Gov. Kate Brown (D) in May signed a controversial law expanding background checks in Oregon, which took effect on Aug. 9. (Photo: Facebook)
Further, state law requires that the thumbprints of the purchaser be kept on file with the dealer for at least five years following the transfer, and be made available to law enforcement upon request.
Those who conduct a transfer without a background check and federal paperwork would risk a Class A misdemeanor for their first offense, which could lead to up to a year in jail and fines of up to $6,250. Subsequent violations would be a felony that could earn the violator up to five years in state prison.
The gun loons are losing!
ReplyDeleteOregon still has the deadly "neat gun, can I see it?" loophole (unlike their neighbors to the north) by exempting temporary transfers in the presence of the transferor. They also had the gall to exempt all training (such that a hands-on safety training class doesn't run up dozens of criminal counts) instead of just training children.
ReplyDeleteStill far from "common sense and honesty" though.
Given those exceptions, why? Are you so close.minded, TS? Is yours a knee jerk reaction?
DeleteFor starters, it doesn't have exemptions for loaning a gun to a friend who is in dire and imminent need of a gun for self-defense, it doesn't have exemptions for people who want to share a safe (which I would think should bother you), and it doesn't have a useable exemption for hunting (if the gun owner doesn't attend the trip). Apart from those details, there are two major deal breakers for me:
Delete1) it forces sales/loans through an FFL when there is no need to do so. If background checks were truly the motive, then this law is simply not a good as one where background checks are more accessible. Time and time again, we see laws like this from you guys, with downright resistance to proposals that don't require FFLs. It's obvious that background checks used as an excuse to stick it to the gun culture, and not the real motivation.
2) it makes it a crime to sell/loan a gun to a non-prohibited person. If it weren't for this, those details above wouldn't matter. It in no way should be a crime to sell/loan a gun to someone who is legally allowed to own one. Full stop. And don't give me that "how would they know?" crap. It's not a crime to give a beer to someone who is of age regardless of whether or not you knew they were of age. It not a crime for a adult to have sex with an 18 year old, even if they had no clue what their age was. We don't do it that way for good reason.
And why are you asking me this? Knee jerk reaction? Haven't we been over this dozens of times before?
DeleteIndeed we have and it always seems you love to come up with as many exceptions as your imagination can create just to resist the common sense of this proposal. I love the great need to "lend a gun for hunting when you yourself are not going."
DeleteStopping disqualified people from ealily buying guns from law-abiding gun owners is more important than all your objections. But you never mention that little positive do you?
But you can have that “little positive” (as ineffectual as you say it is at the state level) without all the oppressively absurd crimes created around the gun culture. They just don’t need to be there. Why make it a crime to teach adults in a hands-on safety course without an FFL background check for every member of the class- like it is in Washington? Why, Mike? I thought you guys approve of gun safety? Why not also consider the DIY checks that Colbert proposed and was dismissed by gun control advocates? You wouldn’t have to be trying to pass this state by state (which you admit doesn’t do much good) if you got on board with this proposal two years ago which is simply better at giving you want you claim to want- background checks. It’s funny how “easy access to _____” is a buzz phrase we often hear from the left regarding health care, or birth control, or voting, but when it shift to background checks they become insistent on making it difficult, expensive, mandatory, and criminal when not in compliance.
DeleteThis will in no way have any effect on the criminal from obtaining their guns Mike. Wake up and smell the coffee. This will instead, make criminals out of perfectly law abiding people that has never had any ill will against anyone. So there is no "positive" to be gained with this kind of stupidity. Its a feel good, for the law makers, law that will never have any affect on the true law breakers.
DeleteDon't tell me that your so blind that you cant see that.
MikeB: “I love the great need to "lend a gun for hunting when you yourself are not going.”
DeleteI specifically brought this up because we often hear from you guys “there is an exemption for hunting” when they talk about how reasonable the law is. So I am elaborating on the details of what exactly those exemptions cover and don’t cover (something that the proponents of these laws don’t like to draw attention to). But do you see that as not a legitimate loan of a gun? Would you rather see the occasional hunter who goes maybe once every few years need to buy their own gun (thus increasing gun sales, gun manufacturer’s profits, and the dreaded “gun flow to criminals”)? I have a couple of friends (both of own many guns) who go out elk hunting once a year. One of the friends legally owns many guns, but nothing chambered in a suitable round to take down elk. So he borrows the other friend’s .300 Win Mag. Do you see this as a huge problem which must be stopped by instituting “proper gun control”? Yeah, I suppose if you made it a crime, they might just comply and he might go out and buy his own .300 Win Mag. How does that help you?
