Oregon SB 941 - universal registration on transfers

[JSH1]

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.

Your link didn't work for me but I found this: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/update-on-amendments-to-anti-gun-bill

This amended amendment is a lot better than the original but it still has problems:

• Prohibited persons can just shop around until they find someone that doesn't require the background check
• Who is liable for future sales of the gun? I sell to a trusted friend, who sells to a trusted friend, who runs into financial trouble and sells to a prohibited person. Are we both liable? Is it just me because I show up on the 4470 as the original owner? How do a prove that I didn't sell the gun directly to the prohibited person?

Universal background checks make it much simpler. All sales have a record and the police can track a firearm from the manufacture to the crime scene. It also makes it easier to find straw purchasers who feed guns into the black market. That is what I don't like about SB 941. The exemption for family still breaks links in the chain.

 

[Gordon]

" still breaks links in the chain"

Yup breaks links in the chains leading to slavery like the socialist authors mean it to be. :banghead:
Yep and Oregon wants a "per mile" tax too, at least the Democrat supermajority that was voted in by Portland, Eugene, Salem and Ashland folk wanted.
My friends and family who moved to Oregon to get away from crazy Kali stuff are not happy !

 

[steelerdude99]

Your link didn't work for me but I found this: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/update-on-amendments-to-anti-gun-bill

This amended amendment is a lot better than the original but it still has problems:

• Prohibited persons can just shop around until they find someone that doesn't require the background check
• Who is liable for future sales of the gun? I sell to a trusted friend, who sells to a trusted friend, who runs into financial trouble and sells to a prohibited person. Are we both liable? Is it just me because I show up on the 4470 as the original owner? How do a prove that I didn't sell the gun directly to the prohibited person?

Universal background checks make it much simpler. All sales have a record and the police can track a firearm from the manufacture to the crime scene. It also makes it easier to find straw purchasers who feed guns into the black market. That is what I don't like about SB 941. The exemption for family still breaks links in the chain.

JSH1,
RE-READ'ing your post, I see several areas for concern. The most worrisome part of your post are these sentences from your post: "That is what I don't like about SB 941. The exemption for family still breaks links in the chain.". So, SB 941 is a bad bill because it does not go far enough in the state regulating the right of you and your family to own property?

I follow the THR Activism forum as so I can see what other states are thinking and planning. As bad as Washington state's I-594 is, it still has an immediate family exemption.... And that is what you don't like?

Only a small percentage of guns are used in crimes. That's still a high number due to how many guns there are in the USA. However, to use “criminal use” tracing as the reason to promote Universal Background Checks (aka UBC) is disingenuous.

Your statement “Universal background checks make it much simpler.” ... makes what simpler “?”; the original owner being accused of a crime and/or civilly sued? The bar is not all that high in the USA for dragging those who have money into lawsuits. Should an original or even subsequent owner have known that selling to a gun person will get them sued? But that lawsuit would come years later because a firearm was sold to a prohibited person years later who then committed a crime with it? Is it a gun owner’s responsibility to know what the next owner may do later in life; even if I know the next owner is not a prohibited person right now?

From what I recall in states that allow private transfers is that a gun owner may not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. Will the UBC system be solely accountable if a person, after their UBC, commits a crime with that gun? ... I too doubt it. So, why should the seller be accountable? UBC will allow wronged parties’ lawyers to easily find the provenance of any “crime gun” and drag earlier owners into court civilly or pressure anti-gun minded government officials to peruse them criminally.

chuck

PS: By the way, the ATF form for purchasing is a 4473, not a 4470.

 

[CoalTrain49]

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".

People are used to BC's now. Most gun owners support it with their check books when they buy new guns. The price of the gun reflects the overhead that a dealer has to phone in a BC and log the gun. Some dealers will tell you it's free but the reality is they have a business to run and they have to recover their overhead somehow. If it were truly free dealers wouldn't be charging you to do a transfer.

