"The bill would require background checks on private, or person-to-person, gun sales, in addition to the already-mandated checks for sales at federally licensed dealers or at gun shows."

Really at gun shows.??? Funny that's not what the bill says
"The laws of Oregon regulating the sale of firearms contain a loophole that allows people other than gun dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without first conducting criminal background checks; "Prior to transferring a firearm at a gun show, a transferor [other than] who is not a gun dealer may request by telephone that the department conduct a criminal background check on the Recipient"

.... MAY request.... They don't have to if they don't want to.
So did this bill just make it easier for people that is not a gun dealer to go to gun shows and sell their guns without background checks if they choose not to get one done???

Ditto another infringement!

Is this not an infringement on our right to bear arms?

No, it is not. This is doing the exact same background check on private sales that has been required for decades for sales by a gun shop.

I say, let's regulate our right to arm bears!

I regulate mine just fine, thank you.

You have no right to tell me when I can bare my arms.

If I understand the current law - a person can be released from jail and placed on parole for murder and buy as many guns as he likes without any oversight. Who thinks this is a good idea?

There are a few ways to think about governance. Mainly by way of assuming either innocence until proven guilty or guilt until proven innocent. One of which has been used as justification for wiretapping, NSA mass survelliance, the patriot act, NDAA, and universal background checks. I would put forward that there are two types of people in this world, those who care about their community and those who don't. I would hope you agree that those who care about the law and community around them don't actively seek to offend either. But some people don't care about the community or the law and are fine disregarding them. These people will always exist regardless of whether every word you type and every dollar you spend is logged.

what is more effective than mass survelliance or namely, universal background checks is being an active member of your community. Making sure you know your neighbors so those who don't care about your community cant take advantage of your ignorance.

But who am I to say. Personal responsibility for the community at large will always fall way to empty promises of protection.

I don't think you understand. Parole? You mean he served time, convicted for murder now on parole? No the Law now says he can not legally buy a gun. Any one selling him a gun is breaking the Law as he is a convicted felon on parole.
He can however buy a stolen gun or steal one no matter how many gun laws the Nanny State Dems pass. He will get a gun if he wants it, just like in Democrat controlled Chicago where the honest law abiding citizens are left defenseless against the lawless gangs that have taken over there. Despite really strict gun Laws!
Murder Suspect out on bail? If he really committed murder, again do you think a law will stop him? Try and use some logic.
If he's innocent do you think the govt. should seize his property on shaky evidence that wasn't solid enough to keep him in jail?
What kind of Orwellian Police State are you willing to put up with for a little false sense of security? What kind of future are you trying to set up for your kids?

Oh, I understand it now - we take the murderer at his word when he denies having a criminal record because he was rehabilitated by the prison system and would never lie? Wait that makes as much sense as leaving guns loaded in your toddlers toy bin

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Benjamin Franklin

"The problem with quotes you find on the internet, is that most of them are wrong."

Abraham Lincoln

Sorry, I just got it !

Peace V.

Was that a quote? I know that "Abraham Lincoln" Is no Benjamin Franklin. Please clarify.

Peace V.

Then by all means show me the correct quote.

He cant. did you notice his quote from Abraham Lincoln lol "The problem with quotes you find on the INTERNET"

It other words he is making a pathetic joke out of the quote from Benjamin Franklin.
The actual quote is “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
The shortened version is what you quoted "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

I guess you don't believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, right?

I guess you don't understand that a conviction follows proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we to accept the say so of convicted murderers that they are lawfully entitled to buy your gun in the McDonalds' parking lot?

If your current post has not been modified then I misread it. But of course current law forbids all felons from buying guns forever.

One more time Bill Brennan. We ALREADY have Laws against that. A Convict is breaking the Law again when he buys a Firearm or even tries to.
A person who sells a Firearm to a Convict is breaking the Law we have now as well!
The new useless Law they are trying to pass makes it a crime to sell, trade, lend or borrow a firearm between two citizens that are legally allowed to and usually already own firearms until you get a permission slip from Big Brother. Oh yeah, there's a fee for that and record keeping takes place. And the Background Check takes a minimum of 35 minutes and as much as an hour and a half in my experience. Others have waited many days. With the huge increase in Background Checks due to this "feel Good Law" things will only get much worse.
Your hypothetical murder convict/suspect??? He will get a stolen/hot gun much quicker off some street thug in an alley than the hassles my neighbor and me will have to go through to trade his old shotgun for my old .22 bolt action.
Do you understand now why this Bill is stupid?

