Up for discussion: Did Oregon improve its laws by passing SB 941, requiring background checks for private party firearm transfers?
Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?
- Thread starter Warp
- Start date
- Status
Up for discussion: Did Oregon improve its laws by passing SB 941, requiring background checks for private party firearm transfers?
I'm not from Oregon, however, that seems like backwards progress to me concerning a Constitutionally protected inherent Right that shouldn't be infringed. I could swallow that hard pill if it was free, easy, and none of the information was logged.
Moms, Bloomberg and Gabby are not through with Oregon. Did anyone think that they would settle on just Universal Background Checks?
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/02/gabrielle_giffords_now_is_the.html
"An amendment designed to win approval from the House Judiciary Committee would preserve default sales but extend the waiting period to 10 business days."
The question should be (in my opinion) is what can the good people of Oregon do to overturn the UBC law and prevent more gun control from being implemented by people who don't even live in Oregon?
What else are they planning down the road? AWB? Dismantle state preemption? Dismantle conceal carry? What are you guys doing to stop them?
.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/02/gabrielle_giffords_now_is_the.html
"An amendment designed to win approval from the House Judiciary Committee would preserve default sales but extend the waiting period to 10 business days."
The question should be (in my opinion) is what can the good people of Oregon do to overturn the UBC law and prevent more gun control from being implemented by people who don't even live in Oregon?
What else are they planning down the road? AWB? Dismantle state preemption? Dismantle conceal carry? What are you guys doing to stop them?
.
danez71
Member
Having experienced 1st hand the benefits realized from UBC implementation, I would have to say, No.
Last edited:
The question asks a qualitative assessment of Oregon gun laws before and after.
Has it been long enough to categorically state that their was less crime, rape, murder, etc.? The purpose of laws are to prevent evil acts being committed upon citizens by those who are considered outlaws, IE not responsive to law or ethics.
Statistics have shown that in the past laws of this nature have basically failed to prevent crimes and have been seen ineffective. The premise is that it keeps guns from the hands of those who might commit crime - it's a PRECRIME preventative. It's based on the thinking that it will keep someone who's already demonstrated a tendency to commit violent acts from obtaining a weapon.
The problem is that many criminals get guns from other criminals who steal guns. Therefore it only shifts the few opportunities they could be gifted one, or purchase it from a family member or friend to someone who who they know won't force them into a background check.
In human history, that has always created a larger black market and that is exactly what is going on in Europe right now - countries with restricted gun sales will eventually see many more documented instances of illegal gun possession.
It's human nature, and laws will not change it. What changes it is adopting a different moral and ethical frame of mind which then predisposes those who would act out violence to stop doing so. Otherwise all we do is incarcerate them until they are too old - meaning they no longer have a dominant urge caused by hormonal input. Most male convicts tend to stop repeating acts of violence either after 50, or when they are dead.
YOU choose how long you put up with this - paying to house them, or be victimized by them. If people are restricted in purchasing or obtaining a means to protect themselves, they have historically moved to the Next Best Thing. Think traveling retirees boarding planes with "canes" or other legal protective devices.
Then those who are trying to control the population attempt to restrict those. Having banned firearms ownership in Great Britain, they are now banning the ownership of knives. Clubs are now getting a focus.
Governments by nature always work to increase their control by passing more laws and regulations - your representatives look forward to having it as part of their resume to be reelected. The problem is that it's all basically window dressing for the people, who are then subject to less freedom. And they keep voting for it over and over.
We get the government we deserve.
Has it been long enough to categorically state that their was less crime, rape, murder, etc.? The purpose of laws are to prevent evil acts being committed upon citizens by those who are considered outlaws, IE not responsive to law or ethics.
Statistics have shown that in the past laws of this nature have basically failed to prevent crimes and have been seen ineffective. The premise is that it keeps guns from the hands of those who might commit crime - it's a PRECRIME preventative. It's based on the thinking that it will keep someone who's already demonstrated a tendency to commit violent acts from obtaining a weapon.