More people probably would object to it if the dealer wrote on the receipt that they were being charged a $50 ATF administration fee but they don't. In this state we pay 9% sales tax on a firearm. Dealers itemize that cost on the receipt because that money belongs to the state and they need to keep track of it. They don't itemize ATF overhead because there is no fee schedule (free to charge what the market will bear) and they don't need to keep track of it.

When I-594 came around here it drove the price of used guns up. The reason is now to buy one it has to go through a dealer (BC, logged and sales tax). The buyer has to pay for that.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a BC, I have a problem with the way it has to be done and the cost involved. If I could go down to my local sheriffs office and get a BC ran on myself for $50 that is good for 5 years there wouldn't be a problem. It could be coded on my DL and scanned for status by anyone who needed to know if it was current. The way it is set up now it just allows dealers to profit from it and allows the state to tax private property on a private sale. I don't have to do that for a table saw, why should I have to for a firearm?

There are a lot of hidden pit falls in these UBC initiatives and bills. Be sure you pay close attention to what you are voting for. It likely isn't just a BC.

 

[Crayfish]

CoalTrain49: I guess that is another perk of the CCW permit is you do have a 5 year background check and at least don't have to wait to purchase a gun on the phone call. My local gun store its $20 for any transfer. So, if I order a gun online and use them for the transfer its only $20 no tax or any other fees. I assume that is for their time and maybe filing the paperwork and such with the Feds?

 

[jerkface11]

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

And yet you're taking that in the wrong direction.

 

[JSH1]

JSH1,
RE-READ'ing your post, I see several areas for concern. The most worrisome part of your post are these sentences from your post: "That is what I don't like about SB 941. The exemption for family still breaks links in the chain.". So, SB 941 is a bad bill because it does not go far enough in the state regulating the right of you and your family to own property?

I think SB941 is a pretty good bill. It would be better if background checks were required for all gun transfers.

I follow the THR Activism forum as so I can see what other states are thinking and planning. As bad as Washington state's I-594 is, it still has an immediate family exemption.... And that is what you don't like?

The major problem with Washington's I-594 is that the part about temporary transfers is completely screwed up. It makes absolutely no sense that you can loan someone a gun if they are less than 18 but not if they are over. It would also be better if it required background checks for all gun transfers but the temporary transfer parts is the real screw up.

Only a small percentage of guns are used in crimes. That's still a high number due to how many guns there are in the USA. However, to use “criminal use” tracing as the reason to promote Universal Background Checks (aka UBC) is disingenuous.

I assure you that my desire for the ability for all guns to be traced from manufacture to a crime scene is very sincere.

Your statement “Universal background checks make it much simpler.” ... makes what simpler “?

It makes knowing if a background check is required simpler. In the case of universal background checks the answer to the question: "Do I need to do a background check for this transfer"? is always yes.

the original owner being accused of a crime and/or civilly sued? The bar is not all that high in the USA for dragging those who have money into lawsuits. Should an original or even subsequent owner have known that selling to a gun person will get them sued? But that lawsuit would come years later because a firearm was sold to a prohibited person years later who then committed a crime with it? Is it a gun owner’s responsibility to know what the next owner may do later in life; even if I know the next owner is not a prohibited person right now?

The amendment proposed by Republicans in Oregon removes the language saying it is illegal to sell a gun to someone that you know or should known is prohibited. Instead it is simply illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person whether you know they are a felon or not. If you don't do a check, you are liable. My question is how far down the chain is the original seller liable and how would that person prove they didn't sell the gun to a prohibited person if has passed through several hands before turning in up in a felons. (This is still to be determined, the text of the amendment has not been made public.)

From what I recall in states that allow private transfers is that a gun owner may not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. Will the UBC system be solely accountable if a person, after their UBC, commits a crime with that gun? ... I too doubt it. So, why should the seller be accountable? UBC will allow wronged parties’ lawyers to easily find the provenance of any “crime gun” and drag earlier owners into court civilly or pressure anti-gun minded government officials to peruse them criminally.

