To fight gun crime in Oregon, Ginny Burdick heads to Washington

When you buy a gun at a store, they'll ask you to show ID - and make sure you're not a violent felon before handing over the gun. But when it comes to gun shows in many states, the rules are much looser - allowing criminals to get guns more easily.

In Oregon, that changed in the year 2000. Over 60% of Oregonians (in nearly every part of the state) voted YES on Measure 5.

But in Washington, the "gun show loophole" continues today. Last week, State Senator Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) traveled to Olympia, and testified before a Senate committee for SB 5197 - a bill modeled on Oregon's Measure 5.

From the Spokesman-Review:

The bill would make buying a firearm at a gun show much like buying one at a sporting goods store. For a rifle or shotgun, the person would have to undergo an online background check before the gun is sold. For a pistol, there’s also a five-day waiting period.

“The only ID you need here (at gun shows) is cash,” said Tom. “That isn’t how we want guns sold in Washington State.”

“This is all about crime prevention for me. It’s not about a grudge against guns or gun owners,” said Oregon state Sen. Ginny Burdick, a Portland Democrat who seven years ago spearheaded a ballot measure to require the gun-show checks in Oregon. It passed with 62 percent of the vote.

Video of Senator Burdick's testimony is here. (Fast-forward to 38:00 for her comments.)

During a Q&A period (at 51:30), Senator Burdick was asked by the committee chair, Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle), about the impact on Oregonians of Washington's failure to pass a gun-show background-check law:

Kohl-Welles: I'm wondering about the effect in Oregon of Oregonians being able to go to Washington and purchase guns at gun shows - who may have a criminal record - and take the guns back to Oregon.

Burdick: We are very concerned about that in Portland. I certainly am, because we have gun shows right across the river in Vancouver.

Additional coverage from the AP. Discuss.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    It must be tough to be a One Trick Pony and to run out of meaningful places to drop your horse apples in your own barn.

    Welp, Good Luck to you in Washington Ginny. Be sure to take your latest "Felons Gone Wild at the Gun Show" videos and your incomplete copy of the Bill of Rights when you leave.

    Oh, one other thought. I hear that you can get really good deals on real estate in Vancouver.

  • (Show?)

    Yo Pat -- My views are guns are probably closer to yours than Ginny Burdick's, but I gotta ask: What's wrong with having the same rules at a gunshow as you have at a store?

    I mean, if you want to oppose ID requirements and background checks and all that as an overall policy, I disagree but understand your point. But why have two different sets of rules for buying guns, depending on where you buy 'em?

    (Frankly, I think an argument can be made - though I probably wouldn't - that permanently sited stores should have looser rules than fly-by-night gun shows. But not the other way around...)

    Why should the rules at gun shows be less restrictive than from licensed dealers in stores?

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As an avid hunter, target shooter and gun collector I see nothing wrong in passing laws which make gun show transactions subject to the same scrutiny as retail sales of firearms. I bought a new hunting rifle in January at GI Joes and it took about 10 minutes for the clerk to check me out over the phone. Not a big deal.

    With the passage of Oregon's gun show record keeping law, much of the Portland metro gun show activity has moved to the fairground complex in Vancouver. Since Portland is an easy 30-06 shot away from Vancouver, it is in the legitimate interest of Oregon to encourage Washington to adopt similar laws.

  • wharf rat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For dealers in firearms unregulated gun shows are less about the 2nd Amendment than they are about untraceable and unreported cash. A dealer with modest inventory can easily clear $5000 or more on a decent weekend with few checks or Visa cards accepted.

  • (Show?)

    Oh yeah, I know why the dealers like it. I just can't figure out why gun-rights advocates who aren't dealers would argue for different rules at gunshows than at stores.

  • Eric A. Stillwell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "WELL REGULATED"

    Those are two of the first 3 words in the 2nd Amendment.

    And those are the two words most frequently ignored by those who site the Constitution as a reason to have no regulation of guns whatsoever.

