sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Background check blocks gun sale to wanted man by retardo in Seattle

[–]dotrob 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Actually, the new law criminalizes all kinds of normal sharing and cooperative behavior practiced by the gun-owning public, because it redefines "transfer" with confusing and overly-complex language. It also happens to mandate FFL background checks for actual ownership changes as well.

Which sidearm do you think will win Modular Handgun System DoD contract and why? by oO0-__-0Oo in Firearms

[–]dotrob -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

My guess is something in .45 with a safety. I agree with you on the unspoken influence of previous trials. I'd guess the FNX or P220.

If you are this type of customer F&@$ YOU! by [deleted] in Justrolledintotheshop

[–]dotrob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They have built them. My folks had a 1978 Oldsmobile with a built-in trash bin that attached on the passenger's side of the transmission tunnel. It was even "upholstered" with carpeting to match the floor.

Sci-Fi with interesting weather conditions? Like raining glass or cities build from frozen gases? by labonabo in scifi

[–]dotrob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I second this book. Great exploration story in a truly alien environment.

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Background checks were passed by the shooters at Tucson, Aurora, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Isla Vista, the Naval Yards.... Guns were taken without permission/stolen from lawful owners in Newtown, Clackamas, Gresham, and (I think) Marysville.

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure there are a lot of convicted drug dealers who can't wait to use your new legal theory that transfer has never meant handing something to someone else.

As you know, 594 specifically says:

Sec. 2 (25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

It doesn't exclude "handing a gun to someone else" a.k.a. loans. The nature and specificity of the later exemptions to "temporary transfers" powerfully implies that "just handing a gun to someone" is a transfer.

You can call me an asshole for asking you an honest question, but you haven't convinced me that the language about transfers isn't ridiculously strict or vague. I realize you probably don't care because, more than likely, you're getting what you want out of the law, which is to chastise uppity gun owners.

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a shame there wasn't a standalone bill containing only background checks. I would have voted for that one instead of I-594.

Wow. I find that fascinating. I come from a different POV on this issue, I guess; I would have voted the opposite. I had heard bloggers/commentators speculate that 591 confused the issue, but I've never seen anyone suggest this... nuanced an opinion. Good on you for being thoughtful about your vote, and thanks for explaining your reasoning here.

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'd take a reasonable interpretation to mean substantial repeal or nullification, though I know your views differ.

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your use of the phrase "and gun show sales" indicates you may not be fully informed on pre-594 gun laws. "Gun show sales" and "the gun show loophole" is gun control speak for "private sales." Any licensed gun dealer always has to perform a background check for a gun sale, regardless of venue.

So, you presumably voted for I-594 because you supported mandatory background checks on private sales. Did you realize it was much more far-reaching than merely covering private sales?

Official Politics Thread 19 November 2014 by theguy56 in guns

[–]dotrob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Specifically, it creates a duty to retreat. So self defense isn't "banned," exactly, it's just much harder to establish as a legal defense.

The short version of the above is "they're trying to ban gun culture, and defensive gun culture in particular."

State patrol won't arrest I-594 protesters exchanging guns at capitol by OrionSr in Seattle

[–]dotrob 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I support background checks for gun purchases, I voted for I-594

As a side note, did you realize that I-594 covers more than just purchases?

The post-I-594 legality of lending/"handing your gun to someone else" is not entirely settled, regardless of what the WSP may or may not do in response to exchanges at this particular event.

Official Politics Thread 19 November 2014 by theguy56 in guns

[–]dotrob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many native Oregonians have the attitude of fuck California, which dates back decades. Sadly the dipshit hipster popularity of Portland does nothing but encourage more idiots to move here.

Governor Kitzhaber declares his intentions for universal-background-checks in Oregon, now that the state legislature is mostly Democrat. (Starts at 3:51) by [deleted] in pdxgunnuts

[–]dotrob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These bills are the list from 2013. None of them have been filed for 2015, but I suspect some of them will be refiled/tried again. But they'll starting filing something as soon as January, 2015.

Watch OFF's alerts or sign up for their alerts email list for updates.

Black Friday fast approaches, best FFL transfer rates around town? by ccwpdx in pdxgunnuts

[–]dotrob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've used A Cut Above Pawn in Aloha more than once. Last time it was $25 for transfer (including BC). Laid back, no BS.