"Others have waited many days."
Really, days ?? LOL have you read the bill? that can't happen anymore because of this bill. they just created another loophole.

"If the department FAILS to provide a unique approval number
to a gun dealer or to notify the gun dealer that the purchaser is
disqualified under paragraph (a) of this subsection BEFORE the close of the gun dealer’s next business day following the request by the dealer for a criminal history record check, the DEALER may deliver the handgun to the purchaser."

Explain why someone who is already planning on breaking the law would be adverse to breaking this law.

They are not adverse to breaking this law - that said a responsible gun owner does not want to sell a weapon to a convicted murderer and this law would require that the potential purchaser be screened for criminal convictions, in other words it closes a path to acquisition for criminals. As of now a law abiding citizen breaks no law selling a gun to someone he believes lacks a record. Under this law a law abiding citizen will be unable to sell a weapon to convicted murderers.

This is correct. Under current law a private seller is only breaking the law if that seller knowingly sells to a prohibited person. If the seller asks "Can you legally buy this gun" and the prohibited person says "Yes", the seller has not broken any law.

If SB 941 passes criminals will still try to buy guns. However, they will have to seek out other criminals willing to knowingly break the law. The legal private gun market will be closed to people prohibited from owning guns.

A feature (and it's a central feature) in SB941 I find objectionable is the requirement for both the "transferer" and the "transferee"....the seller and the buyer in a private sale, to go together to a federally licensed firearms dealer to complete the background check. Surely, the State could have devised a less cumbersome method to implement the background check. Under this restriction, they would have to meet at a dealers to complete the check. This could mean considerable travel and time for both parties. It, likely, would mean few firearm transfers could occur on Sundays when most dealers are closed. It would, in sum, serve to discourage the very procedure it intends to promote. That is, of course, a background check to stop sales to prohibited persons...primarily persons with felony convictions, persons identified as "dangerous"....usually a reference to court issued restraining orders relating to domestic violence, ...and the mentally ill. I would think, if this is the intent of the Bill, our legislators would work to make it easy to make those background checks, not difficult. I'd be interested in hearing from any of the sponsors of the bill on this issue. How about it, Floyd and Val.......an answer addressing this issue would be appreciated..you could provide it right here on this site. Thanks, Gary

SB 941 is a gross misuse of Oregonians taxpayer dollars, we can't justify reaching even deeper into the pockets of hard working Oregonians to fund the outrageous language of SB 941, to be responsible stewards of the purse you must enforce the laws that are currently on the books that forbid felons and those with criminal intent from possessing firearms. Without enforcing laws currently on the books there is no justification for expanding them especially when all reliable statistics show background checks on private sales are not the issue here. In all recent public shootings the murderers have either stolen the firearm from a friend or family, or they've bought the firearm from a licensed dealer PASSING a background check because up to that breaking point they have had a clean record. Passing this horrible piece of legislation will not attract the criminal element into suddenly following the law, it would incriminate them, why would a criminal sign a paper notifying the federal & state government that they are attempting to obtain a firearm illegal for them to possess, of course they won't. Can you name one mass killing where the murderer bought a firearm from a private sale and turned around and used it in the killing? Of course not because every single time they've either stolen it, or bought it legally because typically those murderers are mentally ill with a clean record until their illness gets so severe they finally snap. Please understand SB 941 is far off base and is an over reach into our privacy, our limited resources are already spread thin and I know mental health is an area our funds would be better spent. Many thousands of Oregonians enjoy their 2nd amendment freedoms daily without injury to others, please don't let the actions of so few strip so many of the freedoms our forefathers and foremothers worked so tirelessly to gain, please say NO to SB 941 Oregonians can see it for what it is, the bloomberg backed scheme to reach deeper and deeper into our pockets to line theirs. It's already illegal to sell a firearm to a felon, it's already illegal to intentionally buy a firearm for a felon, let's enforce the laws we currently have on the books before we blow more taxpayer dollars down the trash. It's not a "loophole" it's called "freedom" and private sales are not the problem here, you want to stop crime, teach the criminal to fear his victim, how do you do that? Teach the victim to protect themselves with a firearm, it's high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and let the criminal start worrying about society. And by "society" I mean YOU.