The original text of SB 941 removes all liability from the original owner if they conduct a background check before selling the gun. From the text:

a transferor who receives notification under this section that the recipient is qualified to complete
the transfer of a firearm, has the recipient fill out the form required by ORS 166.438 (1)(a) and
retains the form as required by ORS 166.438 (2) is immune from civil liability for any use of the
firearm from the time of the transfer unless the transferor knows, or reasonably should know, that
the recipient is likely to commit an unlawful act involving the firearm.

PS: By the way, the ATF form for purchasing is a 4473, not a 4470.

I'll have to pay more attention this week when I fill out my 4473. I have 3 new rifles on the way. My FFL's fee for the background check is $40 ($25 for 1 gun, 35 for 2, $40 for 3)

 

[hso]

The problem with these bills besides the Antis using them to erode our rights is they're a lie. The claim is that they're to protect the safety of the public, yet they can't accomplish this. Worse, there's no, absolutely NONE, basis for these laws in the crime statistics. They take attention and resources away from dealing with the root causes of violent crime making it more difficult to protect the public.

If a proposed law is based on lies, these are lies since we can see in the crime stats that they do not work, then what is the purpose? It isn't to protect the public so what is it? To give some politician a new "Red Scare" to drive their career? To allow some power hungry sorts the gratification of getting the "herd" to move in whatever direction they want? To put another stone in the foundation for the Antis to remove all personal firearms from the public? What can a lie be intended to accomplish?

 

[sdlsaginaw]

Trying to make sense out of liberal-think gives me a headache. Somehow if only police had a perfect paper trail from manufacturer to crime scene all would be right in the world.

Which crimes is that end-to-end paper trail supposed to solve? Oh yeah, crimes where:

1. The gun was carefully wiped of all prints and left at the scene AND
2. The gun was never stolen in its entire existence thus preserving the paper trail AND
3. The criminal has zero motive and ties to the victim so police have no suspects AND
4. The criminal avoids any security cameras AND
5. The criminal doesn't get any serious injuries themselves requiring a hospital visit AND
6. The criminal doesn't pawn any liberated goods related to the crime scene AND
7. The criminal keeps their mouth shut to their friends/fellow gang members

That is about the only way I can see the police solving a crime purely based on this wonderful requirement for an end-to-end paper trail.

Of course, it's already unlikely a criminal is going to just leave the gun at the scene unless it was stolen and cheap. They are unlikely going to ditch an expensive one, and even less likely to leave one traceable back to them.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Too many laws. Federal law already prohibits the sale of a firearm to a felon.

II. KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM OR
AMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE
CATEGORIES:
18 USC § 922(d). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonmen

How many laws do you need to make sure that someone who is selling private property doesn't sell to a prohibited person. Why not just ask the person for a concealed weapons permit and their DL? If they say they don't have one ask them why they don't. A dealer is going to charge you anyway to cover his cost for the ATF paperwork and BC. A CPL is good for 5 years here, a BC is good for that one purchase. Some states do a more thorough BC than the FBI does anyway. Some states don't release some records to the FBI and are slow in providing the ones they do.

So far I haven't seen a single thing in any of these so called UBC's that isn't already covered in US code in detail. As a matter of fact, most state code is a copy of the US code except requirements for a permit to carry concealed. Of course you will always have states like CA that want everyone spayed and nurtured but that is the exception.

Someone please explain to me again why we need more state laws than US code already burdens us with. All these new UBC's do is allow dealers to profit on private sales as well as new sales and drive the price of used firearms up, nothing else. You pro UBC people need to wake up.

 

[bainter1212]

Well, full UBCs and registration sure hasn't put a dent in crime here in CA. I don't know how anybody could STILL be so foolish as to think that mandatory backgroud checks are going to do anything to stop crime.
Like I said, it has done zilch down here in CA.

 

[hso]

People get sold the lie because no one wants to spend the money to solve the problem.

 

[benEzra]

Universal background checks make it much simpler. All sales have a record and the police can track a firearm from the manufacture to the crime scene. It also makes it easier to find straw purchasers who feed guns into the black market.

