Oregon UBC System and Datamining

T

Tom Servo

Staff
You may recall that Oregon recently passed a bill to require "universal background checks." One of the arguments we've made against the concept is that it will result in the creation of a gun registry.

This isn't just a "slippery slope" argument. The only way to enforce background checks on private transfers will be to know who had the guns before they were transferred. Supporters of the UBC concept claim we're full of hot air.

Well, it looks like that's exactly what's happening in Oregon. Background checks are done on the state level there, and their system has been amended to require the information on the seller as well as the recipient.

The federal NICS system must purge all information on a check within 24 hours of a resolution. It must be emphasized that this is not the case in Oregon. According to the bill itself,

The department may retain a record of the information obtained during a request for a criminal background check under this section for the period of time provided in ORS 166.412 (7).
Click to expand...

According to section (7)(a), that period is five years.

Furthermore, the seller is required to keep a copy of the state firearms transfer record for an unspecified period. Federal law requires dealers to retain their forms for a minimum of 20 years, and there are strict rules about the custody and release of those forms. I see no such restrictions under Oregon's law.

What's the concern? If I buy a gun in a private sale in Oregon, I'm filling out a form with enough information to make identity theft a trivial task, and I'm leaving it in the hands of someone who could easily lose or sell it.

So, yes--this is registration on the state level, and there's a very real problem with the way the paperwork is handled.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
The only way to enforce background checks on private transfers will be to know who had the guns before they were transferred.
Click to expand...

I know that is the system they wanted, and the system they got, but I have never understood WHY a background check system needs to know who has the gun before sale??
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
I have never understood WHY a background check system needs to know who has the gun before sale?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. This is just icing on the cake if they get away with it.

They'll probably claim it has something to do with a "loophole" involving tracing, but that doesn't wash.
 
D

doofus47

New member
For the same bad reason as every other reason for gun restrictions: to fix the past.
You can't fix the past... Just stop. It's a spoonful of madness and nothing will help it go down
Sorry, mate.
 
K

Koda94

New member
Well, it looks like that's exactly what's happening in Oregon. Background checks are done on the state level there, and their system has been amended to require the information on the seller as well as the recipient.
Click to expand...
and its worth noting that the background check law as it was passed only stated that a private sale background check be done at an FFL, said nothing about adding a seller info requirement.


to think there are still gun owners out there that dont believe its a registration scheme.
 
H

hartcreek

Moderator
It probably will have the same effect as Washingtons Law......nothing because the background checks simply will not be done. Here IN Washington ver few of them are done as the local PDs are not doing them and the state attorney general still has not developed guide lines for lisenced dealers.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
It probably will have the same effect as Washingtons Law......nothing because the background checks simply will not be done.
Click to expand...
Many sheriffs in Washington and Oregon have stated they won't enforce the checks. That may seem like good news, but it isn't.

It presents a dangerous illusion of safety. My sheriff may not be checking up on compliance now, but that doesn't mean he can't choose to start doing so at any time. He could be replaced with a sheriff who does want to bust people on it. The whole thing comes down to discretion, and "the last guy didn't enforce it" won't be much of a defense for me.
 
K

kilimanjaro

New member
Some friends in Seattle, governed by anti-gunners, are waiting for local sting operations there. Hasn't happened yet, but it will.
 
R

rickyrick

New member
If someone feels like enforcing a law, they will. There is no safety in relying on law enforcement refusing to enforce.

I'm not sure of the penalty for not complying, but if it can be a fine based cash-cow it will get enforced for sure.
 
K

Koda94

New member
there is a lot of "will not comply" sentiment here in Oregon....

the assumption is the law is too difficult to enforce, the problem with that is the difficulty goes away over time when all the pre-941 private sale guns are sold out and people do not comply when buyin/selling post-941 guns. People are also forgetting that just because the transfer went without a hitch they now posess contraband.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
The WA law is not being enforced by LEO at this time. They have stated such. The official line is they will not, until they receive direction on what is and is not a covered "transfer". The law is being challenged in court, and as of now, it appears the LEOs are keeping hands off until the dust settles.

I am seeing voluntary compliance at the gun shows. One FFL sets up and does nothing but checks, for all transfers. The buyer and seller split the cost.

It's a stupid law, based on a flawed concept, so poorly written it is difficult to tell what is, and is not a violation. But, it IS the law, until the courts say different. The process is ongoing.
 
D

dajowi

New member
The absurdity of Oregon SB 941 knows no bounds.

In regards to transferring a weapon made for the purpose of preventing imminent death or injury there is an exemption from the background check requirements. But that transfer of possession is only exempt during the time while the threat is "imminently present." The threat may be imminent only after your home is invaded, or your neighbor's wife or children have already been assaulted or murdered.

SB 941 exempts transfers of possession that occur at a shooting range, or during a hunting or target shooting event. But the exemption is only valid when both persons are in the immediate presence of the firearm.

When gun owners leave their weapons with a friend or neighbor for safekeeping, in order to obey this law, a gun owner is required to appear with their guns before a licensed gun dealer, along with their friend or neighbor to obtain a criminal background check on the friend or neighbor for each of the firearms. Furthermore. in order to take re-possession of their own firearms upon returning home the gun owner must once again appear before a licensed gun dealer with their friend or neighbor with all of the firearms to obtain another criminal background check. First offense is a Class A misdemeanor, second offense is a Class B felony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top