"why would a criminal sign a paper notifying the federal & state government that they are attempting to obtain a firearm illegal for them to possess"

More than 1 million criminals have in fact submitted to background checks, and been stopped from purchasing a firearm as a result: http://www.bjs.gov/content/...

As a firearm owner and avid hunter (was in the woods turkey hunting this morning, in fact), I support background checks for all firearm purchases. Making it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms, while not significantly burdening me when I want to make my next firearm purchase, is a common sense way to make our communities safer.

-John Aitchison

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is about revolution.

I highly doubt you even own a firearm.

Given that I use my real name rather than hide behind anonymous pseudonyms like most, feel free to find me on facebook; send me a message and I'll be more than happy to take you hunting this weekend and explain why I think it's a good idea to make it harder for felons in our community to purchase firearms.

Using your real name does not mean your logic is any less flawed.

You did not comment on the logic, or lack thereof, of my argument; you made a comment doubting the fact that I've been a firearm user/owner and hunter for more than 2 decades. Again feel free to contact me if you're interested in walking the walk instead of just talking the talk behind an anonymous pseudonym, I'll be more than happy to further explain my arguments in regards to background checks for gun purchases. My strong guess though is that I won't be getting any messages from the real you.

I have a Red Rider. Can I be a Second Amendment gun nut, too?

Just remember one thing my simple civilian, the 2nd guarantees the 1st.

SB 941 is a gross misuse of Oregonians taxpayer dollars, we can't justify reaching even deeper into the pockets of hard working Oregonians to fund the outrageous language of SB 941, to be responsible stewards of the purse you must enforce the laws that are currently on the books that forbid felons and those with criminal intent from possessing firearms. Without enforcing laws currently on the books there is no justification for expanding them especially when all reliable statistics show background checks on private sales are not the issue here. In all recent public shootings the murderers have either stolen the firearm from a friend or family, or they've bought the firearm from a licensed dealer PASSING a background check because up to that breaking point they have had a clean record. Passing this horrible piece of legislation will not attract the criminal element into suddenly following the law, it would incriminate them, why would a criminal sign a paper notifying the federal & state government that they are attempting to obtain a firearm illegal for them to possess, of course they won't. Can you name one mass killing where the murderer bought a firearm from a private sale and turned around and used it in the killing? Of course not because every single time they've either stolen it, or bought it legally because typically those murderers are mentally ill with a clean record until their illness gets so severe they finally snap. Please understand SB 941 is far off base and is an over reach into our privacy, our limited resources are already spread thin and I know mental health is an area our funds would be better spent. Many thousands of Oregonians enjoy their 2nd amendment freedoms daily without injury to others, please don't let the actions of so few strip so many of the freedoms our forefathers and foremothers worked so tirelessly to gain, please say NO to SB 941 Oregonians can see it for what it is, the bloomberg backed scheme to reach deeper and deeper into our pockets to line theirs. It's already illegal to sell a firearm to a felon, it's already illegal to intentionally buy a firearm for a felon, let's enforce the laws we currently have on the books before we blow more taxpayer dollars down the trash. It's not a "loophole" it's called "freedom" and private sales are not the problem here, you want to stop crime, teach the criminal to fear his victim, how do you do that? Teach the victim to protect themselves with a firearm, it's high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and let the criminal start worrying about society. And by "society" I mean YOU.

Well regulated, like an accurate mechanical time piece of that time period JJP58, They wanted Civilians to be Highly practiced, accurate, "well regulated" with firearms. Not regulated like another Nanny State Restriction. This Law is another infringement on the 2nd A.

No, the proponents of this bill want the right to keep and bear arms to be "well regulated". Your notion is wishful thinking.

Exactly, the term "well-regulated" does not refer to government regulation. You have to be completely ignorant of the purpose of the second amendment to believe that "well-regulated" means federal government regulation. Well-regulated basically means "well-trained," or "well-supplied."

