That's a non sequitur, and at the same time totally disingenuous. By implementing a state level background check, processed by a state agency, you have made the rules LESS uniform and taken us a step away from uniformity. You have made it harder to implement something like this:
If that was your goal your state efforts would have been better spent eliminating the Oregon state background check system in favor of the national system, which is the most widely used system and the logical system to use for national "buy in any state" background checks. Instead you worked to make it HARDER to reach that goal by creating local rules that specify a local background check provider.
That's downright false. By far the easiest solution is to do away with the concept of transfers altogether and work only on possession, like virtually every other product a person will ever own. After all, background checks do not have any demonstrated effectiveness.
As for possession restrictions, enforce them criminally when violations are uncovered. If police have probable cause to believe Joan Smith is in possession of a firearm in violation of her parole, send officers with a search warrant.
Why do it that way? Because it is a uniform process which doesn't give a false sense of security, doesn't tax or unduely encumber those who are not barred from possession, and because it discourages a black market in firearms, unlike your approach which all but creates the black market by legislative fiat.
That solves a lot of problems. Introducing yet another local law to complicate national efforts can only be viewed as a step backwards, no matter what your ideology.