(OR) Measure 5(loophole bill) : What it would do

Oatka

New member
Loophole Bill

Measure 5 would close the "gun-show loophole," requiring criminal history background checks on all gun sales at events where more than 25 guns are for sale.

Under current law, private sellers and collectors at Oregon's 160 gun shows are not required to run background checks on people buying firearms. Only federally licensed dealers must run the checks.

Measure 5 expands background checks of gun buyers by incorporating private sales at gun shows. It also brings sales of rifles and shotguns into the state-run system from the federal system, requiring a new $10 fee for background checks on long guns. It would set up a telephone system that private citizens selling a gun could call to request a criminal background check on the buyer.

Who's behind it
Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Noelle and Jackson County Sheriff Robert Kennedy are the main sponsors.

Financial effect
It would have no financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues. The $10 fee paid by the gun buyer would pay for the background check system.

Background
Measure 5 was born out of a heated political fight in the 1999 Legislature, which saw scores of firearms-related bills introduced in the wake of school shootings across the country, including the 1998 shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield.

A bill focusing on background checks at gun shows failed by one vote in the session's waning days, despite a long-negotiated compromise with moderate gun-rights advocates.

Although similar to the legislative attempt, Measure 5 does not include relaxed rules on record retention and concealed handgun permits, compromises that legislators had worked out with the gun lobby in 1999 in exchange for their support of the bill.

This spring, Oregon Gun Owners tried to win support for a competing ballot measure that included stiffer penalties for people who use guns in crimes and which would have eliminated police retention of records detailing gun purchases, but that effort failed.

Arguments

Pro
Advocates say the measure is needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and underage buyers. They say guns shows are prime places for felons to buy guns because they can buy from unlicensed collectors without a background check.

"This is a dangerous loophole," Burdick said. "It's so easy for criminals and juveniles to get around the background checks." She said the proposal does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners and does not prevent them from acquiring guns.

Contacts: Stop Gun Violence: 503-299-6442, www.helpstopgunviolence.com

Con
Oregon's most prominent gun groups oppose Measure 5 because they think it would do little to reduce gun violence, places more burden and cost on law-abiding citizens, expands the police's retention of records on rifles and shotguns from six months to five years and doesn't increase penalties for felons who try to buy a gun.

"It's a waste of time, energy and money to identify criminals if you're not going to prosecute them," said John Hellen, a state lobbyist for Oregon Gun Owners. "There's no tangible evidence that this is going to do any good."

Contacts: Oregon Gun Owners: 503-585-4492, www.ogo.org/voteagainst5
Oregon Firearms Federation: 503-263-5830, www.oregonfirearms.org

Copyright 2000 Oregon Live.
 
This is almost *exactly* the same as Ammendment 22 which is up for vote here in Colorado! And... When the money is followed back it's backed by exactly the same people! (And the `history' ala the state `gummit' is also almost exactly the same, too!) AARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!



------------------
Doleo ergo sum,
-HALFPINT-
 
There are two problems with Measure 5, that if it passes will come back and haunt us another day. First it will give the grabbers momentum, which will encourage them to come back with another measure that is even bolder in the future. Second, background checks stay with the state police for up to 5 years for all purchases.

The only positive note is that we would no longer use NICS, it would all be done by the state. Which would mean, no more delays for rifle purchases.

Another positive would be that the state legislature, being extremely pro gun, would possible rewrite the measure. Which would maybe delete some of the more objectionable language.

Robert

[This message has been edited by Robert the41MagFan (edited October 01, 2000).]
 
One of the things that I've heard about 5 is that it really isn't going to be pushed due to the so called "loophole". The anti's here want ALL private sales, at gun shows or in your home, to go through this system. If you give a gun to an uncle, your mom, or a friend, they want to you HAVE to go through this system. Right now, the fee is $10 but I've also heard rumors that the local mmm wants the fee to go upwards of $500 per or more. This is just a step. They want 1) high fees, 2) One gun a month, 3) limitation on ammo sales and holdings to 200 per month, per caliber, and 4) more laws to hinder all people from being able to own/buy guns including registration (not only by state but by fed), licenses (for guns (all types) and ammo sales / holdings.

Unfortunatly, unlike Idaho, Oregon actually views kalifornia as a "peer" to follow. They (Oregon) doesn't pay much attention to the real free States around them (mostly Idaho) but only pays attention to the most socialist / communist state in CONUS.

G-d help us all.

USP45usp
 
Back
Top