Even Alexander Hamilton, probably my most hated figure in American history, followed closely by Abraham Lincoln, shed light on this term in the Federalist #29:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia."

How in any way is a federal document, the US Constitution, not referring to government regulation? Your blather does not disguise the fact that you speak like a fool.

No. "Well regulated" actually was intended to mean that every single person was required to carry a firearm openly. This is a well known historical fact I heard from Hannity.
*****
The problem, he explained, was that the framers of the Constitution were also idiots, much as the "Second Amendment" crowd is today. Their writing skills were utterly atrocious.
*****
I think the gun runners need to do more to force more guns into more hands. That's what they will do, after all, if they are true "Patriots."

Oh, well if it's from Hannity then I guess it's ok. Ha ha ha.

I just wish I could vote to recall her. This corrupt gasbag is involved in the Cover Oregon, Oregon Health Plan fiasco's, up to her eyeballs. I would imagine she is the target of federal investigators, too. The whole reason she is supporting SB941 is because if the hogs trough of money Bloomberg and those Wall Street Vulture funds laid out. A corrupt cretin that begs for retirement.

Well, someday they might allow felons to vote again.

Must watch:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Really.

There is little hard evidence in the US to show that the proposed legislation, or
gun control generally, would actually reduce gun-related violent crime.

There is a great deal of evidence and history proving that in the US, markets, not
legislators, define supply channels. How did Prohibition work out? How about removing pseudoephedrine-based cold medication from the shelves to stop meth, or the war on drugs generally for that matter?

Criminals can make their own guns, they can print them, they can buy them illegally, they can import them with impunity. We can delude ourselves into believing that we are controlling guns, but as long as we allow violent criminals to wander free, we will have violent crime. It's that simple.

In 2013, the percent deaths when a person chose to use a gun in Oregon are (Oregon Health Authority and CDC data):
Suicides with a gun ~84.2% (rising trend over last decade)
Homicides with a gun: ~11.7% (decreasing trend over last two decades)
Remaining ~4% are accidents, justifiable homicides

National gun-homicides are down over 49%, although 77% of the public believes it is worse, or the same (PEW research: "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware")

What about comparing Oregon to "states with background checks"?
(using CDC data from 2008-2012, same analysis that Everytown gun-control lobby uses)
Oregon gun-homicide: 1.4 per 100k residents
"States w/ background checks: 3.7 per 100k residents
Why again are we trying to become more like "states with background checks" when they are more dangerous examples to follow?

SB941 for background checks was rushed and passed on near partisan lines, based on a promise of fighting crime.
SB793, a bill to improve mental health services (i.e. suicides) in Oregon, was voted down on partisan lines.
Bloomberg gave ~$600,000 to the majority party this last election cycle to support gun control. But nothing for mental health services. Is the majority party that Rep. Val Hoyle is leading really acting in the public's best interests?

"Gunrunners" indeed! A lot of very strange priorities surfacing here. Apparently, nothing is more important to a lot of people than their guns! I don't know anybody like that, and my whole family has hunted for generations. My brothers tell me that background checks won't hurt them or other sportsmen (an not a few women) at all, nor will it be any more inconvenience than registering and insuring their automobiles. I can only think that a minority of our population is extremely paranoid, and extremely noisy about their paranoia. Such people apparently want a free market in firearms traffic; well, that is a very bad idea, and society has an obligation to itself to regulate the firearms market. In fact, the word "regulated" is put into the 2nd Amendment for on obvious reason; it qualifies the right to keep and bear arms to a "well regulated" right, in other words, a conditional right, and one of the conditions that is completely in accord with the Constitution is regulating who may possess a firearm. Certainly criminals, former criminals, and mentally impaired people should be excluded, and the only way to do that apart from confiscation after the fact of a crime, is to deny sales to persons judged unfit to possess a firearm. This is simple, this is logical, this is entirely common sense, this is what is needed.

JJ,
How do you reconcile the Oregon Constitution Article I Section 27?

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

No mention to of "well regulated" there...

Jay. "Defence" is an archaic but correct spelling, and it tips you off that this Article was written in the century before last. "Well regulated" appears in the US Constitution which, you must know, supercedes all state constitutions.