Oregon UBC System and Datamining

**Tom Servo** · August 8, 2015, 06:48 AM

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,

Quote:

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).

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.

**44 AMP** · August 8, 2015, 10:37 AM

Quote:

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

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??

**Tom Servo** · August 8, 2015, 11:00 AM

Quote:

I have never understood WHY a background check system needs to know who has the gun before sale?

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.

doofus47 · August 9, 2015, 07:25 PM

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.

Koda94 · August 9, 2015, 11:17 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

hartcreek · August 10, 2015, 04:01 AM

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.

**Tom Servo** · August 10, 2015, 06:12 AM

Quote:

It probably will have the same effect as Washingtons Law......nothing because the background checks simply will not be done.

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.

kilimanjaro · August 10, 2015, 08:50 AM

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

rickyrick · August 10, 2015, 09:32 AM

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.

Koda94 · August 10, 2015, 10:22 AM

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.

**44 AMP** · August 10, 2015, 12:14 PM

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.

dajowi · August 19, 2015, 10:10 PM

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.

Koda94 · August 20, 2015, 12:25 AM

there is a recall campaing over this... recallflloydprozanski.com
the guy who proposed the law...

dajowi · September 21, 2015, 08:55 PM

The recall effort failed.

Koda94 · September 21, 2015, 09:45 PM

yeah, pretty sad. We submitted over 10000 signatures where only 8415 were required. The Secretary of State (anti gun) did the counting and said we were short by 200 something votes...

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/kate-b...all-signatures

kilimanjaro · September 22, 2015, 12:15 AM

Looks a recount is in order.

rickyrick · September 22, 2015, 08:20 AM

The two pro-gun west coast states are merely a testing ground for future concepts in other parts of the country.

August 9, 2015, 07:25 PM	#4
doofus47 Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2010 Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent Posts: 2,483	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. __________________ I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.

August 10, 2015, 09:32 AM	#9
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	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. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

August 10, 2015, 10:22 AM	#10
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	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. __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

August 10, 2015, 12:14 PM	#11
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	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. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

August 20, 2015, 12:25 AM	#13
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	there is a recall campaing over this... recallflloydprozanski.com the guy who proposed the law... __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

August 10, 2015, 04:01 AM	#6
hartcreek Junior member Join Date: April 22, 2014 Location: Washington Posts: 1,549	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.

August 10, 2015, 08:50 AM	#8
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Some friends in Seattle, governed by anti-gunners, are waiting for local sting operations there. Hasn't happened yet, but it will.

August 19, 2015, 10:10 PM	#12
dajowi Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 1,196	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.

September 21, 2015, 08:55 PM	#14
dajowi Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 1,196	The recall effort failed.

September 21, 2015, 09:45 PM	#15
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	yeah, pretty sad. We submitted over 10000 signatures where only 8415 were required. The Secretary of State (anti gun) did the counting and said we were short by 200 something votes... http://www.oregonfirearms.org/kate-b...all-signatures __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

September 22, 2015, 12:15 AM	#16
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Looks a recount is in order.

September 22, 2015, 08:20 AM	#17
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	The two pro-gun west coast states are merely a testing ground for future concepts in other parts of the country. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!