The problem is that many criminals get guns from other criminals who steal guns. Therefore it only shifts the few opportunities they could be gifted one, or purchase it from a family member or friend to someone who who they know won't force them into a background check.
In human history, that has always created a larger black market and that is exactly what is going on in Europe right now - countries with restricted gun sales will eventually see many more documented instances of illegal gun possession.
It's human nature, and laws will not change it. What changes it is adopting a different moral and ethical frame of mind which then predisposes those who would act out violence to stop doing so. Otherwise all we do is incarcerate them until they are too old - meaning they no longer have a dominant urge caused by hormonal input. Most male convicts tend to stop repeating acts of violence either after 50, or when they are dead.
YOU choose how long you put up with this - paying to house them, or be victimized by them. If people are restricted in purchasing or obtaining a means to protect themselves, they have historically moved to the Next Best Thing. Think traveling retirees boarding planes with "canes" or other legal protective devices.
Then those who are trying to control the population attempt to restrict those. Having banned firearms ownership in Great Britain, they are now banning the ownership of knives. Clubs are now getting a focus.
Governments by nature always work to increase their control by passing more laws and regulations - your representatives look forward to having it as part of their resume to be reelected. The problem is that it's all basically window dressing for the people, who are then subject to less freedom. And they keep voting for it over and over.
We get the government we deserve.
I just moved away from Oregon for other reasons. I was clearing out some old unused stuff and had a gun for sale for a while. Every single response I had to the ad asked if I was willing to sell it off books. My dealer told me the last private party sale though his books was in 1989. As far as I can tell the law is being almost universally ignored. Try running statistical analysis on the laws impact with that qualifier. The people who rammed it through the legislature are feeling good about themselves so I supposed that's what matters.
Jlr2267
Member
If moving one step closer to a registry and setting up the infrastructure for future confiscation is progress, then you might think UBC is an improvement.
Deanimator
Member
It's the same sort of "improvement" as Jim Crow and the Japanese Internment.
Don't worry...getting the law passed is the hard part. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors deciding to enforce it whenever they want on whoever they want with zero chance for the guilty parties is where the antis win.
The people who wanted it to be law, got it to be law. That IS THE LAW.
You may break that law, everybody you know may break that law, you may explain to us that most people break the law and recommend it as a reasonable and safe course of action...but it's still breaking the law and people are going to end up falling for doing so.
Getting it passed was the easy part. Normally this stuff is dont through the initiative process in Oregon. This time they knew they couldnt get enough votes so the legislature did something it rarely does and they rammed it through just after getting a transitional governor in that would support it. Many of the states sheriffs have stated publicly they will not enforce the law and to be honest I think the state supreme court will throw it out if a case ever makes it to them.
People who are interested in following the law care. That leaves out most of the state.
Good luck with your plans and goals of violating firearms laws because you don't like them and believe you won't be prosecuted.
I don't live in Oregon. I used to up until a month ago. I didnt say I was going to violate the law. I said that that most people don't care about the law because its true. The law so far is widely regarded as unenforceable and is widely ignored even by Oregon county sheriffs. The sherriff of the county I lived in publicly stated he would not dedicate any county resources towards enforcement. I just related that every response I had selling a pistol was to ask if I would sell it off the record. Still have the pistol BTW.
I'm in Washington now that has basically the same thing going on. Got a law on the books no one follows and no one has been prosecuted for not following it. All my stuff and actions are 100% above board and legal because I like to keep my NFA rights but I do wholeheartedly support those who engage in civil disobedience of unconstitutional gun laws.
Last edited:
You need to look at the crime rates in the state and see the trend lines, up, down or steady. Then you need to look for a discontinuity or break in the trend.
This is what John Lott did in his controversial studies. Then this has to be compared to other states (or perhaps on a county to county basis) that hasn't introduced a new law to see if they have a similar break. That would mean another factor.
