Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
Oregon SB 941 - universal registration on transfers
- Status
Red Wind
Member
Yeah, this song sounds quite familiar. Seattle, now Portland. Look out, Beavers! Get in action.
Twiki357
Member
The anti’s are also trying to get the same “universal” background checks through here in Arizona. I think the legislation is dead, but they are trying to get enough signatures to get a proposition on the ballot.
Realist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 50
The fly in the soup is the way it was presented (pushed) in WA...
The background check portion was ballyhooed but the teeth is in all of the 'define as you wish' components insofar as 'transfers' are concerned. The Washington State Patrol was on hand when a group went to Olympia and handed guns around - the cops refused to arrest anyone as required by the new law.
Draw your own conclusions.
The background check portion was ballyhooed but the teeth is in all of the 'define as you wish' components insofar as 'transfers' are concerned. The Washington State Patrol was on hand when a group went to Olympia and handed guns around - the cops refused to arrest anyone as required by the new law.
Draw your own conclusions.
longknife12
Member
Careful, when this was rammed down us in Colorado, it was fought tooth and nail. The mindset liberals won out....,swore it could never happen.
Dan
Dan
blarby
Member
Thank you, OFF, for fighting this with us.
To the pen we go again...
To the pen we go again...
papaairbear
Member
+1! Any Oregonian who can afford to do so should send a donation to OFF Click here. We're in for a long, hard fight to keep our 2A rights in this State with this administration.
Jackal
Member
We got nailed by similar legislation last year here in WA (I594). I hope our neighbors in Oregon dont have their rights trampled on too.
bikemutt
Member
Oregon stands a pretty good chance this will become law through the legislature, despite Governor Kitzhaber's scandal-ridden resignation.
I don't think WA's 594 would have made it the same way but, we live by the Initiative to the People sword, and so we died.
I don't think WA's 594 would have made it the same way but, we live by the Initiative to the People sword, and so we died.
45223
Member
Better hope that Bloomberg and Bill Gates don't get involved again. They're the only reason the stupid gun law in Washington got passed.
I'm on the east coast down South. But this kind of thing worries the crap out of me. They're state hopping. And it's possible with enough money they can really take a good one two punch to the second amendment if nothing is done. Next will be what... California? Like they don't already have enough laws.
I'm on the east coast down South. But this kind of thing worries the crap out of me. They're state hopping. And it's possible with enough money they can really take a good one two punch to the second amendment if nothing is done. Next will be what... California? Like they don't already have enough laws.
It looks like the folks in Oregon got their act together and fixed the "temporary transfer problem in Washington's law. Per the text or the Oregon law you can loan a firearm to someone else at a range, while hunting, or anytime while they are in your presence. From the text:
"(a) “Transfer” means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including,
but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. “Transfer” does not
include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason
to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the
firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:
(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target
shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a
similar lawful activity;
(B) For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the
transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;
(C) Under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of
the transferor;"
The text of the bill is here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941/Introduced
It also doesn't require a background check for transfers within a family out to grandparents and first cousins. I could do without that provision but the overall bill looks OK by me.
49willys
Member
No gun bill is "ok". Just one step closer to confiscation.
CoalTrain49
Member
I didn't read the OR. bill but I'm living with I-594. I was amazed that such a poorly written initiative like I-594 could pass here in WA. It looked to me like people never really even looked at it when they voted. Because it did pass so easily I'm beginning to think that the majority of voters here want background checks, even gun owners. It wouldn't surprise me if that weren't true nation wide. I think the bill will pass in OR. Just a guess.
I'm dealing with I-594 just fine. I just refuse to buy anymore guns and pay the 9% sales tax to the state and transfer fees. I-594 essentially generates revenue for the state every time a gun is sold. The buyer has to go through a dealer and the dealer collects the 9% for the state and $35 for himself. Conceivably a new $1000 gun could generate $225 revenue for the state and $105 for the dealers if it were sold 3 times. That's a lot of tax and transfer fees on one gun.
Dealers in OR don't collect sales tax so it wouldn't be an issue. Dealers will get their $35 transfer fee or whatever though. These bills are great for dealers as they are a mandated dealer transfer on every firearm. Sort of like saying you can't sell a used tractor unless you take it to a dealer so the dealer and the state can take their cut. I like to think of it as state sponsored racketeering.
Last edited:
Washington's I-594 was / is very poorly written when it comes to temporary transfers. I think a lot of that could have been fixed if opponents had worked to fix it instead of trying to kill it completely. The competing measure never had a chance.
I bet the temporary transfer issue could still be fixed if opponents tried to work with supporters to amend the law instead of just trying to repeal it completely.
Most polls I've seen show wide support for universal background checks even among gun owners. That makes sense considering the majority of gun sales go through dealers and require a background check today. Exempting private sales doesn't make any logical sense nor does requiring a check if a sale is made across states lines but not if it is made inside a state. It only makes sense to me to have all background checks done on all gun sales without exception.
I bought a rifle online 2 weeks ago and my local FFL charges the $10 Oregon fee and then $15 for his time. $25 is reasonable to me.
