If you are not a felon or a person who sells guns to felons, you should support SB 1551. It will limit felons’ easy access to guns by closing the remaining loophole in Oregon’s successful background check law for gun purchases.
Oregon passed its first background check law in 1989. It was limited to gun transfers that occurred through a gun dealer. Voters added gun shows in 2000 when they passed a ballot measure. Since then, all sales and transfers of guns at gun shows – including transfers between private individuals at gun shows – require a background check on individuals receiving the guns to confirm they are not felons.
When someone passes the background check without any issues, Oregon State Police destroy the collected information within 10 days of approval. Information is only kept longer – up to five years – if a felon fails the background check or if someone passes, but has a flagged issue that held up their approval (i.e., an out of state conviction). For all approvals, including those delayed and then approved, there is a 99.3 percent purge of information. The other 0.7 percent is not immediately purged because they are retained for up to five years to expedite future purchases.
The failure to require background checks on guns being transferred between individuals outside of a gun show has created a huge loophole that allows felons easy access to firearms. This loophole allows felons to bypass background checks. Recent polls continue to show that the vast majority of Oregonians (80 percent) favor universal background checks for all gun transfers. Clearly, Oregonians do not want felons to have easy access to guns, and it’s time to close this remaining loophole.
The only thing I would change is the destruction of the records. One day they might want to refer to that information like has been suggested in Connecticut.
This is exactly why we can't trust your background check demands. And it's why more guns need to be sold without any record to decrease the chance that your demands could be effective.
ReplyDeleteFirst they advised us to wear seat belts, then they made it a secondary misdemeanor to be added for other reasons one got pulled over for, then they made it a primary offense to be pulled over for, then they made special traffic traps for those not wearing seat belts. That was also a liberal "do gooder" law. They will do the same liberal creep tactic for guns until they make it impossible to buy, or use a gun, then confiscate all guns. A list will make it easy for them.
DeleteYou can trust me, Greg. From the beginning I've said there should be a background check requirement on all transfers.
DeleteMikeb, we were promised that background checks wouldn't be used as a registry, but as the situation in Connecticut shows, that promise proved false. Why should we believe you when you promise that guns will never be confiscated?
DeleteTry to fool me once, shame on you. Try to fool me again, we have a real problem.
Yes, but you also claimed, until now, that there wouldn't be confiscations enabled by registration or background checks, and on the same day that you admitted you were wrong about the confiscations, you posted this bit encouraging the retention of background check records in case they needed to be used in a future confiscation.
Delete"we were promised that background checks wouldn't be used as a registry"
DeleteI don't think that's exactly right. I know those who oppose background checks, fanatics like yourself, said that's why. But who exactly made this promise? Or did you just make that up 'cause it sounded good?
Mikeb, think back to the debate about universal background checks last year. Your side kept promising that no registry would be made. Well, these incidents show that the promise isn't believable.
DeletePlus there's all those federal laws that say that at least their forms are to be destroyed within X number of hours--the laws that forbid the Feds from making a registry like that, etc.
DeleteDon't know what laws cover Oregon or CT and other states' checks if they don't use NICS, but whenever concerns over a de facto registry are raised, you guys always point to the federal statutes and tell us we're paranoid and worrying about something that the government can't do.
Greg, that "my side" promised is not specific enough. You're full of it as usual.
DeleteIf the law of the land says that certain guns are banned, then that's it. Tough shit. Either get with the program or pay the consequences.
DeleteBemoaning the fact that documentation makes it impossible for you to secretly break the law is just whining baby nonsense. Be law abiding citizens or else change the law.
And there it is: having a de facto database when databases are banned isn't an accidental bug--its a feature to give them the ability to confiscate any guns they want to.
DeleteNow it's "assault weapons," next comes whatever they "evolve" into insisting we ban.
No, it does not allow them to confiscate any guns they want to. There's an elaborate legal process involved in banning a particular gun. It's not whatever they evolve into.
