Oregon SB 941 - universal registration on transfers

[blarby]

Seems to be gliding blissfully under the radar, at least here, TV wise.

There are a few decent print stories, most of it stays centered around the recall efforts.

The news is quite supportive of "background checks"...

 

[JSH1]

Can that be used against them? Would the people of Oregon understand this authoritarian scheme to deny them a voice?

No. Declaring an emergency is not an authoritarian scheme, it is routine in Oregon and simply means the bill will go into effect upon passage.

SB 942 also declares an emergency and: "Directs Oregon State Capitol Foundation to undertake fund-raising and commission of statues of Chief Joseph and Abigail Scott Duniway, to be placed in National Statuary Hall in United States Capitol." [/I]

 

[hso]

Declaring an emergency is not an authoritarian scheme, it is routine in Oregon

Routine? What in the world have the people in Oregon let their legislature become letting proposed legislation get tagged an emergency when they're not? <rhetorical question> Tagging legislation as emergency bills isn't the norm where the practice is reserved for actual emergencies.

Here's the obvious problem with such practices becoming routine. When this legislation passes and is signed into law it will supposedly go into effect "immediately" leaving the people of Oregon no opportunity to realize what's happened and make any effort to reverse it. The only recourse will be the same lawsuits being filed as have been in WA.

Of course it sounds like the majority of voting Oregonians don't care enough to stop this from going through and it will fall to the minority that do to work through the courts and mount recall efforts to show their disapproval. Much more work and with no assurances.

Is there any chance the Governor will let it sit unsigned for any period of time to gauge if there's any reaction to passage of the bill?

 

[JSH1]

Routine? What in the world have the people in Oregon let their legislature become letting proposed legislation get tagged an emergency when they're not? <rhetorical question> Tagging legislation as emergency bills isn't the norm where the practice is reserved for actual emergencies.

It is the norm in Oregon. Whether it should be or not, tagging bills as an emergency so that they go into effect immediately is normal in Oregon. SB 941 is no exception so the people pushing that angle will get nowhere.

Here's the obvious problem with such practices becoming routine. When this legislation passes and is signed into law it will supposedly go into effect "immediately" leaving the people of Oregon no opportunity to realize what's happened and make any effort to reverse it. The only recourse will be the same lawsuits being filed as have been in WA.

Should the people get to second guess everything the legislature does? That is why we have elections, to send people to the capital to make laws and take care of business.

The people of Oregon have several methods of recourse. They could vote in people during the next election to overturn this law. They could field a ballot initiative to overturn this law. The could sue (and lose) if it makes them feel better. The first two are options if people that are opposed to background checks believe their opinion represents the majority of Oregonians.

Of course it sounds like the majority of voting Oregonians don't care enough to stop this from going through and it will fall to the minority that do to work through the courts and mount recall efforts to show their disapproval. Much more work and with no assurances.

The more logical option is that the majority of voting Oregonians support SB 941, since they just voted in an election. The two votes that swing this issue were very clear that they supported UBCs and they won last November.

Is there any chance the Governor will let it sit unsigned for any period of time to gauge if there's any reaction to passage of the bill?

Not a chance. In all likelihood this will be law by the end of the week. While SB 941 is a hot topic for a minority of people in Oregon, it is not for the majority.

 

[hso]

Should the people get to second guess everything the legislature does?

It should go without saying, YES. Politicians are elected by the people and are subject to the will of the people, not the other way around. Citizens, not Subjects are what we're supposed to have our government based on. When people like Bloomberg have bought critical elections to ensure an Anti 2A agenda advances in a legislature it is vitally important for the people to have the means of "second guessing" politicians.


As to question of the majority of Oregonians supporting this, or any, piece of legislation, yes, it is far more accurate to say that the majority of voters who voted in the last election voted for it. Considering the lack of voting participation we see in all elections off the POTUS election years it is never sure what the majority of eligible voters want or don't since the majority of eligible voters simply don't vote. If you don't play you never influence the game.

Considering that UBCs don't move the needle on violent crime statistics what purpose does passing this sort of legislation serve?

 

[JSH1]

It should go without saying, YES. Politicians are elected by the people and are subject to the will of the people, not the other way around. Citizens, not Subjects are what we're supposed to have our government based on. When people like Bloomberg have bought critical elections to ensure an Anti 2A agenda advances in a legislature it is vitally important for the people to have the means of "second guessing" politicians.

We have elections every year. That is the way citizens chose their representatives and we have the opportunity to replace them if need be. What we don't need is every action by the legislature put up for popular vote.

