Oregon Senate advances bill expanding background checks

Of the Associated Press

SALEM — Legislative efforts to tighten gun control in Oregon cleared an important hurdle Tuesday after senators approved a measure designed to expand background checks for most private gun sales.

Under the bill, gun buyers and sellers who aren't closely related would have to appear in person before a licensed gun dealer who can run a background check, for a fee, through the Oregon State Police. Sellers who don't do the background check face a misdemeanor charge for a first offense and a felony charge for a second one.

Supporters of the measure say it closes a “loophole” that allows people to buy guns from unlicensed sellers online without having to go through a background check, and that it would make it harder for people with mental illnesses and violent criminal records to gain access to a firearm.

“What we will do is take one step to close a major loophole which is a floodgate for allowing these types of transactions where people who are not supposed to have guns have easy access to guns,” said bill sponsor Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene.

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

Republican senators spent over two hours vehemently opposing the bill, saying expanding the background check system would do little to curb gun violence while making criminals of law-abiding citizens and impeding their constitutional rights.

Others, such as Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli, argued the law would be impossible to implement, especially since several sheriffs have gone on the record to say they won't enforce the law.

“I've heard this bill characterized as closing a loophole. But when criminals meet to exchange guns there's no loophole involved. They're just breaking the law,” said Ferrioli, R-John Day.

Oregon has become the latest battleground for gun control advocates, with a leading gun control group, backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, pushing the effort to get all gun sales to go through a background check.

Two previous proposals to expand gun control laws in the state failed to make it to a floor vote, but last year's election, funded in part by Bloomberg's group Everytown for Gun Safety, saw Democrats up their majority in the Senate by two seats.

After the bill passed the Senate, Everytown announced they'll be running a six-figure television and online ad campaign in Portland, Eugene and Medford. The commercials will feature retired Portland Police Chief Mike Reese and relatives of people killed in a mall shooting calling for expanded background checks.

The Senate passed the measure 17-13 with Democrat Sen. Betsy Johnson voting against it.



I wonder what color the sun is on Floyd's planet.


and there is already one recall effort approved. More to come I would assume.


Wait until the marijuana proponents-users find out they can't legally buy, sell or trade a firearm under this law...


Val Hoyle wins the award for first recall petition. Chuck Riley may be up at bat with Roblan also highlighted.

Not so much as voting for the background check but for refusing ANY compromise amendments to make the bill more effective and at the same time less "infringing" on 2nd amendment rights proposed by the conservative side of the aisle


In another venue, I proposed calling SB941 the Bloomberg Act, because he basically paid for it, in several reprehensible ways.


rebmc, Rep. Hoyle and Sen. Riley cannot have recall papers filed against them until after the session ends. And the House hasn't even voted on this yet, so I'm unclear as to why she would be targeted at this point.


spongebob, you may want to brsh up on recall requirements. The petitions for recall for Hoyle and riley have been approved.

The time limit you state does not apply to ELECTED officials. She is targeted because of her support of the bill and also for routing it in a mannner to prevent public testimony.


rebmc, I stand corrected on the recall for state representives and senators: the 6-month grace on recalls does not apply to them, as it does all other ELECTED officials.


Rep Susan Mclain added to recall effort


Lot's of various reasons for recall efforts...I suspect that one reason Senator Roblan's name has come up is his deliberate _ _ _ _ _ (I'll let you fill in the "politically correct term"), and apparent lack knowledge of the legislation of which they are voting on.

These are exact excerpts and Quotes from an E Mail I received from Senator Roblan just before the 2015 Senate Votes:
"...Senator Roblan’s opposition to the bill...", "background checks will not prevent criminals (no law prevents this group) from traveling to purchase a firearm" and the real up to date informative, " This law is primarily geared towards closing the gun show loop hole in our current laws.". Then there was,"Senator Roblan is looking at requesting a few amendments as suggested in your email."

I could care less about amendments and I'm not sure which of a number of problems I pointed out he is even talking about, but one thing was for certain. His entire email was and exercise in deception.

Despite his STATED OPPOSITION to the bill, He voted to reject a number of motions to remove it from the calendar and / or send it back to the Judiciary Committee and he voted to PASS the bill.

I had a face to face meeting with Senator Roblan last year in which he told me he could not support the 4 bills that were in front of the Committee he sat on at the time. The next day he voted in support of them.

These are some of the reasons why I might consider supporting a recall against Senator Roblan should one come up. The gun shop owner in Junction City I suspect has his reasons for the recall of Hoyle. It will be up to the voters of that district as to whether or not they support that effort.


As an addendum to the above post, Senator Roblan never put forth any amendments that had anything to do with what I had had conversation with him about. I heard a rumor that he may have had something to do with the dash 7 which was adopted and is really a do nothing, feel good amendment.


E-mailed the dems in the house the following. I want a logical answer why the current back ground check is no good. If it is not effective enough to satisfy the 491 intent then it should be cancelled as a requirement for a CHL.
Not holding my breath for a answer. Let alone a "logical" answer.

Why do you not honor the back ground check I passed for my CHL? Is the one you propose "better"? After all it will cost me more money each time I purchase a firearm to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.

941 is not well thought out is it? Most of the shootings that have been publicized were conducted by those who had passed back ground checks proving they are worthless.

It is evident that this bill is laying the ground work for future fire arm confiscation.

That is why the recall efforts are being initiated.


rebmc.....hopefully it will be more than what I got as far as Senate Dems are concerned. I've heard absolutely nothing from Burdick, Prozanski or Gelser. Boquist, Kruse and Thatcher responded back on the very same day.

This is what happened last year:

From: Sen Prozanski
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 23:33
Subject: Not read: SB 1551 Opposition

Your message

To: Sen Prozanski
Subject: SB 1551 Opposition
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:08:20 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)

was deleted without being read on Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:32:42 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).

Note that this is a state email and not a personal one. Not sure how this fits with Public Records laws, but it is what it is.


Monday, April 20th at 1252 PM they posted notice that the House Rules Committee would hold a public hearing on SB 941 on Wednesday, April 22nd. April 22nd already had a full docket of hearings so HB's 2790, 2791, 3043, 3331 and 3505 were cancelled and moved to April 27th.

People wishing to testify on SB 941 have roughly a day and a half to make work arrangements, prepare what they want to say, submit any written testimony and / or exhibits and in some cases travel up to 6 to 8 hours one way to get to Salem.

Now, just why do you suppose the Hoyle and Kotek chose to cancel hearings on 5 bills, moving them to the 27th, in favor of SB 941? Why couldn't they have placed SB 941 onto the docket for April 27th? Guess that kind of also leads one to the question of why SB 941 was assigned to the House Rules Committee instead of the House Judiciary where it actually belongs?

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS