Now that Universal Background Check legislation has passed there are still things that need to be done instead of moaning and groaning over it.
Time to develop some plans.
Time to develop some plans.
Oregon UBC passes - what to do now
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
I'd imagine in the Beaver state the next play would be to get it repealed via Referendums and Referrals.
blarby
Member
First order of business are the recalls.
oneounceload
member
First order of business would be the lawsuits tying up the courts and most importantly, the state's resources of time and manpower - that's what the "progressives" do; time to take a page from Saul Alinsky and use it against them
OP
OP
If the legislative session is still going on what are the odds to pass further legislation "fixing" the flaws in it?
sdlsaginaw
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 41
One order of business must be the neutering of the well-abused "emergency" clause. A constitutional change requiring 2/3 majority on "emergency" bills should do it without affecting TRUE emergencies. Plus, since they've abused this for SO many things, even antis could get behind it.
blarby
Member
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
We have the same problem here in Washington State with the passage of Initiative 594. I purpose that we Join with the Northern California counties who want to secede from California and join Oregon, and then, Northern California, Oregon and Washington join together and secede from the so called United States and go down fighting.(Just kidding of course, sort of.)
sdlsaginaw
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 41
At least people in Washington got to vote for their stupid law. Our mommies and daddies in Salem knew what was best for us and just passed it. I feel so loved. Ugh.
blarby
Member
From Kevin at OFF yesterday :
(was waiting for moderator review. Unfortunately, really hard to link to an Email ! )
05.11.15
Today, unelected -censored- Governor Kate Brown, who replaced disgraced -censored- Governor John Kitzhaber, ignored the will of the people, the counties, and the sheriffs and signed into law SB 941, the universal gun owner registration bill.
Today we also received an email from another sheriff who said he will not enforce it.
As you know, the bill contains so many dangerous provisions, we cannot possibly list them all. The parts of the bill outlawing the private transfer of guns, storing firearms for friends, neighbors or persons in need of safekeeping, along with the prohibition on providing firearms to persons who are in danger, take effect immediately.
If you store a firearm for a friend, or lend one to a neighbor without first taking the gun to a gun dealer and asking for police permission, you will be a criminal.
Yes, this is a tremendous setback for gun owners. We cannot deny that. However, please do not think this is over.
We urge you to defy this sinister attack on your rights. We urge you to refuse to comply.
In the coming days we are going to ask for your most generous support in our fight to respond to this unconstitutional outrage. Please stay tuned.
My friends, this battle has only just begun.
Don't despair. Subvert.
As you know there are recalls underway for three of the people who helped pass this attack your rights. There will be more in the future. Please do all you can to support these efforts.
Val Hoyle Recall
Chuck Riley/Susan McLain Recall
The links above DO work. If you are a resident of those electorates, please feel free to swing by !
(was waiting for moderator review. Unfortunately, really hard to link to an Email ! )
05.11.15
Today, unelected -censored- Governor Kate Brown, who replaced disgraced -censored- Governor John Kitzhaber, ignored the will of the people, the counties, and the sheriffs and signed into law SB 941, the universal gun owner registration bill.
Today we also received an email from another sheriff who said he will not enforce it.
As you know, the bill contains so many dangerous provisions, we cannot possibly list them all. The parts of the bill outlawing the private transfer of guns, storing firearms for friends, neighbors or persons in need of safekeeping, along with the prohibition on providing firearms to persons who are in danger, take effect immediately.
If you store a firearm for a friend, or lend one to a neighbor without first taking the gun to a gun dealer and asking for police permission, you will be a criminal.
Yes, this is a tremendous setback for gun owners. We cannot deny that. However, please do not think this is over.
We urge you to defy this sinister attack on your rights. We urge you to refuse to comply.
In the coming days we are going to ask for your most generous support in our fight to respond to this unconstitutional outrage. Please stay tuned.
My friends, this battle has only just begun.
Don't despair. Subvert.
As you know there are recalls underway for three of the people who helped pass this attack your rights. There will be more in the future. Please do all you can to support these efforts.
Val Hoyle Recall
Chuck Riley/Susan McLain Recall
The links above DO work. If you are a resident of those electorates, please feel free to swing by !
Jackal
Member
Funny thing is, people have gone on with business as usual here in WA. Garage sales, flea markets, face to face transactions, etc are all either ignorant of I594 or they just dont care. Then again, there hasnt been 1 single arrest/prosecution for it either. Maybe the majority of Sheriff dept's will refuse to enforce OR's new law, like they have done here in WA. Yes, the underlying problem is still there, but its nice to have law enforcement despise a junk law as much as their citizens do.
