Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Swing, Mar 26, 2015.
More on topic: Does anyone know if there is a companion bill in the House? I haven't found one.
Originally Posted by CoalTrain49 View Post
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.
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.
It takes a bit of research and some thought about this but at some point you will realize the noose is being tightened around your neck. I was pretty naive about this stuff too until I started putting a few things together.
WA is a partial POC state which means all handgun records are retained (SN and model) and it's been that way for awhile. When I-594 came around I realized that all transfers were going into a state database, if they didn't they would be illegal. Before, with a private sale, the ownership chain could be easily broken so the registration scheme was weak at best. All one really had to do was say the firearm was sold and you couldn't be prosecuted for selling a legally owned firearm even if no other crime was committed. Now you can.
My take on I-594 is that the AG folks spent 10 million dollars in one state to corner me as a legal gun owner. The real reason for it was gun registration. They want to know who I am, where I live, what I purchase and what I sell. I have some experience with geographic information systems and I know how they can be used. In case anyone wasn't watching the biggest contributors to that initiative were people who use or own those technologies in business. (Amazon, Microsoft etc.). If WA decides to ban semi-auto pistols they will have a good tool in place to see where those firearms are and who owns them. Legal at one time but now illegal and subject to confiscation. If you watch what some states have attempted this won't come as any big shock.
The UBC thing is a trojan horse. Best pay attention when someone starts advocating the wonderful benefits to gun owners because they likely have an AG agenda.
I really despise the arguments that state: "Its not enforceable, or its not outright confiscation....so I'm not worried" - REALLY?
The true test CoalTrain49, will be when the State gets an offer to automate the handgun registration records for free from the AG deep pockets that funded 594.
Yes sir, seen that also. A foot in the door tactic used on the gov't stooges who are drooling all over themselves to acquire new tech. Once in as a contractor a whole new world of business partnerships can be created. Just had dinner with a software engineer. It's alive and well.
I like this state senator, Jeff Kruse.
Here's a copy of his newsletter. Unfortunately, none of my PDX area reps align with him and are squarely part of the problem.
Working Hard For You
APRIL 3, 2015
The main focus of this newsletter will be the current version of the gun background check bill (Senate Bill 941), but first a little recap of a couple of the measures we have passed that can only be described as political payback. First was the low carbon fuel standards bill that mostly benefits out of state “green energy” companies. The second was the re-write of common law on class action law suits which primarily benefits trial lawyers. The thing these two groups have in common is the fact they are heavy contributors to Democrat campaigns in Oregon.
The way the gun bill can easily be connected is through the fact the Bloomberg group (the former billionaire mayor of New York City) contributed over $600,000 to Democrat campaigns in this last election, including $75,000 in one Senate race; and this group’s single issue is the banning of guns. With the results of the last election we knew these bills would be coming, because this was the reason for the financial support and, as a reminder, this also includes the Former Governor and his girlfriend.
Now we will get to the bill itself and the political process. The way the process works is a bill is not available for anyone to see until it is “first read”, which is the point where it is submitted to the office of the Senate President or Speaker of the House and acknowledged in First Readings on the Floor of the appropriate Chamber. At that point it will be assigned to a committee and then it is up to the committee chair to decide whether or not to schedule the bill for a public hearing and potentially a work session, which is when the bill can potentially be amended and passed out of the committee. The bill will then be “second read” on the Floor which would set the stage for it to be “third read” the next day which would be when we would vote on it. There is no set time frame for when this can happen, for example the presiding officer can wait a long time to assign a bill to a committee and can also wait a long time to put a bill on the Second Reading calendar.
Here was the track of SB 941. It was first read last Thursday (our first opportunity to see it) and was assigned to the Judiciary Committee the same day. The bill was then scheduled for a public hearing this Wednesday and a work session on Thursday. Because of the last minute amendments submitted on the bill the Chair decided to hold it over for a work session on Monday, but I doubt if he is going to make any significant changes to the bill.
The public hearing Wednesday was actually embarrassing. When I was the chair of a committee I would always make sure members of the public who came to testify would be able to have their opportunity. In this case we had people who had driven in some cases up to 6 hours for the hearing and were either denied the opportunity or given just two minutes to testify. Meanwhile the Mayor of Portland and his group were given 15 minutes which actually stretched into close to 25 minutes. In fairness one pro-gun group was also given 15 minutes, but their time was not extended. It should be noted the only people who were denied happened to be those in opposition to the bill.