Then you might look at the types of crimes affected and how they changed.
It's a complicated question. As mentioned, usually such laws have little effect.
Even the drops in crime that Lott reports are a source of disagreement.
This is what John Lott did in his controversial studies. Then this has to be compared to other states (or perhaps on a county to county basis) that hasn't introduced a new law to see if they have a similar break. That would mean another factor.
Then you might look at the types of crimes affected and how they changed.
It's a complicated question. As mentioned, usually such laws have little effect.
Even the drops in crime that Lott reports are a source of disagreement.
It isn't progress for RKBA advocates.
I am sure the Gun Control lobby thinks it is progress.
SSN Vet
Member
"selling off the books" may seem easy, because "everybody's doing it"
But when the guy you sold it to, in turn sells it to another, and he sells it to another, and he commits a crime with it....
trust me, they will come looking for you! And want to see the paper trail on the purchase.
You'll go to jail, the criminal will never be caught, justice will not be served, the victim will not be vindicated, but you better believe the Antis will celebrate and have a circular back pat.
But when the guy you sold it to, in turn sells it to another, and he sells it to another, and he commits a crime with it....
trust me, they will come looking for you! And want to see the paper trail on the purchase.
You'll go to jail, the criminal will never be caught, justice will not be served, the victim will not be vindicated, but you better believe the Antis will celebrate and have a circular back pat.
mgkdrgn
Member
Only if the goal of "improvement" is to create more felons in the population.
The law that prohibits transferring firearms without a background check?
Ed Ames
Member
The problem comes if the gun is ever - even peripherally - involved in an event so public that blame casting is important. E.g. if it shows up at the next San Bernardino. At that point every official is looking for a reason why it isn't her fault, and how to make it clear the fault lies with someone else. If your gun shows up at such an event and you sold it without going through the normal process....they are going to try to dump some blame on you so it won't land on them.
Not sure SSN VET was talking about a scenario where that is illegal
Red Wind
Member
Obviously, it's a backward step. But Portland and the I-5 corridor of liberals, (as with Washington State and King County) controls the Beaver State.
So,with the continuing influx from California and other "fleeing refugee" states, Oregon's future prospects, RKBA wise, are dim.
So,with the continuing influx from California and other "fleeing refugee" states, Oregon's future prospects, RKBA wise, are dim.
CoalTrain49
Member
The law is the law. Just about the time you think you can skirt around it bites you. Seen it too many times. Best policy is just do it by the book.
Now the UBC in OR.
No, it didn't "improve" anything. All it did was drive the cost of a firearm up and create a lot of business for gun dealers just like it did in WA. My dealer (a friend) is busy doing transfers everyday of the week. I wish I could make $500 a week as a side business in my home.
UBC's are coming to your state. It's just a matter of time. It will be like getting a building permit. Is a building permit an improvement?
I want a bumper sticker that says 'getting a proceed on a background check should be as easy as getting food stamps'.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/07/thedc-investigation-food-stamps-are-easier-to-get-than-you-think/
Now the UBC in OR.
No, it didn't "improve" anything. All it did was drive the cost of a firearm up and create a lot of business for gun dealers just like it did in WA. My dealer (a friend) is busy doing transfers everyday of the week. I wish I could make $500 a week as a side business in my home.
UBC's are coming to your state. It's just a matter of time. It will be like getting a building permit. Is a building permit an improvement?
I want a bumper sticker that says 'getting a proceed on a background check should be as easy as getting food stamps'.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/07/thedc-investigation-food-stamps-are-easier-to-get-than-you-think/
Last edited:
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
No. Other states have had UBCs for years and it's done squat in crime reduction. Not to mention, it is another unconstitutional, BS infringement that will only impact those inclined to obey the law.
Ironic considering they are seeking to reproduce the very BS politics that ruined their state. There are several states that this dynamic is present in.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
