Oregon bill passes expanding background checks for gun sales
Source: AP
By SHEILA V KUMAR
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon bill expanding background checks to encompass nearly all gun sales in the state made it through the Legislature on Monday, overcoming obstacles that stymied two previous attempts to pass similar laws.
The measure now heads to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who has indicated support. Her signature would make Oregon the eighth state to require screening before firearms could be transferred between private, unrelated owners. No other states have passed such legislation this year, advocates said.
Oregon's effort is the latest after the long-running debate over gun rights intensified following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Last year, Washington state passed a ballot initiative requiring background checks on all gun sales and transfers, and Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the group has the signatures for a similar ballot initiative in Nevada.
Supporters have tried twice before to expand background checks in Oregon, saying it closes a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms online without a review. Neither attempt made it past a Senate vote, but Democrats managed to increase their majorities in both chambers after last year's election, partially because key candidates in the Senate were backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg's gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3bdd05be7cd2460c88c1e55f0bb8b0e9/oregon-bill-passes-expanding-background-checks-gun-sales
= new reply since forum marked as read
Very few states are passing gun control laws, more states are loosening their gun laws.
UBC's are a good thing, most gun owners have no problem with it.
is what will be needed to this issue.
The pre-amble of the amendment was specifically placed there for a reason, and that's were we are seeing, and what we are feeling in this country, a U.S. Supreme court twisting that fact and placing it at the end of the amendment to justifier there opinion.
When a lawsuit is filed in one of these eight states I hope we have progressive court to put this back in its place.
Well said
its about the money and always has been about the money.
I will not retire my argument, especially when my principle was shot dead, and a student was wounded 55 years ago---its about the principle to the amendment---that's what the problem is, it being undermined by the lack of principle.
And has for strict regulation, I do not agree, a private owner at a gun show, or to sell it privately does not have to ask the buyer of a gun to fill out a background check paperwork.
And again you do not have a explicit right to own a hand gun or any gun.
Heller is a joke, they again did not address the issue towards the pre-amble of the amendment: That issue has always been side stepped and every ruling as been bias and this ruling is dangerous.
I also now get the luxury of having a gun in a national park for example.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
'On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."
So have a nice day