    It's okay to regulate the automobile industry, require people to pass tests before getting behind the wheel of a car, but God forbid we have "well regulated" gun industry in this country!

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I imagine there is a gray area between gun shows dealers who are basically business owners on the one hand and private owners showing, selling and trading guns as a hobby on the other. If Kari wanted to buy a gun from me, I don't have the resources to do a background check.

    Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But I think there's a reasonable argument to exempt gun shows.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with Kari. The same rules should apply at both retail stores and gun shows. You can't really make a legitimate case as to why they should be different.

    Why would anyone be in favor of allowing violent convicted criminals to buy guns, no questions asked? I'm not talking about taking away guns from any law abiding citizen or infringing their rights in any way.

    I know people can buy guns illegally anyways. But that is not a reason to make it legal and easier to get. Using that logic, why don't we legalize heroin and meth and allow people to buy it easily at Plaid Pantry, since people can buy it on the street illegally anyways?

    I'm not in favor of banning any type or gun or anything. But I am in favor of the criminal background check.

  • (Show?)

    If landlords and employers can do credit checks and background checks on potential tenants and employees, private firearm sellers can do a quick check on buyers.

    I'm sure our state legislature and/or Congress could improve on this process if everyone agreed to get together on a bipartisan basis to make checks easier and simpler.

  • (Show?)

    Let me help you out with that list Eric:

    Since the state has arrogated to itself the right to decide who is eligible to marry, why would any good citizen oppose the current setup? It's the law.

    If my neighbor, who is a retired Portland Police officer wants to buy a gun from me, he should have to go through a waiting period and background check too. There oughta be a law.

    When I apply for a job, why should I feel violated by the state for forcing me to provide a small bottle of sparkling bubbly urine? Everybody else has to piss too. Well, unless you're a computer programmer, or an attorney, or.....whatever.

    If you're a student at Sandy High School, the town fathers know for a fact that your T-shirt, tatoos, jewelry, or any other marker of individuality must be suppressed. The GOOD students, i.e. the jocks and the bullies, dress just like the police chief and the principal. We know that any deviation from the accepted coture denotes incipient criminality.

    When the state requires me to wear a motorcycle helmet to protect me from myself, don't fret. They will not turn around and demand that say 30 million skiers be mandated to wear helmets so that they can save eleven theoretical lives next year. (Yes I have looked into this in some detail).

    When Alan Bates introduces a law stipulating that no child under 12 be allowed to ride a quad and that children between 12 and sixteen be licensed to ride quads of not more than 90cc displacement, thus practically destroying yet another opportunity for family motorsport recreation; that's ok 'cause it's for the children.

    As long as your ox isn't being gored.......

    Ginny Burdick is a mindless Safetycrat, who like Cheney believes in her own version of the 1% doctrine. If there is any risk to anyone anywhere, it must be stamped out by the state.

    The Safetycrats, by the nature of their arguments are not required to do any statistical analysis. Like the worst of the crackpot religious fanatics, they can just assert any kind of shit they want to and we're supposed to fall in line. It is faith based "reasoning" at its most objectionable.

  • Eric A. Stillwell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat: As long as the tax payers are footing the bill for the smokers with cancer who don't have health insurance, the motorcylists in comas because they didn't wear a helmet, and all the other things tax payers get stuck with because their fellow citizens don't use good sense in every day life, then I don't have a problem with government regulation -- especially for the sale of guns, since the Constitution does require it.

    It is, afterall, the Constutional mandate of government to "promote the general Welfare."

  • (Show?)

    OK then.

    Mandatory seatbelts and five point harnesses in all four wheeled vehicles. Will it save lives and taxpayer money?

    Absolutely.

    Mandatory Helmets for 15 million skiers and snowboarders would cost 460 million and would save around 11 of the 30 lives lost to head injuries each year. So currently, one tenth of one percent of all skiers suffer head trauma and 40% of those might have reduced trauma if wearing a helmet. Will it save lives and taxpayer money?

