Oregon - universal background checks

[Ryanxia]

Watch your butts. Get active real quick, contact your reps and spread the word to others to do the same. Sounds like you only need to sway a few democratic votes let the republicans know you're behind their decision to reject this Bill and others like it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/gun_control_sponsor_of_oregon.html

The debate over universal background checks on gun sales is returning to the Oregon Legislature, and this time the bill’s author says he’ll have the votes to pass it.

“I feel that when that bill goes to the floor we will have the votes that we need,” Prozanski said Thursday.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well the Democrats had the votes in Colorado to pass their platform-based gun control legislation - and look what it got them.

It doesn't hurt to point this out in other states...

 

[Ryanxia]

That's true Old Fuff, but some states do not have the legal option to recall state senators like CO does.

Either way, hopefully this spreads and the Oregon folks light a fire under this.

 

[Old Fuff]

... but some states do not have the legal option to recall state senators like CO does.

They don’t have to. On a national as well as local basis Democrats far underestimated what the reaction to their gun control vision might be in many central, southern and western states. Now this unexpected threat to many of they’re candidates, in the not too far away mid-term elections this coming November is becoming more clear.

That in itself might call for caution, but the additional problems with Obamacare must add to the party’s unease in many states. If they get pounded with mail they might decide that this isn’t the best time to kick the hornet’s nest.

 

[horsemen61]

Called a friend who lives up there and he made some calls we will have to wait and see what happens

 

[MErl]

Fuff, I'm of the opinion that if the folks in charge here had just passed UBC and not the other stuff, there would not have been any recalls. They may be willing to test that out in Oregon.

 

[Ryanxia]

Fuff, I'm of the opinion that if the folks in charge here had just passed UBC and not the other stuff, there would not have been any recalls. They may be willing to test that out in Oregon.

Hopefully there will still be an outcry in Oregon. "Universal background checks" (ie. registration) is far worse than a mag capacity limit.

When there was a push in my state for gun control, it barely passed in the state senate and went to the governor, we were confident that the governor would veto it but even so I made several little 2"x4" cards with his office number and the Bill number for people to tell him to oppose and put it up around my local gunshop and online here on the forums. He struck it down.

 

[WalterSobchak]

I called several times and wrote emails to all the reps.

This is going to be a close one. As there seems to be a lot of support on the metro areas which increasingly seem to dictate the politics of the state.

 

[Old Fuff]

This is going to be a close one. As there seems to be a lot of support on the metro areas which increasingly seem to dictate the politics of the state.

You are absolutely right, and that's the reason gun control bills have recently been passed in other states.

But if other unrelated issues (such as Obamacare) turn off a lot of voters, and you add to them the pro-gun vote, the overall result might change expected results in many races. In mid-term elections it's usual for whichever party is in control to lose some seats as voters with an axe to grind make more effort to get out and vote.

I am sure that urban Democrats would like to pass a UBC bill, but if their mail runs strongly against it they may have second thoughts. Also Democrats who have to run for election or re-election in rural districts may have a serious problem.

The trick is to be sure they know it.

 

[Ryanxia]

Well said OldFuff, if the representatives hear enough opposition from their constituents it may be enough to sway their votes. Happens quite often, a lot of times behind the scenes when we don't even hear about it.

If you're in Oregon or have friends/family, get the word out to them pronto!

 

[22-rimfire]

My sense is that both Oregon and Washington are becoming more and more liberal like Colorado and the sentiment is controlled by the metro areas which have the greatest population density/numbers.

Definitely time for action to voice your support or lack of support for the proposed law.

Universal Background Checks (UBCs) are not necessarily gun registration. I would need more information to support that claim made above.

 

[MErl]

UBC are one little law (or ignored law) from becoming a registry of firearms. Look for the post from Ryanxia about ATF scanning FFL records wholesale. ATF cannot legally make a database from those records but they are either doing it or having ready to go if allowed (or most likely, contracting out to some private company that can legally do it)

Good luck out there.

 

[22-rimfire]

I agree MErl about one little law.... or step in the death by many cuts philosophy.

It's hard to discern truth from fiction in many cases when you don't actually know the person involved.

