Quantcast

Oregon SB 941 - universal registration on transfers

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Swing, Mar 26, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    most the public does not support universal background checks and youre a huffingpoo shill if you truly believe that to be true, and if you do then i truly feel sorry for you.. fudds like you are rapidly dying out in the gun community (usually due to old age).. gun owners are becoming more and more aware of their rights and we're not going to give them up because some casual "hunter" or occasional target shooter actually believed the diatribe that UBCs are going to save people
     
  2. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    Oh, but they do: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-2-opinions-of-gun-owners-non-gun-owners/

    EDIT: BTW, I'm 37 so it should be a while before I die from old age. When I was in my teens I would have agreed with you 100%
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  3. Cump

    Cump Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Wasatch Front
    JSH1 brought up the pro-control talking point that every gun used in a crime was once a legally purchased gun. Perhaps true now, but UBCs could change that.

    Let's say that the progressive dream of universal background checks became law federally or in every state, so no private sales to prohibited persons, no bouncing over state lines for a face to face (both of which already entail risks).

    It is doubtful crime would be significantly reduced.

    *A multitude of factors determine crime.* Could UBCs really be the key? Let's see, after full implementation, the illegal market would adapt. Some might be tempted into a prohibited sale by the increased black market value, and they could escape detection with a file. New supply chains of foreign guns would develop. The cartels would start importing guns. Oh, and don't forget that crimes would still be committed by people who were never prohibited persons to begin with.

    So we give up freedom and allow increased bureaucracy and policing, and it is doubtful there would be a significant beneficial impact. (And in my opinion, any law should pass both constitutional muster and have predictably positive results. And sounding like it might work isn't predictive.)

    What's more, what happens when UBCs don't have a tangible effect? The pro-control movement will just propose another step.

    Regardless of popular opinion, or amount of hassle, or the questionable benefits to law enforcement, gun owners have clear reason to oppose these measures because they would not accomplish what they say they intend to -- reduce crime -- and the predictable response to that failure would be to continue to ignore the constellation of factors and propose additional restrictions on the rights and practices of lawful gun owners.
     
  4. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,809
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    That poll is about background checks, not registration. You are advocating registration of individual firearms, not background checks per se.

    Again, you're not merely advocating background checks; you are advocating registration, which has huge downsides, especially when the same groups are advocating to ban the most popular firearms, and not much upside.

    Or do you support outlawing protruding rifle handgrips and magazines also?
     
  5. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,168
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    You still get to vote for people who promote this stuff, which apparently you will, so in effect it is your agenda and you are voting for it.

    Most of the public doesn't vote, pay taxes, or own guns. Yes, I would say you are in good company.

    Jim Jones would have been proud of you.

    Most everyone here knows what a BC is. They also know what a registry is. The AG crowd uses BC's as a front to promote registry's. It's a pretty slick tactic claiming there has to be a registry for BC's to work. NICS for example is a BC, not a registry. The Tiahrt amendment was put in place to keep it just that and restrict the ATF/FBI from turning it into a registry. AG groups and Bloomberg are opposed to that amendment and support registry's. Your rhetoric here seems to be right along those lines. You are either very naive or you have the same agenda the AG crowd does and you're trying to sell it. I'm not sure which but your song and dance doesn't play real well here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  6. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,175
    Ask the same group of people if they approve of registration, and all of a sudden the numbers are much lower.

    Most people don't understand that in order to enforce UBCs, registration is a must. And registration spares no one.....ALL guns end up registered in a registration scheme, due to the fact that all guns are eventually transferred to others over the course of several generations.

    The fact is, if you combine -

    a) straw purchased guns (obviously not stopped by UBCs)

    b) stolen guns (another one UBCs/registration has no effect on)

    c) guns purchased legally (yep....same pattern)

    d) illegal transfers (again - already willing to break the law)

    - you get the vast, vast majority of guns used in crimes. None of the above ways of getting a gun is stopped by UBCs or registration. Each of the above methods entails a willingness to break existing laws - which in course, is not stopped by yet another law.