DeleteAnd, besides, who's "they?" "They" are the people of the state who speak through the judicial process.
Mikeb, I'm not going to dig through your postings and elsewhere to show you what people promised a year ago. Haven't you learned by now that my memory is better than yours? Obama, for example, kept telling us about how the law didn't allow a registry, except that it did, so long as it was called something else--a tax, perhaps?
DeleteBut what these examples show is that whenever the government has a list of guns, that list can be used for nefarious purposes.
Wow, how tedious can you be. Fine, I'll go back and define things more clearly for you since you couldn't understand me the first time. The they I was talking about was gun control advocates.
DeleteYes, you can't pass laws on your own. Hence the statement about the guns you insist we ban. In other words, you're calling for use of this de facto registry to confiscate "assault weapons" right now.
In the future, when enough of you have "evolved" into wanting some other ban and you pass it in CT or some other state, you'll insist on doing the same--writing letters to the editor, letters to your congressmen, blog posts like this, or editorials like the Courant's.
And now that we have defined "they" and their methods, we get back to the first statement about they--the gun control advocates like yourself--being fans of these de facto registries because it will enable confiscation of "any guns they want to."
OBVIOUSLY they have to go through the legal process and get more laws passed banning more types (or get more guns added to the "assault weapon" list by executive action as has been provided for under the past federal AWB proposals). Frankly, when I wrote that first sentence, I assumed that you and any readers here would be able to understand that your side lobbying for a new law was implied there--especially since the following sentence explicitly referred to "they" as insisting we ban something.
I guess that was just too hard a train of logic to follow, and it's much better to write a TL:DR post like this trying to pedantically explain my point.
One of my major criticisms of the gun control plan is that they use the topic of background checks to try and ban private sales, rather than expand the system to cover private sales. Oregon’s bill actually differs from most of the others in that is does actually expand their state background check system (not NICS) for private use. However it still is a deal breaker for me in that it still criminalizes transfers that don’t use it, even when both parties are in good standing. I will never support such a system that would make it a crime where no prohibited person was involved. No deal, but you’re getting warmer. The other key aspect is that the buyer must be the one who uses the system on themselves. It handles privacy and record keeping concerns. I believe Oregon’s bill is seller initiated and records serial numbers.
ReplyDeleteWhy should that be a deal breaker? How else can you get people to follow the law except by sanctions if they fail to?
DeleteNot pass the stupid law in the first place.
DeleteHaven't you repeatedly told us that most people will be compelled to do the right thing? What about all that 90% talk? But the main reason is because there is nothing wrong with two non-prohibited people exchanging a gun. Where's the harm? Why do you feel the need to throw us in jail so bad? Look, if you keep proposing new crimes, don't be surprised when people fight you on it.
DeleteLet me ask you this, Mike: if it's not a crime to sell to a person in good status without a check, is that a deal breaker for you?
DeleteWhy are you so focused on the good guys who want to sell guns to each other? Don't you see that many private sales are not between two good guys? How else can the bad guys who want to take advantage of the loophole be stopped except by eliminating the opportunity?
DeleteAre you so self-absorbed that you really think gun control folks want to put good guy gun owners in jail? Don't you think gun control folks want to do just what the fuck they say, to stop bad guys from being able to buy guns without a background check?
Then why, pray tell, do you guys want to jail people in Connecticut who have done nothing but not report the guns they have? You're not talking about making the penalties harsher if they use those in a crime--you're talking about tracking them down through purchase documents and putting them in jail when they haven't harmed anyone.
DeleteMikeB: “Why are you so focused on the good guys who want to sell guns to each other?”
DeleteBecause that is the majority of what is going on and which would become a crime.
MikeB: “Don't you see that many private sales are not between two good guys?”
What does “many” mean to you? There are six million private gun transactions a year according to your side. How many of those do you think are bad guys buying a gun?