Here in WA, we have the Puget Sound bordering counties making all of our states decisions. Its like a flea telling a dog what to do. Its ludicrous.
Here in WA, we have the Puget Sound bordering counties making all of our states decisions. Its like a flea telling a dog what to do. Its ludicrous.
blarby
Member
From kevin @ OFF :
05.12.15
Yesterday's alert about the signing of SB 941 incorrectly stated that the provisions outlawing the private transfer of firearms, or the storing or loaning of firearms took effect immediately.
This is not correct.
Section 20 of the bill states:
SECTION 20. Section 2 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORS 166.432, 166.433, 166.434, 166.438 and 181.150 by sections 6 to 10 of this 2015 Act become operative 90 days after the effective date of this 2015 Act.
Section 2, referenced above, is the section outlawing private transfers. So the gun ban portions of the bill will take effect 90 days after yesterday.
So, we've still got 89 days of freedom
05.12.15
Yesterday's alert about the signing of SB 941 incorrectly stated that the provisions outlawing the private transfer of firearms, or the storing or loaning of firearms took effect immediately.
This is not correct.
Section 20 of the bill states:
SECTION 20. Section 2 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORS 166.432, 166.433, 166.434, 166.438 and 181.150 by sections 6 to 10 of this 2015 Act become operative 90 days after the effective date of this 2015 Act.
Section 2, referenced above, is the section outlawing private transfers. So the gun ban portions of the bill will take effect 90 days after yesterday.
So, we've still got 89 days of freedom
.455_Hunter
Member
Does the OR new law have any timeframe requirements?
With Colorado's UBC law, the transfer must occur over 72 hours before the BC requirements kick-in.
The law has been on the books for almost 2 years, and the number of prosecutions can be counted on one hand, usually tacked onto a bunch of other felony charges.
With Colorado's UBC law, the transfer must occur over 72 hours before the BC requirements kick-in.
The law has been on the books for almost 2 years, and the number of prosecutions can be counted on one hand, usually tacked onto a bunch of other felony charges.
blarby
Member
Divine , using your crystal ball, from the following :
It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORS 166.250, 166.291,
166.412, 166.422, 166.432, 166.433, 166.434, 166.436, 166.438, 166.460, 166.470, 181.150, 181.740 and
426.133 by sections 3 to 19 of this 2015 Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Oregon
Firearms Safety Act.”
SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section:
(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;
(D) To a transferee who is in the business of repairing firearms, for the time during
which the firearm is being repaired;
(E) To a transferee who is in the business of making or repairing custom accessories for
firearms, for the time during which the accessories are being made or repaired; or
(F) For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the
provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury.
(b) “Transferee” means a person who is not a gun dealer or licensed as a manufacturer
or importer under 18 U.S.C. 923 and who intends to receive a firearm from a transferor.
Enrolled Senate Bill 941 (SB 941-A) Page 1
(c) “Transferor” means a person who is not a gun dealer or licensed as a manufacturer
or importer under 18 U.S.C. 923 and who intends to deliver a firearm to a transferee.
(2) Except as provided in ORS 166.436 and 166.438 and subsection (4) of this section, a
transferor may not transfer a firearm to a transferee unless the transfer is completed
through a gun dealer as described in subsection (3) of this section.
(3)(a) A transferor may transfer a firearm to a transferee only as provided in this section.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, prior to the transfer both the
transferor and the transferee must appear in person before a gun dealer, with the firearm,
and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on the transferee.
(b) If the transferor and the transferee reside over 40 miles from each other, the
transferor may ship or deliver the firearm to a gun dealer located near the transferee or a
gun dealer designated by the transferee, and the transferor need not appear before the gun
dealer in person.
(c) A gun dealer who agrees to complete a transfer of a firearm under this section shall
request a criminal history record check on the transferee as described in ORS 166.412 and
shall comply with all requirements of federal law.
(d) If, upon completion of a criminal background check, the gun dealer:
(A) Receives a unique approval number from the Department of State Police indicating
that the transferee is qualified to complete the transfer, the gun dealer shall notify the
transferor, enter the firearm into the gun dealer’s inventory and transfer the firearm to the
transferee.
(B) Receives notification that the transferee is prohibited by state or federal law from
possessing or receiving the firearm, the gun dealer shall notify the transferor and neither
the transferor nor the gun dealer shall transfer the firearm to the transferee. If the
transferor shipped or delivered the firearm to the gun dealer pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this subsection, the gun dealer shall comply with federal law when returning the firearm to
the transferor.
(e) A gun dealer may charge a reasonable fee for facilitating a firearm transfer pursuant
to this section.
(4) The requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not apply to:
(a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law
enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the
United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.
