By Associated Press • 

Oregon Democrats push for background checks on private gun sales

SALEM - Oregon Democrats introduced a bill Thursday to require background checks on private firearm sales, setting up a showdown with gun rights advocates that could come as soon as next week.

Gun control advocates have tried unsuccessfully for years to expand Oregon's background-check requirement to nearly all gun sales and transfers. They poured money into key legislative races last year and now face much stronger prospects with expanded Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Oregon would be the eighth state to require universal background checks, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of several national groups working on expanding the regulation in Oregon.

The measure would require private buyers and sellers who aren't related to visit a licensed gun dealer for a background check. That goes further than previous attempts to expand background checks, which required only that the seller call an Oregon State Police hotline to check the buyer's background.

“This bill allows me to give a gun to a first cousin who I may have not seen in 40 years without a background check. But I can't give it to my best friend,” said Kevin Starrett, head of the Oregon Firearms Federation, a gun-rights group.

Oregon already goes further than federal law in requiring background checks at gun shows under an initiative approved by voters in 2000.

“Now, since 2000, the Internet has become an online marketplace for guns, where tens of thousands of guns are available to Lord knows who without a background check,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign.

Comments

Rotwang

Dan Gross is a total BS artist, along with so many of Bloomberg's lap dogs. Guns shipped from legitimate online retailers are delivered to local FFL-equipped stores, where the same failed state check system is applied as if purchased there.

Seabiscuit

This is not a bill to "require background checks on private firearm sales". This is an outright ban on the private party sale of firearms. The "exception" is gun shows, but that has been a law for years now.

Anytime you and the person you are selling to have to go to a Federally licensed firearms dealer, involving a 3rd party to complete any part of the transaction, it is no longer a private party transaction nor is it a "private" gun sale.

Rotwang is absolutely correct. Dan Gross as quoted above is a flat out liar. No modern firearm can be directly purchased over the internet or through the mail. It has to be shipped to an FFL holder who then has to run a background check on the buyer. To do otherwise is a violation of a number of federal laws. Antique muzzleloaders are the exception and they would still be exempt under this bill and the federal law.

Rumpelstilzchen

Before you call other people liars, you should get your own facts straight. Of course you can arrange to buy guns directly over the internet. At least here in Oregon it's still perfectly legal, just like doing it over the phone or through a classified ad or your gun club newsletter. As long as it does not cross state lines, there is nothing illegal about it, and no FFL is required. And as long as you don't us the USPS for handguns, you can even ship it.
That Mr. Gross grossly exaggerates, since the vast majority of online purchases through sites like Gunbroker are interstate and therefore go through FFL dealers, is correct.

Seabiscuit

Rumpelstilzchen, you are correct, I left out interstate. It should have read, "directly purchased over the internet or through the mail interstate. It has to be shipped to an FFL holder..."
Gross does not make any distinction and the above statement along with others he has made always implies that these "tens of thousands of guns are available" without a background check is simply not accurate. If you prefer to call it an "exaggeration" I can live with that too.

john fritter

I would like to see the stats that prove this has done anything but waste peoples time in the 7 states that have adopted this brilliant idea. I also wonder what percent of the private sales will actually follow the law?

rebmc

this bill is only a firearm registration bill. There is NO other reason to require the S/N, make and model to do a BGC. The excuse of checking to verify it has not been stolen may be accomplished by referring to a list of stolen arms by the buyer prior to purchase. If it is stolen then the buyer is guilty of purchasing stolen goods.

But then again that would not accomplish the REAL agenda.

Robert Lee

They've done things this way in California for years. Not a problem. Only people that seem to have issues with it are probably the exact people that shouldn't be having guns in the first place. I was shocked when I moved to Oregon and found guns for sale at garage sales. I purchased one that had in turn been purchased from a different yard sale... Could have killed someone and dropped it and even if they recovered the weapon there would be no link to me.

Background checks and waiting periods are great. If you need a gun right now and can't wait you're the last person that should have one.