The problem with that rationale is that the organizations and individuals who are trying to buy registration laws in various states are the same ones pushing to ban the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, the same ones who just bought a magazine ban in Colorado, and the same ones who continually harp on how even people who pass multiple background checks and have a state-issued license generally can't be trusted to have guns on their persons, can't be trusted with even 1860s era magazine capacities, and so on. If you look at the actual proposals, these measures are aimed squarely at the lawful gun culture, not at facilitating prosecution of violent criminals.

A few years ago, I rather naively supported the concept of universal background checks, in principle, as long as it wasn't a hassle and could not under any circumstances be used as the basis for registration. But I learned my lesson after Newtown, when the gun-control groups showed their true faces, and I now oppose such laws.

It is not so much private-sale background checks they are after, or else they'd be pushing for $5 shall-issue purchase permits, annotated drivers' licenses, or some sort of shall-issue FOID. The real goal is registration and tracking of individual firearms---as you yourself seem to acknowledge---which is the only way bans on particular styles of firearms can be enforced, as we have seen in New York, with the added side "benefit" of making currently-lawful transfers far more expensive and inconvenient. No thanks.

 

[JSH1]

Trying to make sense out of liberal-think gives me a headache. Somehow if only police had a perfect paper trail from manufacturer to crime scene all would be right in the world.

Which crimes is that end-to-end paper trail supposed to solve? Oh yeah, crimes where:

1. The gun was carefully wiped of all prints and left at the scene AND
2. The gun was never stolen in its entire existence thus preserving the paper trail AND
3. The criminal has zero motive and ties to the victim so police have no suspects AND
4. The criminal avoids any security cameras AND
5. The criminal doesn't get any serious injuries themselves requiring a hospital visit AND
6. The criminal doesn't pawn any liberated goods related to the crime scene AND
7. The criminal keeps their mouth shut to their friends/fellow gang members

That is about the only way I can see the police solving a crime purely based on this wonderful requirement for an end-to-end paper trail.

Of course, it's already unlikely a criminal is going to just leave the gun at the scene unless it was stolen and cheap. They are unlikely going to ditch an expensive one, and even less likely to leave one traceable back to them.

Universal background checks accomplish 2 things.

1. They close off another opportunity for prohibited persons to purchase guns. If a background check is required, law abiding gun owners won't sell a gun without one. That closes the legal private market to prohibited persons just as buying directly from a dealer is no longer an option. Prohibited people would have to: steal a gun, make a gun, buy on the black market, or buy through a straw purchaser. That is where # 2 comes in

2. Universal background checks with records makes it easier to find straw purchasers. All guns start out in the legal market and move into the illegal market. Records of all legal transactions highlight when the gun makes that transaction. People are also less likely to agree to be a straw purchaser if they know records will trace the gun back to them.

The downside to universal background checks are:

1. It does add a cost.
2. It does add some hassle

I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't claim that UBCs will prevent all criminals from getting guns. I do believe it will make it more difficult for them to get guns and that is a positive step. I don't claim that UBCs will solve all gun crimes either.

 

[JSH1]

Well, full UBCs and registration sure hasn't put a dent in crime here in CA. I don't know how anybody could STILL be so foolish as to think that mandatory backgroud checks are going to do anything to stop crime.
Like I said, it has done zilch down here in CA.

California is surrounded by states that do not require background checks for private sales. A prohibited person is only a short drive from a face-to-face transaction.

 

[bainter1212]

California is surrounded by states that do not require background checks for private sales. A prohibited person is only a short drive from a face-to-face transaction.

And UBCs can only be enforced with mandatory registration....and we all know registration will eventually lead to confiscation.
It has happened before here in CA (the SKS debacle) and it has happened elsewhere (NY city in the past, Connecticut recently).
I have no problem with UBCs as long as there is no registration to go along with it. Registration is an infringement, no ifs ands or buts.

Sometimes, in a free society, people have to be trusted to follow the laws without being tracked while going about their business.