As to question of the majority of Oregonians supporting this, or any, piece of legislation, yes, it is far more accurate to say that the majority of voters who voted in the last election voted for it. Considering the lack of voting participation we see in all elections off the POTUS election years it is never sure what the majority of eligible voters want or don't since the majority of eligible voters simply don't vote. If you don't play you never influence the game.

69.5% of Oregon's registered voters voted last November. It isn't a complete turn out but it is heads and shoulders above the turnout in most states. Expect that to increase next year with the recent changes to automatically register every person when they get their Driver's License or State ID Card.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/oregon_ballot_turnout_as_of_no.html

 

[hso]

What we don't need is every action by the legislature put up for popular vote.

That's a remarkable point of view.

 

[JSH1]

That's a remarkable point of view.

No it isn't. It is the entire point of representative democracy.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Where we are headed in Oregon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIrBUrFV2Ac

 

[blarby]

I'm a gun owner, I didn't inherit my guns from Grandpa, and I (mostly) support this bill.

What part don't you support ?

 

[JSH1]

What part don't you support ?

You could read the thread but as a summary:

• The bill should have no exceptions for family. (It should be truly universal with background checks on all sales.)
• The records should not be discarded after 5 years. (I see no reason to throw away data)

 

[CoalTrain49]

We have elections every year. That is the way citizens chose their representatives and we have the opportunity to replace them if need be. What we don't need is every action by the legislature put up for popular vote.

Until out-of state contributions are banned the representatives who receive that money should be highly suspect. Anyone can buy a politician to promote their special interest. Corporations do it all the time. That is probably the biggest problem with gov't today, elected officials not voting in the interest of their constituents. That's what's going on here.

Obviously, you approve of that kind of political finance. It certainly isn't in the best interest of the citizens of OR. No big deal you say. Well, it may have some serious implications for HC.

 

[blarby]

You could read the thread but as a summary

Oh, I read it.

I just wanted to make sure we all had a firm grasp on your position. Memory fades in threads like these.

 

[JSH1]

Until out-of state contributions are banned the representatives who receive that money should be highly suspect. Anyone can buy a politician to promote their special interest. Corporations do it all the time. That is probably the biggest problem with gov't today, elected officials not voting in the interest of their constituents. That's what's going on here.

Obviously, you approve of that kind of political finance. It certainly isn't in the best interest of the citizens of OR. No big deal you say. Well, it may have some serious implications for HC.

Sorry but I'm not that simple.

I think the way we fund our political campaigns is a huge problem and a corrupting influence on politicians. The more a donor gives the more is expected, it is just legalized bribes. I don't have a solution to the problem though. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech and the right to give unlimited money to a politician is protected under the 1st Amendment.

I also don't pretend that both sides don't play the same corrupt game.

What is "HC"

 

[hso]

JSH1,

Do you contend that his law will make any statistically important difference in the violent crime rate on Oregon?

 

[JSH1]

JSH1,

Do you contend that his law will make any statistically important difference in the violent crime rate on Oregon?

Yes. It should also help Washington and California. The farther the distance to a legal gun sale without a background check the more effective UBCs are.

(I suspect legal pot will have a greater impact though)

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Backdoor Registration of firearms through UBC will lead to confiscation.

Only 10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9qQ-2zeX0E

 

[hso]

The rationale that UBCs result in a drop in violent crime is a false premise.
FBI data shows that UBC's do not cause a drop in violent crime. Look nationally at the UCR and the states with and without UBCs and you'll find a randomized pattern of data instead of a coherent relationship.

UBCs for the sake of UBCs isn't the intent (unless that's the intent).

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

The eventual intent is complete registration of your firearms, the backers have said so over the past four years.

They want to know who has what so if someone robs a liquor store with a Ruger Security Six they can consult the registry to see who in town owns one, then go knocking on doors demanding that you produce your private property for inspection.

 

[rbernie]

We've debated this a few times.

Here's a couple of relevant threads, courtesy of the board's search feature:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=742247
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=519020

 

[papaairbear]

Yes, it's like a metastasizing cancer.

 

[Art Eatman]

UBC and crime prevention? Charles Whitman could have passed any UBC system you can think of. Didn't keep him off the UT Tower.

Federal hearings have had federal LEOs testify that some 80+ percent of crime guns were illegally acquired (theft, purchase from thieves). Some 10% were legally acquired and then misused some years later (see Charles Whitman or Sirhan Sirhan).

