it became possible for licensed gun sellers to perform instant record checks on prospective buyers. The policy intent was to make gun purchases more difficult for prohibited persons, such as convicted felons, drug addicts, persons with certain diagnosed mental conditions, and persons under the legal age limit (18 for long rifles and shotguns, 21 for handguns). In 1996, the prospective purchasers with prior domestic violence convictions were also prohibited from purchasing firearms from FFLs.

Theoretically, by raising the cost of acquisition, this procedure reduces the supply of guns to would-be assailants and to some persons who might commit suicide. Several BJS studies have demonstrated that Brady background checks have created obstacles for prohibited persons who attempt to purchase a gun through retail outlets (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999, 2002). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002) reported that, from the inception of the Brady act on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2001, nearly 38 million applications for firearms transfers were subject to background checks and some 840,000 (2.2 percent) applications were rejected. In 2001, 66,000 firearms purchase applications were rejected out of about 2.8 million applications (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). Prospective purchasers were rejected because the applicant had a felony conviction or indictment (58 percent), domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order (14 percent), state law prohibition (7 percent), was a fugitive from justice (6 percent), or some other
disqualification, such as having a drug addiction, documented mental illness, or a dishonorable discharge (16 percent) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

These figures suggest the possibility that the Brady act might be effective in screening prohibited purchasers from making gun purchases from FFLs. Based on descriptive studies revealing heightened risks of subsequent gun offending, some researchers suggest extending the provisions of the Brady act to a wider range of at-risk individuals, such as persons with prior felony arrests (Wright et al., 1999) and misdemeanor convictions (Wintemute et al., 1998). Wright et al. (1999) compared the gun arrest rates of two groups in California. The first consisted of persons who were denied purchases because they had been convicted of a felony in 1977. The second was purchasers who had a prior felony arrest in 1977 but no conviction. Even though the former group would reasonably be labeled as higher risk, they showed lower arrest rates over the three years following purchase or attempt to purchase. It is important to recognize that the group of convicted felons who attempt to purchase through legal channels may be systematically lower risk than the entire felony population, precisely because they did attempt to use the prohibited legitimate market; the finding is suggestive rather than conclusive.

Wintemute et al. (1998) also recognize that extending the provisions of the Brady act would greatly complicate the screening process. Moreover, while this policy seems to prevent prohibited persons from making gun purchases in the primary market, the question remains what, if any, effect it has on purchases in the secondary market, on gun crimes, and on suicide.

Using a differences-in-differences research design and multivariate statistics to control for state and year effects, population age, race, poverty and income levels, urban residence, and alcohol consumption, Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared firearm homicide and suicide rates and the proportion of homicides and suicides resulting from firearms in the 32 states affected by Brady act requirements (the treatment group) compared with the 19 states and the District of Columbia (the control group) that had equivalent legislation already in place. Ludwig and Cook (2000) found no significant differences in homicide and suicide rates between the treatment and control groups, although they did find a reduction in gun suicides among persons age 55 and older in the treatment states. This reduction was greater in the treatment states that had instituted both waiting periods and background checks relative to treatment states that only changed background check requirements. The authors suggest that the effectiveness of the Brady act in reducing homicides and most suicides was undermined by prohibited purchasers shifting from the primary market to the largely unregulated secondary market.

While the Brady act had no direct effect on homicide rates, it is possible that it had an indirect effect, by reducing interstate gun trafficking and hence gun violence in the control states that already had similar laws. Cook and Braga (2001) document the fact that criminals in Chicago (a high control jurisdiction) were being supplied to a large extent by illegal gun trafficking from south central states, in particular Mississippi, and that a modest increase in regulation—imposed by the Brady act—shut down that pipeline. However, this large change in trafficking channels did not have any apparent effect in gun availability for violent acts in Chicago, as the percentage of homicides with guns did not drop after 1994 (Cook and Braga, 2001). Moreover, the authors found that the percentage of crime handguns first purchased in Illinois increased after the implementation of the Brady act, suggesting substitution from out-of-state FFLs to instate FFLs once the advantage of purchasing guns outside Illinois had been removed.


____________________________
5. The 19 remaining states include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

UBCs do nothing but pave the way for REGISTRATION, BANS, and CONFISCATION.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

"Responsible" to WHOM? Josh Sugarman?

I can remember when the Klan said that "responsible Blacks" supported Jim Crow...

 

[jamesjames]

The UBC in Oregon was passed hastily, sponsored by a pol that had sponsored a similar bill in the past that was unsuccessful. This bill was given "emergency" status and went into effect immediately after passage.

To allow time for a referendum, the Oregon Constitution requires that laws passed by the Legislature not take effect until 90 days after the session in which the laws are passed has ended, except “in case of emergency.” Bills that declare an emergency take effect immediately upon passage and are not subject to referendum.

Yes, it was a solution looking for a problem. It inconveniences gun owners, especially in the eastern half of the state who must drive half a day to do a transfer at an FFL in town. It was a feel -good law that is being followed by other feel good laws, like one pending now to extend the background check waiting period from 3 to 10 days if the NCIS instant check turns up a false positive.

