Oregon Sheriff Will Not Enforce Proposed Background Checks on Private Gun Sales

[Chef Ramsay]

Josephine County Sheriff Dave Daniel recently made national news as he is the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the county in which an ongoing dispute rages between local gold miners and the Bureau of Land Management. However, his recent comments about a state-level gun control proposal may present some clues as to where his loyalties lie in the local BLM mining dispute.

The Oath Keepers, a group of ex-and-current military and law enforcement professionals who have sworn to disobey orders that violate the US Constitution and who have sided with local gold miners in the dispute, also staged a protest earlier this week at the Josephine County Jail against Oregon Senate Bill 941, which would expand background checks on gun sales to include private transfers between individuals. OregonLive notes that the bill passed the Oregon Senate this week. Next up, the proposal faces a vote in the House, where it is expected to pass.

More...http://benswann.com/oregon-sheriff-says-he-will-not-enforce-proposed-background-checks-on-private-gun-sales/

[notlist3d]

If you buy a new gun places that sell it have a FFL it is going to mean instant background check.  They call in background to NICs and within 10 minutes they have a background check done for gun sales.

Now private gun sales it's common to not have background checks.  This is really is not a background check system for private individuals like there are for business.  But most are careful on sales as the gun sold would have your name registered if they ever look it up.   

So it is nothing new for private gun sales to have no background check.  And it's actually the normal/common thing.

[coolcoinz]

I wouldn't mind if the gun was registered to my name. Why should I? It's even better because if it gets stolen it will be harder for thieves to trade it.

[TheButterZone]

I wouldn't mind if the gun was registered to my name. Why should I? It's even better because if it gets stolen it will be harder for thieves to trade it.

They will just take it to a government "gun buyback" for a nice profit "no questions asked" - after committing murder, etc. with it - and there's no guarantee the government will return and not destroy it.

[Lethn]

I wouldn't mind if the gun was registered to my name. Why should I? It's even better because if it gets stolen it will be harder for thieves to trade it.

They will just take it to a government "gun buyback" for a nice profit "no questions asked" - after committing murder, etc. with it - and there's no guarantee the government will return and not destroy it.

If there's one thing I've learned lately people who try and justify these kind of systems and laws simply don't think about how badly they can be abused.

[coolcoinz]

In most countries weapons have to be registered. At least in the U.S. they aren't restricting your right to own it, just want you to take the responsibility.
As for the buyback don't they have cameras in there? I'd be afraid to drop a stolen weapon there after shooting someone.

[TheButterZone]

In most countries weapons have to be registered. At least in the U.S. they aren't restricting your right to own it, just want you to take the responsibility.
As for the buyback don't they have cameras in there? I'd be afraid to drop a stolen weapon there after shooting someone.

1) Weapon ownership is severely infringed aka restricted, so badly that violent criminals as a whole are better armed than their sober, law-abiding, mentally sound victims.
2) If there are cameras at buybacks, then it's the world's best-kept secret that prosecutions have actually resulted from them. It would defeat the purpose of the buyback (to effectively grant immunity to violent criminals and destroy as many self-defense tools as possible) if it ever leaked that they were traps.

[Chef Ramsay]

In most countries weapons have to be registered. At least in the U.S. they aren't restricting your right to own it, just want you to take the responsibility.
As for the buyback don't they have cameras in there? I'd be afraid to drop a stolen weapon there after shooting someone.

Doubtful, these buybacks are usually low pressure, no questions asked events to try and get more guns of the inner city street. They usually fetch about $75 per gun so that is tempting to all the brokeasses that live down there.

Regarding no background checks in private gun sales, there's a proposed law set on changing that and that's where this article is interesting in that this sheriff actually has the balls to not enforce it. The county sheriff is the most important elected official as they are responsible for the safety of their residents and that includes if the federal government wants to step in where they don't belong. Hence, the Oathkeepers group and their networking w/ country sheriffs.

[notlist3d]

I wouldn't mind if the gun was registered to my name. Why should I? It's even better because if it gets stolen it will be harder for thieves to trade it.

If you sell it as a private citizen to someone and it still has your name is the problem.  Lets say you sell the gun and it turns up in a crime..... it would be your name they come to first.

[notlist3d]

In most countries weapons have to be registered. At least in the U.S. they aren't restricting your right to own it, just want you to take the responsibility.
As for the buyback don't they have cameras in there? I'd be afraid to drop a stolen weapon there after shooting someone.

Doubtful, these buybacks are usually low pressure, no questions asked events to try and get more guns of the inner city street. They usually fetch about $75 per gun so that is tempting to all the brokeasses that live down there.

Regarding no background checks in private gun sales, there's a proposed law set on changing that and that's where this article is interesting in that this sheriff actually has the balls to not enforce it. The county sheriff is the most important elected official as they are responsible for the safety of their residents and that includes if the federal government wants to step in where they don't belong. Hence, the Oathkeepers group and their networking w/ country sheriffs.

As far as buybacks if it is a "legal" gun they pay no where near it's value.  It is best for getting illegal guns out of the system.   Some guns have a surprising value on them.]

I don't think they will ever have good luck making background checks on private sales in US.  I just don't see it with current political state.   I could be wrong though.

[countryfree]

Does anyone believe background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns?