MiekB: “Are you so self-absorbed that you really think gun control folks want to put good guy gun owners in jail?”
Then don’t make it a crime!
MikeB: “Don't you think gun control folks want to do just what the fuck they say, to stop bad guys from being able to buy guns without a background check?”
Well, what they are saying in the bills they write that it will be a crime to sell a gun to a good person. So yeah, I believe they want to do what they say in this case.
If the bad guys getting a gun is really what you care about, then limit the crime to when a bad guy gets a gun. What could be simpler? Write a bill that provides tools for private buyers to prove their NICS status and limit the crime to selling a gun to a prohibited person. Even right now it is a crime to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. So make it easy for them to know.
Mikeb, given what we've seen here about background checks being turned into registrations, can you really not see why private sellers would want sales without a record? When your side learns to mind its own business, we'll be friendlier.
Delete"Then why, pray tell, do you guys want to jail people in Connecticut who have done nothing but not report the guns they have?"
DeleteI'll venture another prediction. No one in CT will go to jail for failure to register their guns. They may forfeit the guns in question, they may even pay a small fine, but jail? I don't think so.
TS, those are pretty weak responses. Buying guns privately is one of the major sources of guns that end up in the criminal world. Blocking that can only be accomplished by prohibiting the practice for all, even the law abiding. It's ridiculous to think this is an attempt to punish, or even more ridiculous, to incarcerate good gun owners. It is exactly what it's proposed to be. You're right that the majority of private transfers are between two good guys, but so what? The number of transfers that allow guns to flow into the black market are TOO MANY. This is the way to stop it.
DeleteI'm glad you'll venture that. Of course, we've seen how good you are at guessing the future.
DeleteMike, what should happen to a person when they sell a gun to another good person with no criminal record? Should they go to jail? If you say "no" then why write the law that way?
DeleteObviously because the act of selling a gun to a good guy is exactly the same as selling one to a bad guy. Both sellers do exactly the same action. Why are you refusing to see this?
DeleteThe action may be the same, but the qualities of each are different. Why can't you see that?
DeleteI can’t believe you said that. You really don’t see a difference if the recipient of a gun is a criminal or a clean person? Really? I thought the whole point is to prevent criminals from getting guns. Do you think there is a difference if someone serves alcohol to an adult vs. a teenager? Or an adult who has sex with another adult versus a 17 year old? Hey, the action is the same after all. I have repeatedly presented the case of two clean people trading guns. Before the transaction both people are armed as is their legal right being in good standing. After the transaction, both people are still armed… but you want a law that could send both belong in jail? And you wonder why we oppose you.
DeleteLook Mike, you tried it your way. Your side presented a piece of billshit last April loaded up with crimes and ban on sales without helping these people verify status even when they want to. It was add a time when you had as much political momentum as you’ll probably ever have in the near future. It failed. Why not try something new? Maybe address some of these concerns over crimes, registries, and inconvenience while still trying for your purported goal of background checks? Unless of course those other things are the real goal, and you couldn’t give a crap about background checks.
Neither one of you has answered my question. How can we stop the one type of transfer without also stopping the other? We can't. That's why we must eliminate private sales without background checks.
DeleteTS has given you proposals in the past. You have rejected them because they don't create de facto registries.
DeleteHow do we stop statutory rape without stopping all fornication?
DeleteHow do we stop furnishing alcohol to minors without making it a crime to pour anyone a drink in your home?
How do we stop the employment of illegal aliens? How can we stop one type of employment without also stopping all the others? We can’t. That’s why we must eliminate all private jobs.
You’ll notice the commonality of all these case. There are rules and crimes associated with people engaging in certain activities for a subset of people. And it is most certainly NOT a crime if the other person is not part of the restricted subset.
But hey, if you refuse to compromise, stop being oblivious to why good people would stand up to this.
TS,
DeleteSince you bring up jobs, I wonder if Mike agrees with the Republicans on e-verify so that we can all ask the government for permission before doing a job for someone.