 

[JSH1]

And UBCs can only be enforced with mandatory registration....and we all know registration will eventually lead to confiscation.
It has happened before here in CA (the SKS debacle) and it has happened elsewhere (NY city in the past, Connecticut recently).
I have no problem with UBCs as long as there is no registration to go along with it. Registration is an infringement, no ifs ands or buts.

Background checks without records defeats the purpose. You get the hassle to law abiding gun owners without the benefit to law enforcement.

If there is no way to prove whether a check was done or not a straw purchaser can simply claim they did the check and there would be no way prove otherwise.

 

[bainter1212]

Background checks without records defeats the purpose. You get the hassle to law abiding gun owners without the benefit to law enforcement.

If there is no way to prove whether a check was done or not a straw purchaser can simply claim they did the check and there would be no way prove otherwise.

OK.....so you believe that orderly tyranny is better than chaotic freedom. Got it. As long as everyone is "safe" we can continue to allow law enforcement agencies, local or national, to monitor every little thing we do. Check.

I guess we are at loggerheads and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[JSH1]

I don't believe background checks tyranny whether they are conducted on private sales or sales a dealer, with records or without. I'll do one on Thursday and go about my business as I always without fear of anyone coming to take my gun in the future.

We will have to agree to disagree. I've contacted my Oregon reps to tell them I support SB 941. Feel free to do the same if you are an Oregon resident.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you want a BC then propose a BC. If you want a registry then be up front about it and say you want a registry. BC's deal with people. Gun registry's deal with firearms. A registry has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people. That's why is it illegal for the ATF to build a registry with their NICS records? Anything else would be disingenuous.

That should be clear enough for just about anyone to understand.

Everytime I see a proposed UBC I see a proposed registry billed as a BC. Now I oppose every UBC on those grounds because I know what it's about, a registry, every time.

 

[JSH1]

If you want a BC then propose a BC. If you want a registry then be up front about it and say you want a registry. BC's deal with people. Gun registry's deal with firearms. A registry has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people. That's why is it illegal for the ATF to build a registry with their NICS records? Anything else would be disingenuous.

That should be clear enough for just about anyone to understand.

Everytime I see a proposed UBC I see a proposed registry billed as a BC. Now I oppose every UBC on those grounds because I know what it's about, a registry, every time.

Keeping records of background checks is just that, a record of the background check. It only makes sense to have the same record retention for sales between private parties as it does for sales by dealers. (BTW, SB 941 does not, the records are only kept for 5 years)

A registry would be requiring every current owner to register their firearms.

Current law prevents the ATF from putting their NICS records in a database. This does nothing to limit the information at their disposal. Instead all it does is force the ATF to be inefficient and waste time and money.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Keeping records of background checks is just that, a record of the background check. It only makes sense to have the same record retention for sales between private parties as it does for sales by dealers. (BTW, SB 941 does not, the records are only kept for 5 years)

A registry would be requiring every current owner to register their firearms.

Current law prevents the ATF from putting their NICS records in a database. This does nothing to limit the information at their disposal. Instead all it does is force the ATF to be inefficient and waste time and money.

If you believe all of that then vote for it.

I don't live in OR.

The NRA opposes UBC's and so do most on this forum including me for good reason. I think they have all been covered already.

You drank the cool aid.

Best wishes.

 

[Gordon]

to bad my family and friends who relocated from ********** to Oregon to get away from the law craziness Democrats brought to California can smell a rat coming from the liberal populations centers all the way to their rural locations...

 

[justin22885]

uuh, is this JSH1 guy for serious?.. he must be trolling, no one can be that naive and still claim to be pro 2A

 

[JSH1]

If you believe all of that then vote for it.

SB 941 is not a public ballot initiative. It is a bill in the State Senate.

The NRA opposes UBC's

I'm aware of that. That is one of the reasons that I am a former NRA member.

and so do most on this forum including me for good reason. I think they have all been covered already.

Most of the public supports universal background checks. I'm in good company.

You drank the cool aid.

It is delicious!

Best wishes.

Same to you.