This Sheriff just knows better, and sees no need in enforcing useless regulations.

[notlist3d]

Does anyone believe background checks will prevent criminals from getting guns?

This Sheriff just knows better, and sees no need in enforcing useless regulations.

Sadly if someone wants something bad enough they will probley find it.  That being said there are laws to make it harder on a criminal.  Even personal gun sales without background checks.  Would you sell a gun with your name linked to serial number if you though it as going to a criminal? I would hope everyone would be no on that.

[tvbcof]

I'm a little bit torn on the issue of background checks.

In a perfect world background checks make a lot of sense, and it hardly breaks my heart if a person who cannot pass a background check because they have a criminal record or certain psychological issues or beat their spouses or whatever cannot easily get a gun.  Functionally, at this time, the background check has never been more than a minor inconvenience to me.  I just wander around the store for a few minutes while the thing goes through.  I've bought enough shotguns to have one handy around various parts of my property which is kind of sprawling and attracts bears and tweakers.  I've got some weatherproof targets sporting some nice head-shots which even your stupidest tweaker will recognize immediately as having been created by a 12 gauge slug and I've not had a tweaker problem since I put them up, touch wood.  I did have to give a bear a bruise with a rubber slug last fall.  (BTW, I can recommend the Chinese 'pardner pump protector' which is cheap enough to be a throw-away, heavy enough to be used as a club, and of a generally acceptable design and construction.)

On the other hand, it's crystal clear that there is a propaganda blitz against firearms and it is directed toward eventually getting guns out of everyone's hands.  One might have troubles finding a house in my area where the inhabitant did NOT have some guns kicking around.  Consequently tweakers and ultra-careful to target properties when they are sure that nobody is home.  I also live in a rural county in Oregon and rely (or don't) on protection from an sheriff and his guys.  There is an average of one on-duty LAO per 1200 square miles IIRC, and very few problems with confrontational crime.  In short, guns work.  Our sheriff is also aware of this and the limitations of his resources and adversarial to the project of stripping the 2nd amendment out of the constitution.

On balance, I am against ALL further regulations on firearms no matter how common sense.  We've got a reasonable balance at this point as far as I am concerned.  I don't give two shits about high capacity magazines and fancy penis enhancing 'assault style' eye candy weaponry myself, but some people dig that shit.  A good surveillance system is a much better investment in my opinion.  To each his own though.  The theoretical gain from trying to control the 'problems' these items might create is vastly outweighed by the danger that this is just a stepping stone toward disarming everyone which it clearly is.  I'm not interested in a 'transfer of wealth' solution being implemented as criminals stealing shit from non-criminals which is exactly what would happen in my area if people lost their defensive capabilities.

[notlist3d]

On balance, I am against ALL further regulations on firearms no matter how common sense.  We've got a reasonable balance at this point as far as I am concerned.  I don't give two shits about high capacity magazines and fancy penis enhancing 'assault style' eye candy weaponry myself, but some people dig that shit.  A good surveillance system is a much better investment in my opinion.  To each his own though.  The theoretical gain from trying to control the 'problems' these items might create is vastly outweighed by the danger that this is just a stepping stone toward disarming everyone which it clearly is.  I'm not interested in a 'transfer of wealth' solution being implemented as criminals stealing shit from non-criminals which is exactly what would happen in my area if people lost their defensive capabilities.

I personaly enjoy the AR-15 style firearm.  I did a project and built my own, was a lot of fun.  Not to many gun's you can build from a kit. Yes it was legal and the lower receiver I did a background check for.

As a target shooter I enjoy this type of firearm they can be a lot of fun.  I would agree they are no good as far as hunting, or a lot of things you might do with other firearms.  But an accurate 100 yard target can be fun to do with an AR-15.

And I agree a alarm system beat's firearms.  I have a alarm system which is also nice as it protects my miners when I am not there.

[TheButterZone]

Where are these alarm systems that are even more reliable than firearms? I was unaware it was possible to make electronics infallible.

[notlist3d]

Where are these alarm systems that are even more reliable than firearms? I was unaware it was possible to make electronics infallible.

Not infallible.  But if you cut the cords it has a cellular connection and a battery...

So chances are unless you have a cellular jammer if you tamper with my system at least it's going to get a call out.   I'm not saying a firearm does not have it's place, and cant protect you.  But with my alarm it will know if someone is entering my house when I might not have heard it.

For example if you are sleeping and someone jimmys your window open on other side of house you might not know since your sleeping.  With my alarm it will send out a loud as heck alarm, and put a call to alarm company.  It is something a gun does not help with that an alarm does.

[TheButterZone]

Batteries tend to fail and affording a system to alert backup/redundant battery failures... I suppose if you have solar on your house, you've already been able to.

[notlist3d]

Batteries tend to fail and affording a system to alert backup/redundant battery failures... I suppose if you have solar on your house, you've already been able to.

No solar myself it is just to expensive compared to my electricity.  The alarm does tell if it's battery is low.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but from your comments I don't think  you have tried a modern alarm system.  And I didn't say it cannot be combined with firearms as one without a alarm might use.  I'm for both personally.

*Also I have a camera system streaming live, picking up movement.  I have upgraded some of the cameras with higher IR power and they work great even at night.