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

[Warp]

Background checks could eventually become a registry if the documentation was kept forever. The law in Oregon discards the data after 5 years.

It is dependent on how the law is written.

Yeah and the government is so totally honest and trustworthy and always does exactly what the law says it should so there is no possible way for that information to be kept for longer, and of course, there is also no possible way that this is just one step and the next step will be change the law officially so that the info they already have is kept longer because "why discard perfectly good information that could help catch a criminal".

 

[Warp]

Your opinion and you are welcome to it.

That is the opinion of the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.

If you want hold the "opinion" that what the Second Amendment was written for wasn't what it was written for, well, that just makes you more wrong than ever.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yes laws change and some people might now bother to research what the law says. On the other hand, today we have a hodgepodge of laws that are different by location and type of firearms.

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:

It could also open up the opportunity to get rid of all the different regulations on buying guns across state lines. It could be as simple as Yes, anyone from any state can buy a gun anywhere as long as they pass the background check.

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.

It would be far easier if the answer to "do I need a background check for this gun?" was simply yes. Sell a gun do a check.

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.

 

[JSH1]

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.

I was referring to a national UBC when I was talking about making things more uniform.

On the state level it is slightly simpler today. Oregon used to require background checks at gun shows (private sale or from a dealer) which could have caught some people off guard. The long list of family exclusions does add some complexity.

 

[JSH1]

That is the opinion of the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.

If you want hold the "opinion" that what the Second Amendment was written for wasn't what it was written for, well, that just makes you more wrong than ever.

No that is your opinion of what the people that wrote the condition thought.

There is also the fact that there was no one opinion back then anymore than there is today. You can find a founder to quote on both sides of just about every issue. People like to quote a founder that they agree with and ignore the opposing voice.

 

[Furncliff]

As a practical mater UBC can not be effective in reducing gun deaths because there are so many firearms already available that the American black market in guns could easily be supplied for the next 200 years. Google "where do criminals get their guns" to get some idea of how the majority of weapons are obtained by those bent on violence. The money and manpower resources that are spent on the current system of background checks is mostly a waste because they have proven to be ineffective. The systems already used by states and the JD are so full of holes that there is no reason to believe that it will be any different with any new system that could be put in place. Especially since the federal and state governments don't allocate enough money to make the systems work and because the system is so easy to circumvent.

The cat got let out of the bag in 2013 with the revelations of Edward Snowdon. The federal government is using a cryptographic system formally called traffic analysis now called meta data mining to look into the lives of the people of this country. Further intrusion into private lives in this country is going to be a hard and then harder sell as the public ever so slowly gets pissed off at the way current events are unfolding. The big fight the JD is having now with Apple over unlocking that phone is a prime example.

 

[Jim Watson]

Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban and buyback. Australians did not turn in their guns because those guns were on a registry they did so because they were useless to law abiding people after the ban. A gun that you cannot use without fear of arrest is useless.

While it would be useless for sport, it could very well put you in a position of "Do I want to defend my life even though it means I will be arrested instead of or along with my assailant?"

 

[Deanimator]

I also disagree with the implied relationship between the citizen and the government.

Of course you do.

The government is not an outside force to be resisted.

Have you asked Dred Scott about that? How about somebody who was in Manzanar or Hart Mountain.

We the people are the government and the government is made up of the people.

YOUR type of government is made up of you, Lon Horiuchi and Lois Lerner.

 

[Deanimator]

Background checks could eventually become a registry if the documentation was kept forever. The law in Oregon discards the data after 5 years.

It is dependent on how the law is written.

The IRS could become a political weapon if people like Lois Lerner were in charge.

And the FBI could become an extra-constitutional secret police if somebody like J. Edgar Hoover was in charge.

For you, these are features NOT "bugs".

 

[danez71]

.


........ still waiting for JSH1 to show the data from the states that have had UBC for decades that supports what he says.

 

[pintler]

"Sell a gun do a check."

In the interest of accuracy, that's 'Sell a gun, or loan one, however briefly'.

 

[Spats McGee]

When a thread goes round and round and round like this one has, it's usually just swirling the drain.

This one just did its last lap.