    Absolutely.

    By far the largest number of head trauma fatalities each year occur in the home. Mandatory helmets while watching American Idol. Will it save laves and taxpayer money?

    Absolutely.

    Seems that everybody drawing lines, wants to draw 'em just outside of the area where it would impact on their own freedom.

    Show me the numbers or state plainly that zero risk is the only risk that you will allow your fellow citizens.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr Stillwell, Since you are capable of parroting the Brady Bunch's propaganda it might be nice if you took an English lesson - learning the meaning of dependent clause, took history course or two - American history -, bought or bothered with a dictionary - re: archaic meaning of regulated re: militias.

    After you manage all that, read the Constitution & BOR and tell me exactly where your car is mentioned, what is mentioned is your freedom to shoot off your trap, so I suggest that the government should license your's because it is flat out dangerous. You are the exact duplicate of Mr President George W Bush in that you are all fired up to whack my Rights because YOU think they're dangerous. So, here's the deal, when you back GeorgeII on Habeas Corpus, 4th A search & seizure, prior restaraint on the Press, Free Speech Zones, ad nauseum I'll hold still for your crap about the 2nd A and not call you a hypocritical know-nothing psuedo fascisti.

    Oh, and by the way, I don't have to wait 15 minutes to buy a handgun at a store. Ms Burdick can stick her 5 day wait in her kazoo. Not your business why I think I need a handgun, today or in a month. I can think of perfectly plausible reasons to want one right away, and so can you.

    If you think the left is all fired up to follow you down hari kari trail then you might want to consider '08. You might want to consider alienating a whole bunch of natural constituents who just happen to not want to surrender ANY of their rights to do-gooders. If you haven't caught the drift over the last dozen years, people will vote against their own self interest in favor of rights and "values."

  • (Show?)

    If my neighbor, who is a retired Portland Police officer wants to buy a gun from me, he should have to go through a waiting period and background check too. There oughta be a law.

    Works for me.

    Pat (and Chuck) -- I still haven't heard a clear answer to my question: Why should gunshows have looser rules than gun dealers?

    We can argue all day long about what rules are appropriate - but that's not really the question here. The question is: why should the rules be different?

  • (Show?)

    Chuck wrote: Not your business why I think I need a handgun, today or in a month. I can think of perfectly plausible reasons to want one right away, and so can you.

    Honest question, not a rhetorical one:

    Chuck, I can't think of a reason why I would need a gun in less than, say, 5 days. Can you share the reasoning with me?

    If the concern is a physical threat to your safety from a criminal, I'd say "call the cops." If the concern is something related to foreign invasion (or our own government doing the jackbooted tyranny thing), well, I'm pretty sure that most gun dealers aren't going to abide by a waiting period.

    I honestly can't think of a reason why a 5 day wait doesn't work for law-abiding people in normal circumstances. I'm perfectly willing to consider something I haven't thought of, though, so educate me.

  • THartill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well at least she is up there and not down here trying to make every driver on the road a criminal. (Well there's always tomorrow to continue that crusade)

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In Pennsylvania, businesses have to collect sales tax on purchases and forward it to the state. Multi-family yard sales do not. Neither did the silenct auction at my son's school. Neither did the several-dozen-stall flea market that was held each weekend.

    I think collecting sales tax is analagous to doing the criminal background check. It doesn't apply to sales between private individuals. The hard part is drawing the line. What's the difference between a gun show and me and two dozen of my friends showing off our collections and selling and trading? What if it's just me and one friend? What if it's just me?

  • Eric A. Stillwell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'll hold still for your crap about the 2nd A and not call you a hypocritical know-nothing psuedo fascisti."

    Why, thank you, Chuck. I consider myself especially fortuunate that your "no name calling" policy carries over to BlueOregon from your personal blog. It makes civil discourse here so much more enjoyable.