However, Oregon SB941 does not require all sales to go through a dealer it has an exception that allows non-dealers to call in and have the background check completed. The odd thing is that this can only be done at a gun show. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a non-dealer can have the background check done at a gun show they should be able to do it anytime. Here is that text:
SECTION 9. ORS 166.438 is amended to read:
166.438. (1) A transferor [other than] who is not a gun dealer may not transfer a firearm at a gun show unless the transferor:
(a)(A) Requests a criminal background check under ORS 166.436 prior to completing the transfer;
(B) Receives [notification] a unique approval number from the Department of State Police
indicating that the recipient is qualified to complete the transfer; and
(C) Has the recipient complete the form described in ORS 166.441; or
(b) Completes the transfer through a gun dealer.
(2) The transferor shall retain the completed form referred to in subsection (1) of this section
for at least five years and shall make the completed form available to law enforcement agencies for
the purpose of criminal investigations.
(3) A person who organizes a gun show shall post in a prominent place at the gun show a notice
explaining the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section. The person shall provide the
form required by subsection (1) of this section to any person transferring a firearm at the gun show
[7]
oneounceload
member
What makes you sure they aren't? Portland is as liberal as Seattle, San Fran and other major metro areas on the left coast
USAF_Vet
Member
The reason the law got passed was people voted for it. Uneducated people who believe in the fallacy that more gun laws makes people safer. They don't have the critical thinking skills to apply logic and reason to see that this is just another law criminals are likely to ignore. They don't have the creativity to think like a criminal, or they are foolish enough to believe criminals think like the law abiding.
Advertising money supplied by Bloomberg and Gates didn't help, as it funded the misinformation and fear mongering necessary to scare people into "doing something", but the bottom line is it was the good people of Washington state that got the law passed.
papaairbear
Member
49willys
Member
The way that reads,you'll have to get a bgc to get a drivers license or id.Its not the dmv's job to regulate firearms and we dont want it to be.
Crayfish
Member
I think the whole "most gun owners support universal background checks" is pure BS. I have never in my life even met one single gun owner who supports that crap. Polls are like statistics and can be slanted any way you want. I am not talking about the liberal that inherited some old double barrel from Gramps I am talking about real gun users. You should be ashamed for even thinking of even partially supporting a law that tramples on our freedoms.The left has an agenda and they do not give a damn about "safety".
This amendment does not come close to the same level as running a background check. It requires the DMV to start issuing Drivers Licenses and State IDs that state if a person is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Problems:
- Oregon licenses are good for years. Mine was issued in 2014 and is good until 2022.
- It is really easy to get a fake ID
- There is no paper trail to confirm that a check was done
- It is a new system. Oregon already does background checks for sales at dealers. Why spend extra money?
papaairbear
Member
Crayfish: You misinterpret my intention. My point in posting this is to provide evidence that the Democratic controlled Senate are trying to "blow smoke" up everyone's ... and deceive them into allowing legislating registration into law. This amendment is calling their hand. Monday's vote will be a clear exposure of their true intention. They won't be able to lie about it anymore.
I agree, these polls are slanted by the anti-gunners and are BS.
I certainly am not ashamed of fighting against all attempts at modifying the 2A. You are not even an Oregonian, You need to study up a bit on the political history of this State before condemning me for supporting this, which I don't.
I'm actually a 4th generation Idahoan, misplaced at the time being, but Idahoan none the less. What are your own roots, if I may ask?
JSH1: I agree. It isn't going to fly, but the anti-gunners are going to have to stop their charade and expose themselves for what they are.
Hopefully, this will cause the residents outside the Northern Willamette Valley to take issue with this and start voting and voice their views against the Metro area extremists.
I agree, these polls are slanted by the anti-gunners and are BS.
I certainly am not ashamed of fighting against all attempts at modifying the 2A. You are not even an Oregonian, You need to study up a bit on the political history of this State before condemning me for supporting this, which I don't.
I'm actually a 4th generation Idahoan, misplaced at the time being, but Idahoan none the less. What are your own roots, if I may ask?
JSH1: I agree. It isn't going to fly, but the anti-gunners are going to have to stop their charade and expose themselves for what they are.
Hopefully, this will cause the residents outside the Northern Willamette Valley to take issue with this and start voting and voice their views against the Metro area extremists.
Last edited:
What is the charade? There is no logical explanation to require background checks for guns sold by a dealer but not those sold by a private party.
I'm a gun owner, I didn't inherit my guns from Grandpa, and I (mostly) support this bill.
Crayfish
Member
papaairbear; I did not mean to misinterpret. I was born in California to parents from Texas and moved to Idaho @ 19 to get away from the crazy folk. I just moved back to Idaho from Oregon where I worked for several years...we loved that state geographically but, had to move due to such high taxes. Lived for several years in Washington as well (all job related). Good luck with your Oregon politics (I do try and follow them as I have family there still) and I will try and support from afar. Lots of battles to fight these days even here to keep our heads above water.
papaairbear
Member
It looks like the amendment has been changed, addressing most of the problems you have brought up. reworded amendment here
But I don't support this bill and view it as an attempt to clear the way for more restrictive legislation in the future. We'll have to agree to disagree. Or not agree and disagree anyway.
Crayfish: No problem! Thanks for responding. My family hails from the Southern half of the state. Lost River and Snake River Valleys.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