Rotwang

To Robert Lee: Why not then a waiting period or government check before buying a book or periodical? I think that you would object to it, but that's just as much a constitutional right as buying a firearm.

Robert Lee

So sorry; so exactly which well regulated militia do you belong to?

Rotwang

Oh jeez, another guy who believes that rights can be collective rather than truly individual. Government school has taught you well. SMH

Robert Lee

The men that wrote the US Constitution meant for the rights to be collective, or group rights. It was only after the fourteenth amendment that constitutional rights were amended to be for individuals. Unfortunately a series of court cases has pretty much tossed out the "organized militia" portion in favor of allowing individual ownership of firearms with few restrictions. Are you one of those sovereign citizen domestic terrorist types? Your hyperbole is straight from their playbook.

rebmc

maybe there should be more facts taught in school. Out rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator--not the government. The constitution is written to CONTRoL THE GOVERNMENT not the individual. The militia is all able bodied citizens--such as the passengers on flight 93. the word "regulated" does not mean what you think it means--not regulated by the government.

Guns turned in at buy backs cannot be traced to a crime as the LE agency says it is "no questions asked" ---makes it easy to dump the evidence.

More lives have been endangered by a waiting period than saved. If you don't understand these facts you should not be allowed to vote

Robert Lee

So you think that there's a "creator", that you define what "organized" means, and that you should be able to decide who gets to vote... I spotted the right wing whacko. There's a libertarian paradise waiting for you in the country of Somalia! You should check it out, it's everything you want for this country.

Rotwang

Robert, give it a rest. Go out and build us some roads.

rebmc

robert lee
I brought up the "you should not be able to vote" because of your statement about your standards against others exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
'If you need a gun right now and can't wait you're the last person that should have one."

And there are no "group" rights only individuals can have rights.

Spongebob

The hearing at the Capitol, yesterday, was a circus. I haven't seen so many State Police officers in the building since the Rajneesees were in town. The testimony was interesting, with lots of accusations of the legislators on the committee being tyrants, or worse. I was in the Capitol for other business, but the crowds were so large, there were overflow areas set up in and around the hearing rooms to allow people to watch it on tv monitors. Lots of slogans on t-shirts, buttons and stickers on both sides. Security to get into the building was significant, with signs explaining that bringing guns into the building was prohibited. Very different from two years ago, when the halls were crawling with people carrying rifles throughout the Capitol. It was an interesting day.

Spongebob

It was also amusing to see an article from the News-Register entered into the public record at the hearing.

Seabiscuit

Spongebob, there were no signs that said "bringing guns into the building was prohibited". Oregon Law allows people with a Concealed Handgun License to bring their firearms into the Capitol.

Spongebob

Seabiscuit, apparently you didn't enter the building from the State Street side, or come through the security checks from the underground parking off of Chemeketa Street. The signs were at those locations. I can't vouch for the front entrance at Court State, though.

Spongebob

Also, the signage did cite the ORS on permit exceptions.

Seabiscuit

Spongebob, I park in the yellow lot where I can park all day long and not have to make repeated trips to feed meters. I just have to walk all the way across the mall. If it is raining, well I do have an umbrella and web feet.
I was there and sitting in the front row for the hearing on SB 941. I guess I missed the circus. Actually, I thought the crowd was much smaller this year than it has been in the past 3 years for these particular types of bills. A sizeable portion of the anti-gun crowd was missing. One might ask why that was?

Overflow was set up in one room with a monitor so people could watch. They had the CCTV up in the lounge outside the Senate Chambers where it is every day of the week and is very often showing a floor session, committee meeting or other videos of interest. After the hearing I was all over the building, sitting in on the Senate Floor Session and visiting with a few people.

The guns you talk about, “....when the halls were crawling with people carrying rifles throughout the Capitol”, were never there for the gun bill hearings. Those were on display during pro-gun rallies that always took place on different days from the gun bill hearings. That rally again took place this year on February 9th and the rally was organized by a group called the Heirs of Patrick Henry, Northwest.