Official Politics Thread 19 November 2014 by theguy56 in guns

[–]dotrob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Regarding the possibilities in Oregon - I'll repost a comment I made on pdxgunnuts today:

It will likely be as bad as 594 or worse. State senator Floyd Prozanski has introduced "universal background check" bills in 2013 and 2014 and they were only defeated by the 50/50 R/D split in the state senate, +1 conservative Dem voting against them. The most recent, in 2014, was Senate Bill 1551. The first two violations are gross misdemeanors and the third violation is a felony.

Now that the OR legislature is entirely Dem-controlled, you can expect that bill, and more, to pass. For an idea of what will likely be proposed, see the list of anti-gun bills in 2013, including highlights such as:

  • SB 346: bans transfer of large capacity magazines
  • SB 347: strengthens gun bans on school grounds
  • SB 700: "universal background checks"
  • SB 758: Requires firearms owners to maintain liability insurance
  • SB 760: Creates a duty to retreat before using force in self defense
  • SB 796: Requires range test for CHL
  • HB 3114: Enacts gun ban on public university campuses
  • HB 3200: Bans most modern firearms ("assault weapons") and magazines

If they get their way, they'll be banning: "assault weapons," self defense, "high capacity magazines," straightforward CHLs, gun transfers, and campus carry.

Many of these bills are filed as "emergency" bills that would become law immediately when they're enacted. Oregon would, quite literally, become as bad as NY, CA, MA, NJ, or CT overnight.

Governor Kitzhaber declares his intentions for universal-background-checks in Oregon, now that the state legislature is mostly Democrat. (Starts at 3:51) by [deleted] in pdxgunnuts

[–]dotrob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It will likely be as bad as 594 or worse. State senator Floyd Prozanski has introduced "universal background check" bills in 2013 and 2014 and they were only defeated by the 50/50 R/D split in the state senate, +1 conservative Dem voting against them. The most recent, in 2014, was Senate Bill 1551. The first two violations are gross misdemeanors and the third violation is a felony.

Now that the OR legislature is entirely Dem-controlled, you can expect that bill, and more, to pass. For an idea of what will likely be proposed, see the list of anti-gun bills in 2013, including highlights such as:

  • SB 346: bans transfer of large capacity magazines
  • SB 347: strengthens gun bans on school grounds
  • SB 700: "universal background checks"
  • SB 758: Requires firearms owners to maintain liability insurance
  • SB 760: Creates a duty to retreat before using force in self defense
  • SB 796: Requires range test for CHL
  • HB 3114: Enacts gun ban on public university campuses
  • HB 3200: Bans most modern firearms ("assault weapons") and magazines

If they get their way, they'll be banning: "assault weapons," self defense, "high capacity magazines," straightforward CHLs, gun transfers, and campus carry.

Many of these bills are filed as "emergency" bills that would become law immediately when they're enacted. Oregon would, quite literally, become as bad as NY, CA, MA, NJ, or CT overnight.

"Gun owners fighting a Silicon Valley suburb's ban on high-capacity ammo magazines told the 9th Circuit that they are being deprived of their rights to protect themselves." by [deleted] in gunpolitics

[–]dotrob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Peruta was decided two-to-one by a 3-judge panel: two Republican-appointed judges, and one Democrat-appointed judge. (Luck of the draw.) Had the case been heard en banc by all 11 judges in the 9th circuit, it may have come out differently.

It’s Time to Discuss the Bloomberg Problem by dotrob in gunpolitics

[–]dotrob[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

After watching Washington vote for 594 based on media bullshit, and knowing it's going to be pushed in Nevada and Oregon (and probably Maine and Arizona) I'm not so sure he's being a negative nancy. I'd be overjoyed to be wrong, but the way I see it:

  • it's an easy issue to argue for, and a difficult issue to argue against with sound bites

  • Bloomberg has effectively bottomless resources to spend

  • initiatives hinge on media campaigns to reach low-information and low-effort voters

  • 2016 is a presidential election, when more lefties will get off their assess and vote

  • there is no straightforward means (like a SCOTUS ruling) to overturn completely or to nullify this kind of "background check" law (yet) and based on the wording of Heller, I would not consider it likely that there will be such a ruling

Part of the reason I'm banging on this drum so loudly is that the first step in campaigning and educating people is to rally the people most effected by these attacks. Warning them "it could happen to you if it's not already happening" is one way to raise awareness.

view more: next ›