TS, those examples are really beneath your usual standard. And they don't answer the question. Private sales of guns is one of the major sources of guns flowing into the criminal world. How do we stop that without eliminating all private sales? We can't, is the obvious answer.
DeleteWhy you resist it so is interesting. The inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners would be minimal and the benefits would be nothing short of saving many lives.
Your stubborn resistance goes to show how biased and close-minded you are and more, how you don't give a fuck about what's right and wrong, what's best for most people.
Oh Yes! A minimal inconvenience is all it is when you use these background check records as a de facto registry to guide confiscations like you suggested in this post.
DeleteOk, so, when the federal law was proposed last year and people opposed it saying that it was an attempt at a de facto registry, you said they were paranoid and called names.
ReplyDeleteNow you'll glibly admit that you want to keep them as a de facto registry for the purpose of future formal registration, and confiscating non-registered guns and arresting the non-compliant.
So, were you lying back then, or is this further evolution?
Just saw previous post and that you admitted that you were wrong, when you called us paranoid.
ReplyDeleteBravo for that much honesty.
Interesting that you turned right around, though, and started championing the method in this post.
Then there's your comment about maybe one day having to admit being wrong about attempts at total civilian disarmament. One wonders if you would similarly jump right on that band wagon if that day came.
And thus, if you're really honest about opposing such schemes currently
I still resist the argument from your side that says eventually all guns will be banned for civilian ownership. But as far as registration leading to confiscation in limited ways, yes I was wrong to deny that.
DeleteYour resistance is noted. As is your long standing resistance to there being any link between registration and confiscation. Since both are unsupported assertions with the weight of the evidence against them, you'll have to forgive us if we don't take any comfort from them.
DeleteHowever, if you want to convince us that you want to stop at the assault weapons, please explain why the NY SAFE compliant AR still twists your knickers since it doesn't have any of the "assault weapon" features. Related to this, please explain why you only want to ban "assault weapons" and not other semi autos which lack the AW features but function the same way and use the same or more powerful ammo.
DeleteIf you convince us you have actual reasons here, maybe we'll believe when you claim that you won't jump on the bandwagon to ban those guns as soon as it rolls by.
Maybe you're new around here, either that or you're really being a tedious pain in the ass on purpose. I'm not a big fan of the AWB, I never have been really. My main things are background checks on private sales and safe storage in the home. I recognize the problems with defining an assault weapon. I don't really know what the solution is.
DeleteThat being said, I've rarely seen a gun control law that I don't like. But, I admit the AWB ones are fraught with problems.
When last I was here in 2013 you were praising AWB's and arguing with regulars that pistol grips and other features made guns more lethal. Hence the question regarding why the NY SAFE compliant AR is a problem--it has been redesigned without a pistol grip--looks funny, but has been reconfigured to have the ergonomics of a traditional montecarlo stock. What's the problem?
DeleteThat redesign puts the lie to the idea that pistol grips change the effectiveness of a gun. I could shoot a gun like that just as well as my standard AR--I just wouldn't buy it because it causes retina damage.
My point is to try to get at why you like the AWB in spite of its definitional problems (which I haven't seen you admit before--instead I've seen you gloss over them). Is it because of a problem with Semi-Autos and you see these as vulnerable? Or is it something else? E.g. do you just like it because it ratchet's down gun rights? If that last one is the case, how can we trust that you'll ever think things have been ratcheted down enough?
You know what, Mike? It’s even worse when you say stuff like this than being a true believer. You’re “not a big fan of AWBs”, you agree they are fraught with problems and difficult to define, but at the end of the day you still support anything that adds crimes and restrictions for us. How are we ever supposed to come to an understanding?
Delete"you were praising AWB's and arguing with regulars that pistol grips and other features made guns more lethal."