I did see about 300 school kids in various class groups sitting on stairs getting lessons, lined up outside and inside the governors ceremonial office, circling the seal in the Rotunda. Made it interesting getting down from one chamber to the other past the Gov’s office. I didn’t think it was a circus, rather I thought it was great to see children being taught something about our government and history. Had a great conversation with one of the teachers who was a retired Coast Guardsman.
cont.

Seabiscuit

cont
The signs and security in the building were exactly as they were in 2012, 2013 and 2014. The only “significant” security were the extra troopers on duty and that was nothing unusual for these events. The signs were strictly informational that firearms were allowed for those with CHL’s and asked people with firearms to check in at the OSP desk in the Rotunda to obtain a clip on holder for the outer layer of their clothes so it could be clearly seen. (Exactly as has been done in past years when these bills came up for a hearing.) This let other troopers know they were legal so they didn’t have to ask again. Maybe that was the “buttons” you were referring to and to be honest there were far fewer of those than I have seen in the past. Yes, there were extra OSP, a lot of them retired and called back in for extra duty at the capitol as is done often on various bills and is done at every legislative session.

But, why not let people judge for themselves by seeing the "circus" at:
http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=8967
The committee chair, Sen. Prozanski even thanked all of the attendees for being present and being so orderly.

As a side note, you should have been there for SB 694, the motorcycle "white line fever" hearing yesterday morning, 04-02. There were 8 and up to 12 OSP at one time, outside the room in the hall and four to five plain clothed in the room for that hearing. Maybe they were expecting the Hells Angels or the Gypsy Jokers? The OSP Capitol Patrol office is just a short distance down the hall from HR 50.

Seabiscuit

Lots of people for SB 941? Yes, 84 signed up opposed to the bill. Only 18 signed up in support. I must have missed all of those buttons. The last couple of years, Cease fire Oregon, Brady and several of their fellow anti-gun groups were all wearing big 4", 6" and a few really large 12" fluorescent green anti-gun stickers and buttons, but I didn't see them for this hearing. In fact, Penny Okomoto and her usual recognizable entourage were conspicuously absent compared to hearings in the past. Dan Gross from Brady was there and testified, but what I found interesting was that the sponsors of the bill did not put him nor did they put the Moms demand Action, now absorbed into New York Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety as a “Political Lobby and Action Arm” of the organization, onto the “invited speaker” list.

Yes, there were a few rude and obnoxious presenters for both sides of the arguments, including, but not limited to one State Senator who deliberately insulted and attempted to bait a presenter into a confrontation. Prozanski allowed her to ask this question even after Senator Thatcher was cut off and told that questions could not be asked of the panel presenters.
Sen. Prozanski rebuffed and then refused to answer Senator Thatcher who simply asked to extend the hearings to a second day and to extend the time period for submitted written testimony due to the time constraints that Prozanski had put on the hearing and the sheer number of people. Likewise when, when Senator Thatcher asked Prozanski if he couldn’t call two more people up when he was closing the hearing, he ignored her, stood up and walked off. Now bear in mind that they have already extended a number of hearings to a second day this session so they could get all of the people a chance to testify. Senator Prozanski was having nothing to do with that on SB 941.

Seabiscuit

cont
There were people who had driven 6 to 8 hours from the far reaches of Eastern Oregon to testify at the hearing who were only allowed 2 minutes to talk and some were not allowed to testify at all. A number of these “long distance” travelers had an informal gathering afterwards and were going to try and get a meeting with the Senate President and file a formal complaint. I do not know how that went as I wasn’t involved in that.
At one point Senator Thatcher told Sen. Prozanski that she would like more time to ask questions of the people and “vet” the bill. Sen. Prozanski told her that was what the work session was for. Well, excuse me, but the Work Session does not allow Public Testimony, and was scheduled for a different day.

rebmc

with all the non supporters being from distant parts of Oregon and not given time to speak, it is insulting that Prozanski allowed two supporters from California to speak ---more than two minutes.

Do they pay taxes or are they just Bloomberg plants?

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS