OR Registration is here. That Was Fast!

BigStick · May 5, 2015

Background check bill passed by House. No more loanong/borrowing guns without getting permission from the master and paying your fee.
Oregon lawmakers advance expanded background check bill | Fox News

How many people do you think will obey this new law?

RK600 · May 8, 2015

Oddly enough, a concealed carry license reciprocity bill has made it's way out of the Senate and into the House. A bit of irony, no?

sunofnun · May 8, 2015

Assholes..

Fast Eddie · May 9, 2015

RK600 said:
Oddly enough, a concealed carry license reciprocity bill has made it's way out of the Senate and into the House. A bit of irony, no?

The sad irony here is they will not be offering reciprocity with Washington, only with states that have the same qualifications as Oregon.

BigStick · May 12, 2015

I saw that one too and was excited until I read it. It's great how the reciprocity bill won't grant reciprocity with half of the neighboring states.

frotz · May 15, 2015

Does anyone have any information on legal challenges to this?

Grnrngr · May 27, 2015

You must have missed the part where it says loans for hunting or at the range are exempt? As are loans/sales between family members.
But it's a useless law, online sales NOT thru an FFL have always been illegal, ALL FFL holders at All gun shows run background checks and are usually not willing to risk that license for one sale, the only remaining "loophole" are individual sellers, guys walking around at a show, or possibly running an ad in a forum, meeting another forum member for a face to face sale. How can that possibly be controlled? Obviously we can eliminate walk arounds at shows, but if I know you, and you know me, and one of us sells the other a gun, who would know? Maybe if the purchaser committed a crime that was eventually traced back to the seller, but as unlikely as it would be for me to sell a gun, it would be even more unlikely for me to sell one that would possibly end up in a crime. And who would be able to prove whether the sale took place before or after the law was passed?

RK600 · May 27, 2015

Grnrngr said:
You must have missed the part where it says loans for hunting or at the range are exempt? As are loans/sales between family members.
But it's a useless law, online sales NOT thru an FFL have always been illegal, ALL FFL holders at All gun shows run background checks and are usually not willing to risk that license for one sale, the only remaining "loophole" are individual sellers, guys walking around at a show, or possibly running an ad in a forum, meeting another forum member for a face to face sale. How can that possibly be controlled? Obviously we can eliminate walk arounds at shows, but if I know you, and you know me, and one of us sells the other a gun, who would know? Maybe if the purchaser committed a crime that was eventually traced back to the seller, but as unlikely as it would be for me to sell a gun, it would be even more unlikely for me to sell one that would possibly end up in a crime. And who would be able to prove whether the sale took place before or after the law was passed?

This is exactly why the laws in Oregon and Washington will do nothing to stop gun crime. Absolutely nothing. Black market firearms will always remain black market firearms....do you really think gang members are going to BG their buddy to sell him a pistol? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! :rofl::lol:

Grnrngr · May 30, 2015

Gangsta wouldn't be a gangsta if his gat's legit..

fuhr52 · Jun 2, 2015

The politicians supporting SB941 freely admitted this law would do little to nothing to curb gun violence and crime. So why push for it? Bloomberg money and the warm and fuzzy feeling liberals get from doing something.

gimpy · Oct 13, 2015

Registration?

I thought (pretty sure) the law requires a background check. It's not about registration. It doesn't require all your guns to be registered.

Spooler41 · Jan 19, 2016

This sounds like the Washington I-594 farce. It's been in force for more than a year
and has yet to be tested in the courts. Even more surprising the AG's office has had
no record of any enforcement actions, same goes for all law enforcement agency's
within the state also. I find it highly unlikely that there have been zero transgressions
or violations of I-594. This needs to see the light of day, but no one will do a thing
to clarify this situation once and for all.

........................ Jack

BigStick · Feb 3, 2016

You are right about I-594. And the SAF tried to challenge it in court, but were deemed to not have standing, because no one has even been charged under the law. So the unconstitutional law stands. I still can't get my head around how that works.

RK600 · Feb 3, 2016

BigStick said:
You are right about I-594. And the SAF tried to challenge it in court, but were deemed to not have standing, because no one has even been charged under the law. So the unconstitutional law stands. I still can't get my head around how that works.

It's pretty pointless if the laws on the books are never enforced.....like the 88,000 falsified background checks in 2012 and only 44 were prosecuted. I've always said they need to enforce reasonable laws instead of writing new ones.

frotz · Feb 5, 2016

BigStick said:
You are right about I-594. And the SAF tried to challenge it in court, but were deemed to not have standing, because no one has even been charged under the law. So the unconstitutional law stands. I still can't get my head around how that works.

I have a big problem with the notion that one must violate a law before one can have standing to challenge its legitimacy.

BigStick · Feb 22, 2016

Totally agree. It just seems wrong.

Josey Wales · Nov 2, 2020

BigStick said:
So the unconstitutional law stands.

OR Registration is here. That Was Fast!

Similiar Discussions