These bills are promoted by metropolitan antis who don't like guns, don't understand gun culture, and would just as soon trade rights for a false sense of security. We are taught in high school debate that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but in this case it is how the politics of anti-gun works. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

 

[steelerdude99]

Things are improving in Oregon. Passed SB 941 requiring universal background checks last year. SB 945 didn't pass (It set penalties for allowing minors unauthorized access to firearms). If we can get SB 945 passed next year our state gun laws will be all squared away.

Up for discussion: Did Oregon improve its laws by passing SB 941, requiring background checks for private party firearm transfers?

Referring back to post #1 on this thread.... Is any gun control measure measure passed into law ever "enough"? After achieving UBC, gun controller advocates look at "what's next"? Those who "roll ever" and allow UBC laws to be passed, help them over the UBC hurdle on to their next.

Look up this headline on any search engine and you'll see pretty much the same thing. "Gabby Giffords: Universal Background Checks Not Enough; Oregon Needs More Gun Control". Below is one of the many articles.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...cks-not-enough-oregon-needs-more-gun-control/

Gabby Giffords: Universal Background Checks Not Enough; Oregon Needs More Gun Control

chuck

PS: Politicians who pass UBC will not have any qualms about passing additional gun control measures.

 

[Warp]

This is what we get when we get liberal friends to become gun owners. They don't advocate for the second amendment. They become the "gun owner" that gun control groups trot out when they don't want to look radical.

Yup.

It is a total fallacy that all gun owners support the Right to keep and bear arms.

We have close family friends who always vote Democrat pretty much straight ticket, support gun control laws, don't want me to carry in their home, and would never ever have a loaded gun in their house because it's too dangerous

But they are gun owners!

 

[Deanimator]

Yup.

It is a total fallacy that all gun owners support the Right to keep and bear arms.

We have close family friends who always vote Democrat pretty much straight ticket, support gun control laws, don't want me to carry in their home, and would never ever have a loaded gun in their house because it's too dangerous

But they are gun owners!

The AHSA types calling for more and more gun control, are "responsible gun owners" in the same sense that a brownshirt, haranguing a crowd about Jews controlling the banks was a "free speech advocate".

 

[danez71]

Originally Posted by JSH1

If we can get SB 945 passed next year our state gun laws will be all squared away.

I bet that, in the future, he'll want things even more squared away.

 

[Deanimator]

I bet that, in the future, he'll want things even more squared away.

No doubt.

Probably a "squared away" ban on normal capacity magazines or "assault weapons".

Eventually, it'll be a "squared away" handgun ban.

 

[DeepSouth]

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.

Okay, now I'd like to ask what benefits do expect to happen because of this...

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just can't think of a single realistic benefit.

 

[Red Wind]

Quite a thread. I do not believe the mind (i.e.) ideology of folks like JSH1 (who certainly has the 1A behind him) would be changed on this thread or this forum.

Living in South Florida continuously for 44 years, I have seen the entire diversity of mankind. And innate ideology is almost impossible to dislodge.

I've gained one convert to the RKBA in all those years. A Jewish co-worker who became a shooting and hunting buddy. But the pickings are extremely slim.

Just don't give up trying.

 

[Deanimator]

Quite a thread. I do not believe the mind (i.e.) ideology of folks like JSH1 (who certainly has the 1A behind him) would be changed on this thread or this forum.

I seek not to change the minds of the fifth columnists.

I seek to prevent them from changing the minds of the uninformed.

 

[Red Wind]

I seek not to change the minds of the fifth columnists.

I seek to prevent them from changing the minds of the uninformed.

A multiple of the uniformed are on this forum, Dean. Believe that. But we, the people, will win that battle.
The USSR, 1918-1991 is a fine example. 73 years and then into the trash heap.

So go all Communists. Time overtakes their unreality. Believe it.

 

[pintler]

JSH: I used to run a bullseye league for a big city WA Police Athletic Association.

If a new shooter wanted to try it out, before I-594 we could lend them a 22 target pistol for the duration of the league; lots of people had say a Ruger but had upgraded to a Hammerli and were willing to loan the Ruger to a beginner.

I never felt than loaning a 22 target pistol to a police officer was likely to result in increased gun crime. After 594, though, you can't do that any more.

For another case, we have a friend - retired Army, West Point graduate. He got a concealed carry license recently and was asking about guns and holsters. Before 594, I would have offered to loan him a gun and collection of holsters and let him decide what worked - 1911 in IWB, J frame in ankle holster, whatever. IMHE, graduates of West Point are pretty safe bets. After 594, I can't help him.

You may think those are improvements; I don't.

Tirod hit the nail on the head in the second post - if UBC is a success, we'll see reduced crime. The cost of illicit guns for crooks will go up, etc. I doubt that will happen. I've asked veteran cops whether the 1968 FFL checks reduced illicit gun availability - they don't think so. The various states that have more-than-4473 gun purchase restrictions don't seem to have less crime. Of course, people who don't like guns dismiss all that - they say, surely, we just need more restrictions, and then we'll reach gun (crime) free nirvana. It sounds suspiciously like the War on Drugs - if we make it hard enough to buy Sudafed, meth will disappear.

I'm skeptical.

 

[JSH1]

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.

Interesting the you mention Nevada. UBCs are on the ballot in Nevada this November and will pass easily. No doubt we will be able to bet on the outcome in Vegas.