    The only thing registration is good for is recovering stolen guns. The potential downside to registration is HUGE however.....the idea that the government will use that data to disarm the public. A disarmament scheme is entirely plausible - it has happened time and again elsewhere in the world and the fact that we are all human beings means that the potential lies within us here in the U.S as well.
     
  7. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,168
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    That pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks for posting that.
     
  8. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    69.5% of registered Oregon voters voted in the 2014 election: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/oregon_ballot_turnout_as_of_no.html

    86% of households pay federal taxes: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm

    You are correct that a majority of households don't own a gun.

    (I happen to do all 3 of those items)


    If you agree that NICS isn't a registry than why are you so opposed to have the same system of record keeping for private sales as we have for sales by dealers?
     
  9. sdlsaginaw

    sdlsaginaw Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    JSH1 has drank so much of the Koolaid there's no getting past the sugar high. I'm going to address a few of his misconceptions and bow out because I just can't stay high road about these do-gooder, in the name of "if it catches just one criminal", type of attacks on what used to be freedom.

    "1. It does add a cost."

    I submit it will add a great deal of cost once the OSP (who have already tried to raise the cost of a BGC) whine about the increased workload, and your FFL jacks up his transfer fee because he didn't go into business to sell 4473 forms. I know you said you were fine with the $25 it costs you now, but how about when it's $50? $75?

    "2. It does add some hassle"

    Compared to what it currently takes for two buddies to transfer one, it adds a lot of hassle. But that's ok as long as you feel good about it.

    I will add the BIGGEST one that you didn't mention:

    3. It is one more big accomplishment for anyone wishing to ultimately eliminate private gun ownership in the US.

    "California is surrounded by states that do not require background checks for private sales. A prohibited person is only a short drive from a face-to-face transaction."

    It's already illegal for you to transfer a firearm to someone from another state without an FFL, it has NOTHING to do with UBC.

    "Background checks without records defeats the purpose. You get the hassle to law abiding gun owners without the benefit to law enforcement."

    It also defeats the actual agenda, the eventual elimination of guns in America. That may not be YOUR agenda, but it's the agenda at the source of the money. This is just one necessary chess move in that game.

    "I've contacted my Oregon reps to tell them I support SB 941. Feel free to do the same if you are an Oregon resident."

    I have, but you know what? I don't have any Oregon reps. I didn't vote for a single democrat pushing this through, and Floyd Prozanski does exactly what Floyd Prozanski and Eugene want. Last time I looked, Senate District 4 consisted of a lot more than Eugene but you wouldn't know it. I might as well voice my complaints to my dog, at least he listens if I'm holding food.

    "SB 941 is not a public ballot initiative. It is a bill in the State Senate."

    Hey, one thing we can agree on. It's a bill with the "establishes an emergency" clause they always overuse and tack on to anything they don't want to put to a public vote.

    "If you agree that NICS isn't a registry than why are you so opposed to have the same system of record keeping for private sales as we have for sales by dealers?"

    You do realize that Oregon background checks are not done through NICS? They are done through OSP, who probably uses NICS themselves. Regardless of whether NICS is/is not a registry, OSP is getting all the records up front including firearm serial numbers. The registry for Oregon will begin at OSP.

    Anyway, enough talking at a wall for me. It's not going to change JSH1's mind and the liberals with supermajority control of Oregon now don't read this and will do whatever they want to do anyway.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  10. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    curious, but why does this forum allow statist anti-gun shills to spread their poison to others?
     
  11. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    Market forces. Gun shops may not have gone into business to sell 4473 forms but plenty of kitchen table FFLs have. The guy I deal with in OR is retired and does transfers to add some income. The guy I dealt with in AL was the same except he only did transfers Tuesday - Thursday 12 pm to 3 pm. If you don't have a kitchen table FFL near you consider it a business opportunity.