This is a paraphrase of the dialog I had with the Mayor. He stated passage of this bill would greatly reduce gun violence in Portland. I pointed out the fact Chicago and Detroit already had such restrictions and it hadn’t reduced the violence in those cities. I then asked him to explain the discrepancy between his statement and the reality in these other cities. His response was there were a lot of other factors to consider, which was a total non-answer.
The basic element of this bill has to do with private sales. For example, if I wanted to sell a gun to my neighbor we would be required to go to a gun store with the gun and submit to a background check, which with all of the fees involved would cost maybe fifty dollars and we would have to do this for every transaction. We are told this will go a long way towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, which is patently untrue. The reality is nothing in this bill would have stopped any of the high profile shootings over the last few years.
If the goal of the bill really was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the chair would adopt the -8 amendments. This would be a very simple solution. It would require a designation on the back of driver’s license or ID card for anyone convicted of a felony, similar to what currently exists for a motorcycle endorsement. This would make it very simple to know if a person was eligible to purchase a gun by just checking their ID. It would also not impose unnecessary restrictions on honest people.
This idea will be rejected because it will not help the majority party achieve their ultimate objective which is total gun registration. While they will deny this, it is easy to track what the next step will be. We will be told at a future date that we have no real way to know if people are complying with this new law and registration will be the only way we can know for sure. This is clearly what the Bloomberg group wants and just as clearly the majority party in Oregon is more than willing to let groups from New York dictate policy for campaign contributions.
Elections do have consequences, and we are in the process of finding out just how far the Democrats are willing to go with their supermajority status. In the end all of this political payback will not be in the best interests of the majority of the people in this state. Because we really can’t stop anything, I want you all to be paying very close attention.
Senator Jeff Kruse
If you are interested in reading my past newsletters please click on my webpage link below:
JSH1, where do you stand on "assault weapon" bans and magazine capacity limits, out of curiosity?
They are political statements. Perfectly legal but ineffective at reducing the bulk of gun violence in the USA. A true reduction in violence will come when we address the core reason for the violence: drugs.
Suppressors should be legal without a tax stamp and their use encouraged
We should get rid barrel minimum barrel limits for rifles and shotguns
We should have 50 state reciprocity for concealed carry permits.
JSH1 -- I am intrigued by your views on the other topics.
I am skeptical that the UBC would be effective in reducing the "bulk," or even a significant portion of "gun violence." Crime will continue to be committed by individuals who pass the UBC or have access to a firearm owned by someone who passed. And new supply chains will emerge for criminal buyers. People will continue to be negligent. People will commit suicide. What will the proposed solutions be after the UBC doesn't bring the results?
You don't have to look or listen hard to find progressives talking about UBCs as an incremental step. UBCs state by state, and then AWBs, safe-storage laws, permits, etc. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, but a well-defined, oft-stated strategy. And the continued existence of "gun violence," despite background checks, will be used as justification.
Yielding on the UBC won't do any good, it puts us closer to additional losses, and I think it makes it politically more difficult to repeal some of the regulations you say you are against.
Oh, and it drains the political energy to actually find solutions to the problems we can address.
What can I say, I'm an intriguing individual. My views on issues vary depending on the topic so I don't fit well into either of the established parties in the USA.
Very few guns used in crimes are purchased from gun dealers or other FFLs. Why? Because FFLs do background checks. Criminals know they won't pass the background check and FFLs know that they have to keep records that account for every sale.
The DOJ did a survey of criminal way back in 1997 asking where they got their guns. Only about 14% came from FFls. Only about 10% stole a gun. Where did the rest get their gun? Private sales. Will background checks stop all those sales? No, but it will stop a lot of them.
Again, I want criminals to have to shop for guns on the black market, not in the legal market.
Perhaps this is the study you alluded to: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
My guess is that most of the friends and family source includes fellow criminals selling guns to their criminal friends and family who know they are giving a criminal family member a gun, both already illegal. Only 0.7% from guns hows and 1% from flea markets.
Most everything I read points to illegal sales by dealers, straw purchases and friends/family as being a very high percentage of the source for guns used by criminals. The ATF confirms this. They even used straw purchases to set up their F&F debacle because they know that's how a lot of illegal guns are obtained. I can't see how a UBC is going to stop any of this. All three are already illegal and will remain as the primary source.
Yes it is. It is old, and not very detailed but about the best I've found on the topic.
How do you use a straw purchase to move a gun from a legal gun dealer to a prohibited person if every gun sale requires a background check with a record of that check? In such a system, the straw purchaser is very clear, it is the last person on record as receiving the gun.
So I take it then that you would vigorously oppose "assault weapon" bans? Or do I read you as saying that "such bans are pointless and ineffective, but no big deal"?