And remember, the Washington law is worse. You can loan a gun to a friend for hunting, only if you attend because you’ll need to periodically pass the gun back and forth and know exactly when to do it to stay in compliance with the law. In Oregon there wouldn’t be so many pitfalls, but the owner would still have to attend the trip.
Does this mean you guys won't be voting for Hillary?
DeleteYou're assuming that she wins the primary?
Delete"Hillary Clinton has fallen behind Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire, according to a new poll. She now attracts 37 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Granite State, while liberal fireball Sanders gets 44 percent."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0812/Poll-shows-Clinton-trails-Sanders-in-New-Hampshire.-Should-she-panic
SS, you are claiming who is going to win the Democratic primary based on today's numbers? How naive. It does explain your false claims about politics, which have been proven wrong many times.
DeleteI'm wondering if this law is going to be as widely accepted as the Connecticut and New York assault weapon registration laws that recently went into effect and have been ignored by a pretty good percentage of citizens.
ReplyDeleteThen of course there is the issue of FFLs that actually sell firearms refusing to run the checks and law enforcement that has better things to do than enforce it. Here is a link that all might not be smooth sailing in Oregon.
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/11/oregon-expanded-background-check-law-sputters-to-life-video/
One problem I see is that without licensing and registration, how are they going to know if the scofflaws just ignore it.
DeleteAre people who ignore a law, law breakers?
DeleteOne problem I see is that without licensing and registration, how are they going to know if the scofflaws just ignore it.
DeleteI think the solution to this "problem" is to just go ahead and assume it's being very widely defied, and indeed heartily laughed at, by the best citizens of Oregon.
"Are people who ignore a law, law breakers?"
DeleteWell Anon, are we talking the individuals? Or the Sheriff who says he isn't going to enforce the law?
There are many laws that have been on the books that were widely ignored by the citizenry.
I think you're wrong about that, Kurt. I think most gun owners will comply.
DeleteI think most gun owners will comply.
DeleteThen there's no need for licensing and registration after all?
And they are law breakers SS, but I wouldn't expect a supporter of criminal activities like you to understand that, just as you have proven you don't understand what civil disobedience is.
DeleteYou are still very confusing Mike.
DeleteMost gun owners will comply.
Most gun owners are irresponsible.
Many gun owners are law breakers.
Many gun owners are law abiding.
Many gun owners are not law abiding.
So on and so on.
Which is it Mike? You cant have it both ways.
Newcastle, you're just playing dumb. My claim that as many as 50% of gun owners are irresponsible and should be disarmed does not contradict my other observation that most gun owners are law abiding and would obey laws like this one. Or, maybe you're not pretending, maybe it's just too much for you to wrap your head around.
Delete"And they are law breakers SS, but I wouldn't expect a supporter of criminal activities like you to understand that,"
DeleteAnon, if the Sheriff is a law breaker, then please explain how he is any different than those governments who make their cities sanctuary cities actively breaking federal law? Or how about the federal government refusing to enforce their own drug laws and allow two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuanna?
A law breaker is a law breaker SS. I know you don't understand that, because you have made it clear you support law breakers. People breaking laws with their guns, are heroes to you. That's why I am correct in calling you a criminal, kill crazy, gun loon.
DeleteMike, it's not me playing dumb but your trying to hide that fact. If you mean 50% then at least say so or at least say half, not many or most.
DeleteShades of Colorado!
ReplyDeleteJust ran into this online. If you look at the bearded guy on the right side of the picture of the post, he looks a lot like the guy pictured in this article,
http://www.guns.com/2015/09/11/oregon-recall-election-passes-important-hurdle/
"Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, is facing a grassroots push – organized in part by Oregon pro-gun advocates – seeking to put the lawmaker’s seat up for grabs over his sponsorship of SB.941, the state’s background check expansion which took effect last month."
"The campaign against Prozanski is the last one standing of a volley of efforts mounted in April to unseat not only the Eugene politician but also fellow Democrats Rep. Susan McLain, Sen. Chuck Riley and House Majority Leader Val Hoyle.
While the drives against Riley and McLain failed to garner enough signatures, the push against Hoyle only ended in July as the lawmaker announced she was stepping down."
Pretty cool how the voters are having a real affect on future legislation.