 

[Old Fuff]

Universal Background Checks (UBCs) are not necessarily gun registration. I would need more information to support that claim made above.

So far, all of the USB bills and proposals that have been brought up at both federal and state levels require that private sales or other transactions/transfers of firearms be brockered through an FFL. Exceptions are few and usually limited to inter-family ones.

An FFL is required to keep information concerning both the seller and buyer, as well as the firearm(s) in their bound book; and then have the buyer fill out a #4473 form. Between the two enough written information is collected to support a viable registration data base.

What UBC backers want is not a background check, but universal #4473 forms.

 

[22-rimfire]

I personally would like to get rid of all the paper work, but that won't happen.

But yes, there is plenty of information to support the creation of a registry of firearms with the 4473's. It is what I have always feared and folks mentioning BATFE scanning all 4473's supports this theory if it is true.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

UBC's are defacto registration schemes.

 

[Ryanxia]

UBC's are defacto registration schemes.

Which is why Americans should be as concerned if not more than any magazine/hardware restriction.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

I don't see anything wrong with the Oregon bill- it patches a loop hole forcing registration of private sales of firearms.
I have to add another comment: I am a firearm owner and have a CPL; I also have 20 years military service, retired. I did not renew my subscription with the NRA due to its refusal to sit down and hash out sane firearm control measures in the US. Instead, the NRA has poured millions to stall any firearm control to make the US safer.
Security is another thing: firearms should be locked and secured to keep them out of hands of criminals and the kid who decides to shoot up a school. Penalties for unsecured weapons should be initiated.
Now, because saner firearm controls have been blocked on and on you are starting to have a quilt like landscape of firearm laws throughout the US at state level. Some laws will be good some bad.
I have always said that if the US does not start enacting stricter laws and does not seal firearm loopholes the Second Amendment itself will be in danger. If you want to have firearms and protect the Second Amendment then you better compromise in making America safer from firearm violence.
I also don't want to hear the tired argument that criminals will get weapons; sure they will, and eventually they will be caught or killed.
Security is the one thing I'm a stickler with. Unless I carry and have control over my firearm all others are locked. And I have ADT another layer of protection. There is no excuse that a kid can get a hold of a firearm and use it to fire up a school. I am about fed up hearing about school violence in America and it has to stop.
By being rigid about sealing firearm loopholes and starting a sane firearm control dialogue in this country has now resulted in a quilt like pattern of laws in America. Be rigid, support the NRA, and welcome the new reality of state enacted laws in the future.

 

[Ryanxia]

I don't see anything wrong with the Oregon bill- it patches a loop hole forcing registration of private sales of firearms.
I have to add another comment: I am a firearm owner and have a CPL; I also have 20 years military service, retired. I did not renew my subscription with the NRA due to its refusal to sit down and hash out sane firearm control measures in the US. Instead, the NRA has poured millions to stall any firearm control to make the US safer.
Security is another thing: firearms should be locked and secured to keep them out of hands of criminals and the kid who decides to shoot up a school. Penalties for unsecured weapons should be initiated.
Now, because saner firearm controls have been blocked on and on you are starting to have a quilt like landscape of firearm laws throughout the US at state level. Some laws will be good some bad.
I have always said that if the US does not start enacting stricter laws and does not seal firearm loopholes the Second Amendment itself will be in danger. If you want to have firearms and protect the Second Amendment then you better compromise in making America safer from firearm violence.
I also don't want to hear the tired argument that criminals will get weapons; sure they will, and eventually they will be caught or killed.
Security is the one thing I'm a stickler with. Unless I carry and have control over my firearm all others are locked. And I have ADT another layer of protection. There is no excuse that a kid can get a hold of a firearm and use it to fire up a school. I am about fed up hearing about school violence in America and it has to stop.
By being rigid about sealing firearm loopholes and starting a sane firearm control dialogue in this country has now resulted in a quilt like pattern of laws in America. Be rigid, support the NRA, and welcome the new reality of state enacted laws in the future.

With all due respect your entire post made me sick. Sounds like a spokesman for Bloomberg or Feinstein. The majority of NRA members (which IS the NRA) disagree with your point of view in that we should compromise and allow an illegal registration (yes it's illegal on current federal laws).