(b) The transfer of a firearm as part of a firearm turn-in or buyback event, in which a
law enforcement agency receives or purchases firearms from members of the public.
(c) The transfer of a firearm to:
(A) A transferor’s spouse or domestic partner;
(B) A transferor’s parent or stepparent;
(C) A transferor’s child or stepchild;
(D) A transferor’s sibling;
(E) A transferor’s grandparent;
(F) A transferor’s grandchild;
(G) A transferor’s aunt or uncle;
(H) A transferor’s first cousin;
(I) A transferor’s niece or nephew; or
(J) The spouse or domestic partner of a person specified in subparagraphs (B) to (I) of
this paragraph.
(d) The transfer of a firearm that occurs because of the death of the firearm owner,
provided that:
(A) The transfer is conducted or facilitated by a personal representative, as defined in
ORS 111.005, or a trustee of a trust created in a will; and
Enrolled Senate Bill 941 (SB 941-A) Page 2
(B) The transferee is related to the deceased firearm owner in a manner specified in
paragraph (c) of this subsection.
(5)(a) A transferor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section commits a
Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a transferor who fails to comply
with the requirements of this section commits a Class B felony.
This is just the "transfer" part, the sections on creating a gun registry, and the curtailment of CC rights in the capitol are in other sections.
the entire bill has been attached for your review.
Attachments
Last edited:
blarby
Member
An interesting older article came up, courtesy of Richard White, one of the tireless volunteers on the val hoyle recall.
From John Woods :
From John Woods :
OP
OP
At best, background checks are placebos for people who actually think controlling firearms possession has any overall benefit. At worst, they're a handy means for people who want to control other people to manipulate them into following them. They're the Red Scare by the new MccArthyism.
Nick Burkhardt
Member
From OFF:
05.12.15
Yesterday's alert about the signing of SB 941 incorrectly stated that the provisions outlawing the private transfer of firearms, or the storing or loaning of firearms took effect immediately.
This is not correct.
Section 20 of the bill states:
SECTION 20. Section 2 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORS 166.432, 166.433, 166.434, 166.438 and 181.150 by sections 6 to 10 of this 2015 Act become operative 90 days after the effective date of this 2015 Act.
Section 2, referenced above, is the section outlawing private transfers. So the gun ban portions of the bill will take effect 90 days after yesterday.
05.12.15
Yesterday's alert about the signing of SB 941 incorrectly stated that the provisions outlawing the private transfer of firearms, or the storing or loaning of firearms took effect immediately.
This is not correct.
Section 20 of the bill states:
SECTION 20. Section 2 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORS 166.432, 166.433, 166.434, 166.438 and 181.150 by sections 6 to 10 of this 2015 Act become operative 90 days after the effective date of this 2015 Act.
Section 2, referenced above, is the section outlawing private transfers. So the gun ban portions of the bill will take effect 90 days after yesterday.
Any idea how the recall effort is going? I was in my local gun shop last week doing transfers for some more rifles and the owner said he was having trouble getting people to sign the recall petition. It seams people that believe background checks equal registration are reluctant to put their name, address, and signature on a list opposing it.
There were two other people there doing transfers and neither one knew that Oregon law required a recalled politician to be replaced with a member of the same party. They both thought it would lead to a special election.
MICHAEL T
Member
Sink them with lawsuits and recalls . Use their tactics against them . Remember who voted for this BS and work hard to remove.
papaairbear
Member
JSH1
I'm assuming your gun shop is in Liberal, Democrat Portland? Forgive me if I'm mistaken. And if so, none of those patrons would be able to vote for or against the politicians the recall petitions are targeting?
I'm assuming your gun shop is in Liberal, Democrat Portland? Forgive me if I'm mistaken. And if so, none of those patrons would be able to vote for or against the politicians the recall petitions are targeting?
Last edited:
Nope. It is in Oregon Senate District 15, currently represented by Democrat Chuck Riley, one of the State Senators targeted for recall.
The district was redrawn in 2002 and has been represented by a Republican until the latest election in 2014. Riley only defeated incumbent Bruce Starr by 221 votes so I wouldn't call it especially liberal.
papaairbear
Member
Here's a map of Senate District 15 for those interested.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/riley/Pages/map.aspx
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/riley/Pages/map.aspx
leadcounsel
member
Also a WA resident. Too bad the dog doesn't seem to care what the flee wants.
I've never seen a state where voting was so easy. The state mails you a ballot weeks before the election, and a book explaining all the vote choices. All you do is mark the boxes and put the ballot in the provided envelope. You can either put a stamp on it or drop it off at any of a zillion locations. It's spoon fed easy...
Yet, hundreds of thousands of presumably pro-gun people don't care enough to vote or pay attention.
- Status