    Yes it is. Criminals by definition break laws. Honest citizens do not. Most states that allow private face to face sales do not require any proof that the buyer can legally purchase the firearm and have no repercussions for the seller if he sells to a prohibited person.

    There have been threads here on THR asking what people require for a face to face sale. Plenty of people said they require nothing; they won't provide any ID or ask to see any ID. All such sales require is for the prohibit person to lie.


    I do realize that. The form in question is here:http://www.oregon.gov/osp/id/docs/firearms_transfer_record_112013.pdf

    Sellers are required to keep the form for 5 years. FFL's have to keep 4473 Forms for 20 years.



    UPDATE ON SB 941:
    SB 941 has been voted out of committee and heading to the Senate floor: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...es-bill-expanding-background-checks/25363447/
     
  12. sdlsaginaw

    sdlsaginaw Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    PLEASE can't we just re-draw the state line south of Portland?

    You people in Washington already have Seattle so it really wouldn't make it any worse.

    Please?
     
  13. bikemutt

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,480
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    No, no, no. It can get worse. I love to visit Portland, actually I'm heading there tomorrow. But, Portland is just fine in Oregon, please don't move it north :(
     
  14. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,168
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Oregon is a full point-of-contact (POC) state where most states are not. Oregon runs their checks against their own database along with the FBI database. The firearm information on the 4473 is kept by the state where the non-POC states run the check using NICS exclusively and no firearm information is kept unless the applicant was denied.

    If Oregon was a non POC state it wouldn't be a big deal but they aren't. Oregon keeps and builds a database of all serial numbers of all firearms. There never has been any evidence that they have ever deleted a single record. NICS has to by federal law.
     
  15. bikemutt

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,480
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    I have bought quite a few rifles in Oregon, had no idea OSP kept records above and beyond what is submitted to NICS, good to know.
     
  16. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    background checks are a backdoor registry, universal background checks are a scam and a sham to register ALL gun owners, no forced registration nor background checks should be accepted

    lets replace the second amendment with the fifth for a moment.. what if someone accused you of doing something you didnt know, so you were arrested and sent straight to prison, no trial, no judge, no jury, absolutely no chance to plead your case and no evidence needed against you.. why? well, because you failed a background check and therefor werent granted your fifth amendment rights maybe you took a pill for stress 10 years ago and it came up on a centralized mental health record?.. maybe you were accused of a certain misdemeanor.. hey, maybe just spend a year plus one day in jail for marijuana possession.. doesnt matter, you failed the background check and lost your fifth amendment rights when you were accused of something else

    would anyone here say this was fair? would anyway say it should be this way, you know, to prevent "bad guys" from weaseling their way out of prison?.. of course not, we'd ALL be saying it was wrong at every level and a blatant violation of our rights

    so why does anyone find this same thing to be acceptable when it comes to the second amendment?

    screw background checks, registration, all gun control measures of the 1980s, the 68 GCA, and screw the 34 NFA as well, anyone who supports these things or any form of registration is seriously misinformed
     
  17. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    Background checks and gun registries are not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
     
  18. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,500
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Lol ok sure.
     
  19. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    yes they are
     
  20. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    Show me the case law.
     
  21. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    i dont need one, the authority of the second amendment supersedes the authority of any judge or court case.. if this bothers you, perhaps you should move to a country where there are no such rules that limit the power of the government
     
  22. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    I suggest you read the whole Constitution. (Hint, read about the Judiciary)
     
  23. justin22885

    justin22885 member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,102
    again, maybe youd feel better living in another country, because you will not be convincing americas gun owners to adopt registration.. so get over it, end of discussion
     
  24. JSH1

    JSH1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    PDX
    I like it here just fine. However, that's not to say there aren't other places in the world that would be nice to live. Croatia comes to mind.

    I don't expect to convince the majority on THR that UBCs are a good idea. However, the folks that hang out on THR aren't typical gun owners and all registered voters get to vote not just gun owners.
     
  25. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,804
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Actually, you're wrong -- at least according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to resolve disputes regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice