Thursday, May 14, 2015

Oregon Becomes Eighth State to Expand Background Checks on All Gun Sales

Newsweek

Oregon on Monday became the eighth state to expand criminal background checks to include all private gun sales, even transactions on the Internet, when Democratic Governor Kate Brown signed the bill into law.

A federal law, commonly known as the Brady Law, requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and to maintain records of the sales. But unlicensed private sellers at gun shows and online are not required by federal law to observe the same policies, which allows people to buy and transfer firearms without first passing a background check. 
 
Forty percent of guns sold in the U.S. are done so without a background check, according to a 2014 report by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
 
Since the Brady Law was enacted in 1994, background checks have stopped more than 2 million gun purchases by people who may pose a risk to public safety, such as felons and domestic abusers, according to the Brady Campaign.
 

9 comments:

  1. This bill is significantly better than the one passed in Washington, namely because it has an exemption for allowing someone to handle/shoot your gun in your presence. I made a big deal about this now being a crime in Washington, because it's true. I read the law, and I'm honest about what is in there, and what isn't. Here the text for the Oregon bill (item C), text which is distinctly missing from WA I-594:

    "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;


    Now, I must add that this bill is still FAR from reasonable. It still criminalizes many innocuous activities in the gun culture including loaning a gun to a friend for self-defense (in any practical way), and sharing a safe with a friend/neighbor. It still criminalizes sales and loans to perfectly eligible people (a dead-stop deal breaker), and doesn't "expand background checks" at all- but rather makes it a huge pain in the ass to get a check done because both parties must travel to a gun dealer. If you guys were really interested in more background checks, you would want to make them cheap and easy, which is well within our technology to make happen. Of course, as I said many times before, you are much more interested in damaging the gun culture, as these types of bills are evidence of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " If you guys were really interested in more background checks"

    And make sure all records of the check are destroyed immediately after, in order to prevent the real danger of these records being used for a mass confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens which many in government support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense. "Many in government" do not support that. Those who do are only the extreme fringe fanatics, comparable to the gun rights extremists who call for no restrictions at all.

      Delete
  3. No, sorry. Gov. Cuomo supports confiscation. He's big and mainstream. The Democrats in the New Jersey legislature chanted "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate". There are other examples that show the real danger of confiscation.

    It would be better, of course if these (your words) "extreme fringe fanatics " didn't hold such positions of power, including the governorship of one of the most important states. My "many in government " summary is perfectly accurate.

    As for the gun rights extremists who call for no restrictions at all, I have yet to meet, read of, or encounter such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we go again. A gun rights fanatic playing loose with the definition of "confiscation."

      Delete
  4. The only thing "fanatic" here is the confiscation agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no "confiscation agenda," you're either paranoid or a liar.

      Delete
  5. Not in the least. I am referring to actual confiscation threats in multiple states, and quite truthfully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. There are no serious moves to confiscate ALL civilian firearms.

      Delete