There are more deaths from drunk driving every year than from firearms in the U.S. but if you value your safety over this one tool so much, I'll help you pack. I hear England is nice.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

Ryanxia, just because I own firearms does not mean I agree with those who resist saner firearm laws in the US.
I served my country so I'm here to stay, thank you very much.
Freedom of speech and expression means that views may not agree with other views. This site exists so that pro and con views can be expressed in a civil way. The key provision I had for my service in the military was (and still is) that I may not agree with you but I will die defending your right to express your belief.

 

[Ryanxia]

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Many of us have already decided though to stand up against illegal registration which is all these 'universal background checks' do. If you're ok with the government breaking it's own laws and don't believe that registration is the first step towards confiscation (as has already been proven here in the U.S. in California and New York) that's fine. We disagree and will continue to exercise our Rights to not let these proposed Bills become law.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

As a side, I don't agree with Bloomberg-he is anti firearm. His agenda goes way beyond firearm control. Many others say as well but think otherwise and are anti Second Amendment.
My central point, the very crucial point I made above is this: if the NRA does not bend, and remains inflexible more quilt like laws state wide will be enacted, some good many bad. If inflexibility remains by firearm owners towards firearm control (i.e deny weapons to mentally ill, penalties for not securing weapons, sealing existing loop holes) then expect more quilt like laws at the state level springing up.
The real danger I see is that through inflexibility towards a dialog to keep America safe from firearm violence the Second Amendment itself might come under fire. Legislators are fickle people and can turn when least expected.
A willow tree bends, never breaks-and my concern with inflexibility is that soon, each state, county, city, village will have its own firearm laws which will cripple the Second Amendment to the point that each person will have to have a legal manual to go to the firing range!! That's my concern in national inflexibility and refusing to have a dialog on making firearms safer in America. That is what the NRA has not done. It has remained inflexible on this issue.
I have a few friends who are firearm owners and have CPLs who feel the same way as I do.

 

[Ryanxia]

If you want to discuss the NRA's policies feel free to start a thread about that. It really has nothing to do with my thread about Oregon. This was meant as a plan of action and/or making people aware of the upcoming Bill there so people can spread the word to friends/family that live in that state. If you don't think it should be fought, fine, you've made your point.
Back on track to the original discussion, if anyone is in Oregon and/or knows about any grassroots organizations involved feel free to post some info.

 

[Bob Bonillas]

Shooting the breeze, I am diametrically opposed to your position and your opinion.

 

[steelerdude99]

As a side, I don't agree with Bloomberg-he is anti firearm. His agenda goes way beyond firearm control. Many others say as well but think otherwise and are anti Second Amendment.
My central point, the very crucial point I made above is this: if the NRA does not bend, and remains inflexible more quilt like laws state wide will be enacted, some good many bad. If inflexibility remains by firearm owners towards firearm control (i.e deny weapons to mentally ill, penalties for not securing weapons, sealing existing loop holes) then expect more quilt like laws at the state level springing up.
The real danger I see is that through inflexibility towards a dialog to keep America safe from firearm violence the Second Amendment itself might come under fire. Legislators are fickle people and can turn when least expected.
A willow tree bends, never breaks-and my concern with inflexibility is that soon, each state, county, city, village will have its own firearm laws which will cripple the Second Amendment to the point that each person will have to have a legal manual to go to the firing range!! That's my concern in national inflexibility and refusing to have a dialog on making firearms safer in America. That is what the NRA has not done. It has remained inflexible on this issue.
I have a few friends who are firearm owners and have CPLs who feel the same way as I do.

Without the NRA, we here in the USA would all just be former gun owners in a similar way to what happened in the U.K and Australia. Standing up to anti-gun politicians chipping away at rights is not being "inflexible". The anti-gun crowd would like to use any and all disqualifying factors such as mentally illness in firearms ownership. Then they would search out anyone with a hint of depression, PTSD and the many other diagnosed mental illnesses, and then declare them all at once as unable to own firearms without due process.

We are already at point of the 2nd Amendment being UNDER FIRE from both the federal and many state governments. After the gun-control legislation failure at the federal level, gun control groups are working on smaller objectives such as Oregon, Washington State and (now I hear) New Hampshire.

chuck