All UBC does is hassle honest folks at an increased cost to the taxpayer.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'll go with this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

It comes from an ATF agent who knows where criminals get guns. 1) Straw purchase, 2) FFL dealers diverting guns to an illegal market, 3) unlicensed street dealers getting guns from straw purchases, licensed dealers (illegally) or theft. That can be theft from anyone, even a family member.

I personally know of a dealer who lost his license because he "lost" too many guns. The real reason was a business associate (relative) was diverting guns from the business to the illegal market. I'm not talking about a few guns, I'm talking about hundreds over a period of years.

Notice that the ATF agent didn't say anything about gun shows or private sales of legally owned guns (a straw purchase is not legal) by individuals that weren't dealers.

A UBC may discourage a few illegal transactions but for the most part that illegal transaction is going to take place anyway with or without a UBC and usually it will involve a straw purchase or a dealer selling guns illegally.

 

[blarby]

From Kevin at OFF today:

Looks like the vote is delayed again, this time till next Monday- because they don't have the votes to lock it in.

Keep up the pressure.

04.29.15

The Capitol rumor mill is in overdrive, and while it's true that Salem is the place where truth goes to take a vacation, one thing is certain, the fight to stop universal gun owner registration is far from over.

As we told you, it looked like SB 941, the gun owner harassment act of 2015, might be on the House Floor as early as today. While things can change at lightning speed when gun grabbers want to bend the rules, as of right this minute the bill is not even scheduled for a "Second Reading" which usually happens the day before it's voted on. What does this mean for us?

It can only mean one thing. They don't yet have the votes to ram it through. As you know, this bill has been fast tracked from the beginning. Bypassing all normal scheduling, the anti-rights zealots have done all they can to race this bill forward. Now it looks like it might be as late as Monday before it is voted on. It could even be later.

This means that your tireless efforts are having an effect and some Democrats are having second thoughts about their career futures should they vote for this deranged attack on your rights.

To be sure, there are plenty who continue to parrot the mindless lies about "dangerous loopholes" and "internet gun trafficking" even when they know what they are saying is false. Michael Bloomberg continues to throw vast amounts of money on a media onslaught against liberty, but... if Val Hoyle had this nailed down, they would have voted on it already.

That's why now is the time to turn up the heat. If you've been working hard at contacting legislators, we are going to ask you to do it again. If you've never made your voice heard, now is the time to do it.

As we told you on Monday, there are a handful of Democrats who we think need to hear from you now.

We've listed them below but want to add one more to our previous list. Please also contact Rep. Paul Evans. His phone number is 503-986-1420, email [email protected]

Evans is no friend of gun owners. His rant in the hard left blog "Blue Oregon" shows just how extreme he is. In it, he calls for registration of "automatic weapons," (which he defines as "hand guns as well as rifles,") with the county sheriffs.

Aside from how much he demonstrates his ignorance of firearms and current law, he also calls for amending the US Constitution to redefine the Second Amendment. However, we have reason to believe Evans would like to portray himself as pro-gun. So he's wavering. Please contact Evans, and the legislators below, with a message that your rights are not negotiable. Sample text follows after the contact info for the other House Reps who need to hear from you.



Rep Brent Barton 503-986-1440 [email protected]

Rep Deborah Boone 503-986-1432 [email protected]

Rep Brian Clem 503-986-1421 [email protected]

Rep Betty Komp 503-986-1422 [email protected]

Rep Caddy McKeown 503-986-1409 [email protected]

Rep Brad Witt 503- 986-1431 [email protected]

_________________________________________


Dear Representative,

The supporters of SB 941 have made it clear that this bill will not stop criminals. In fact, the Oregon State Police report that they virtually never take action against prohibited people who try to buy guns. So who does this bill actually affect? People like me. People who obey the law. People who want to be able to safely store a firearm for a friend or neighbor. People who want to be able to protect someone whose life is in danger. People who vote.

I am outraged that the promoters of this attack on my rights continue to lie about this bill. They continue to parrot the disproven claims about how many people want to have their privacy invaded and their names put in a government data base. They continue to repeat the lies about "unregulated internet gun sales" and they continue to call my rights "a loophole." I am not a criminal and will not be treated like one.

My rights, my privacy and my property are not "loopholes." Vote no on SB 941.

Yours,

O.F.F. Still needs funding help, as this bit in particular is getting mighty spendy.

Here is their website :

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/

It makes a big difference, having them around- and THEY NEED YOUR HELP.

 

[bikerdoc]

Art in post 172 got to the root of the matter.