When Bloomberg/Brady help repeal the CA, MD, CT, NY, and CO rifle and magazine bans, I'll believe all they are after is to keep guns out of criminal hands...but if you haven't noticed, those orgs helped enact those bans, and targeted them squarely at lawful and responsible gun enthusiasts, not diversion to violent criminals.
Registration has been accompanied/followed by bans of various subclasses of firearms pretty much everywhere it's been tried, both in this country and abroad (Hughes Amendment, Caliban, NY 'SAFE' Act, UK/Australia confiscation) and the organizations currently pushing registration are on record supporting AWB's and magazine bans. So, no, I am not going to get behind a proposal to give the prohibition zealots a "who owns what and should we let them keep it" list, given the reality of what its backers wish to do with it. The temptation to misuse registries seems, based on historical precedent, irresistible.
FWIW, we currently have universal background checks for handguns here in NC, but registration is illegal, and should remain so.
Guns in general aren't high enough on my list of priorities for me be be "vigorous" one way or the other. Guns policy ranks quite a ways down my list of priorities when I'm choosing a political candidate to support.
If I was going to rank gun related issues they would rank this way:
Universal Background checks
Universal Concealed Carry (I don't carry personally)
Various laws on details of gun design. (I would group "assault weapons", magazine limits, barrel lengths, etc into the same category.)
If you want more restrictions on #2, #3 and #4 you sir are in need of help as there are almost ZERO crime statistics related to those issues. Only a true leftist idealog statist could believe other and such folks are my enemy as they want to strip me of my constitutional rights and enslave me in their statist tryanny.
See post #83
He favors UBC for crime reduction, but he would support repealing restrictions on 2-4.
The recall effort is getting underway for hoyle/prozanski.
If you are in either district, please contact Kevin at O.F.F. IMMEDIATELY.
FWIW, the traitor hoyle did have a "B" recommendation from the NRA in the last cycle.
I'm sure thats over now
For JSH1 : I'd be particularly interested in your position on section 4 of SB941 that specifically creates a gun registry ?
Thats all the information in the inquiry, including the firearm identifying data.
I think I have been clear. I have no problem with a registry but this isn't one.
The part of the law you quoted specially shows that this is not a registry as records are only kept for 5 years. The vast majority of guns owned in Oregon will not be in this database.
This bill would be better if the data was kept permanently or at least the 20 years required for Federal background checks.
JSH1: With your heterodox views, are you arguing against the pro-control crowd on Huffpo too?
Also: "Again, I want criminals to have to shop for guns on the black market, not in the legal market."
I don't want to encourage the black market to diversify, expand and globalize to meet the demand. Sounds like a boon for the criminal economy, and I bet they'll be better businessmen than the private sellers are now. I think it will work about as well as prohibition or the war on drugs.
I don't read the Huffington Post, so no, I'm not commenting there.
I guess requiring background checks for FFL sales but not private sales doesn't make much sense to me. All that does is funnel illegal sales into the private market. With the popularity of websites such are Armslist, it is only slightly less convenient than shopping at the local gun dealer and the selection is much larger.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is, but I think most folks in these parts would disagree.
That is, by its very description, a long collection of firearms, their purchasers, and their identifying information in the hands of the authorities. Sounds like a registry to me !
Oh ya ?
I wish you the best of luck, and lots of pleasant discourse on that subject.
A registry would contain information on all guns and the data would not be discarded after an arbitrary number of years. Background check records eventually would become a registry given enough decades if the data was retained.
whew , relieved you aren't "one of those"
Simple. John who has no record walks into a gun store and buys a gun legally. John then walks out of the gun store and goes to Bob's house, a prohibited person, with the legally acquired gun. John then sells Bob the gun that he ask John to buy (straw purchase). John then calls the sheriff and says the gun was stolen. Sheriff asks a few questions and lists the gun as stolen. Gun is found at a crime scene and John's name comes up on the OSP registry. Police question John again and he says it was stolen, he followed the law, reported it and has date, place, and officers name who took the report. They never catch Bob to question him so all they have is a stolen gun. Hard to prove it wasn't stolen and hard to prove John had anything to do with the crime because he was in Mexico on vacation when it happened and he can prove it.
See how easy that is? UBC solved absolutely nothing because Bob purchased the gun illegally.
Have you been living under a rock somewhere? Why is it so hard to understand what a straw purchase is and why people do it?
When I was doing a few private sales a year I had people email me all the time trying to get me to sell them a gun without a CPL and DL. Guess who those folks were. Never mind, you probably don't know.
Separate names with a comma.