DeleteThat's not exactly true. What I did in several discussions we had was question the fact that the gun control folks had arbitrarily chosen cosmetic features to ban. This isn't true. Your side often says the gun control people make completely nonsensical suggestions about why guns need to be banned. This is not true. Whether you agree or not, they identified features which they said increased the lethality of the gun.
I repeat, this was never one of my main things. But, as TS pointed out in the following comment, we probably cannot come to an understanding, and here's why. I believe guns do more harm than good. Anything that diminishes gun availability is good. That's why even borderline or questionable laws like the AWB are good.
With regards to the previous discussions, you insisted that pistol grips made guns more lethal in spite of evidence offered to the contrary--e.g. comparing AR's to non "assault weapon" semi-autos that had similar capacity, fired more powerful ammo, and had monte carlo stocks.
DeleteAs for you final statement, it makes it plain that you will never stop wanting more controls. If you got your personal wish list, you would still support anything additional that came down the pike, up to and including total disarmament.
Yes, that's not what you're advocating now, but that's because it's out of reach. Your oft repeated statement that guns do more harm than good, though, would obviously demand that eventually all guns be removed from private individuals with extremely controlled exceptions such as highly regulated armed security.
While you won't state this as a goal, you've now admitted to your preferred method to get there: support any gun control law proposed. Hair brained AWB--support it. Suppressors which you have acknowledged aren't a problem--support keeping the ban because it at least is a limit. Proposal to ban semis--support it. Gun too powerful allowing for long range--support a ban. Gun too weak, allowing a small concealable form--support a ban. Guns in the middle--well, they'll be the too powerful or too weak ones once those available for sale are culled. Bolt action--that's a hyper accurate sniper rifle. Revolver--that's too close to a semi-auto; same for lever and pump actions. Replicas--those are just trying to get around a loophole. Antiques--heck, that's already been called a loophole.
Eventually, where does it end? If I'm wrong, tell us, exactly where does it stop.
For me, where it ends is when about half of you guys are disarmed. Eventually, through proper gun control laws we could get there. That half would include most of the trouble makers, most of the idiots who let their guns get stolen because they don't think they need to practice safe storage, most of the idiots who sell their guns to people who may or may not be law abiding, most of the bumbling idiots who drop their guns in public or forget there's one in the chamber when they're cleaning them.
DeleteOnce that's accomplished, the violence and crime rates would come down so much that the US would no longer be the laughing stock it is today and we'd be able finally to balance the right of responsible people to own guns with common sense controls on gun violence.
Common sense is mostly what fools use to describe a lack of facts and logic. But as always, Mikeb, how can we trust you in what you say here? You keep ignoring that question. Besides, the idea that more than 50,000,000 Americans are unworthy of exercising their rights is unacceptable.
DeleteSo, you'd leave half of the gun owners armed when guns cause more harm than good? Half of the current level still causing more harm than good?
DeleteWhy? Why are the deaths at that level of ownership acceptable to you? God help you if Jim figures out the implications!
And nothing you said did anything to convince anyone that even with your wish list (aka your "proper gun control laws") you would stop advocating everything that came along to further limit ownership.
After all, you've already advocated for several of the types of bans I mentioned.
Mike: "For me, where it ends is when about half of you guys are disarmed."
DeleteThen what are you doing supporting AWBs which ban the gun for everyone, including the good half? If you are just about disarming the bad half, then what difference does it make if a good person has a pistol grip, when you yourself admit the ban to be arbitrary? It's clear to me that you want felony landmines planted all around gun ownership where all the tiptoeing around stupid laws makes it not worth the risk. You want to destroy the culture.
Please TS, don't make me repeat myself. I'm not a big fan of the AWB. You know the things I really believe in which in my opinion will make the big differences. Besides, these laws are not what disarms the bad half. That happens through application of one-strike-you-out laws and higher standards for qualifying in the first place.
DeleteMikeb, all of your demands are cut from the same cloth--the same faded, seventies corduroy and paisley leisure suit cloth.
Delete