    You seem like a very intelligent person with a good heart, so I'm inclined to listen and learn when the discussion remains polite. I'm particularly impressed with your decision to become a spokesperson for Basic Rights Oregon, so I'm disposed to respect your opinions on other issues as well.

    If you take the time to know me better, I think you'll discover that I have a good heart, too. I admit I'm a little green around the ears when it comes to blogging, and I certainly don't have the political experience you have, but I'm not as big of a dumb @ss a you might be inclined to believe.

    Again, thank you for refraining from name-calling. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

    P.S. "W" is actually George III.

    Happy Valentine's Day!

    XOXOXOXO

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As Jeff Alworth said on Blue Oregon awhile back, Dems, go for low-hanging fruit. We didn't win the last election because voters wanted gun regulation, but we might lose the next one because they don't. Stick to the program!

    I belong to a lot of listservs and mailing lists dedicated to discussing 2nd Amendment issues. I think everyone here should know that each time a bill like this comes up, it generates a firestorm of email and publicity and serves as a terrific fund-raising opportunity for the Republicans, as well as another chance to reinforce stereotypes about Democrats. I oppose this bill, but for those of you who honestly believe more gun control is a good thing, please stop indirectly supporting the Republican fund-rasing efforts with meaningless bills that have little chance of actually affecting public safety one way or another.

    If to some of you the reaction to Senator Burdick seems disproportionate to the bill she is promoting, the reason is that her life-long campaign to regulate firearms has left her with little to no credibility among those in the state who support 2nd Amendment rights. Every time she speaks, the pro-2nd Amendment community listens...and reacts. In fact, the legislators in Washington who support the bill made a tactical error in inviting her--her presence instantly generates suspicion of the true motives of the bill and virtually guarantees widespread, organized opposition.

    But it seems clear that most disucssions about guns aren't really about or just about guns; they're about the extent of government's reach into our lives and how far we feel it is appropriate for that reach to extend--wear a helmet, click it or ticket, ban transfats (for pete's sake let me eat what I want, ok?). It's a called slippery slope, and some of us don't want to start down it.

    Kari says: "I honestly can't think of a reason why a 5 day wait doesn't work for law-abiding people in normal circumstances." Tell that to women murdered each year by spouses and ex-boy-friends violating their restraining orders. Self-defense is a right, and government shouldn't get between people and their rights. Sometimes people really do need immediate access to a firearm. You don't need a gun at all during "normal circumstances," but that's not what they're for--they're for abnormal circumstances.

    On the actual bill at hand, the testimony in Washington seems to have included everything except facts. How many guns are bought at gun shows by felons? What real effect does this have on crime or public safety? Can any decline in violent crime by attributed to Measure 5? None of that seems to have been discussed, which leads me to the conclusion that the real debate isn't about guns; it's about the role of our increasingly patriachal government, political identities, and the furthering the political careers of certain politicians at the expense of the Democratic Party's appeal among rural, blue collar, and small "L" libertarian-leaning voters.

    Regardless of your opinion on guns in society, I'm sure we can all agree on two things (1) debates on public safety should be informed by fact, not emotion, and (2) legislators shouldn't waste their time with meaningless gestures. The bill at hand seems both uninformed and meaningless in terms of affecting public safety. So Dems, please; don't shoot yourself in the foot.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When the black helicopters come swooping down upon us from Canada carrying United Nations troops and married Canadian homosexuals intent on destroying our way of life, I'll be standing arm-in-arm and gun-to-gun with Charlton Heston, Wayne La Pierre (executive VP of the NRA), Bert, Chuck, Pat and several more of the above posters in order to protect our America from destruction.

    However, and while the rest of you prepare for the inevitable black helicopter attack, I still don't see why we can't have reasonable restrictions on gun sales. People who "need" a handgun but don't want to go through a background check or a 5 day waiting period make me nervous. I own more than 12 handguns and each time I bought one, it was a simple process of buying and then picking up the gun a week later. Who cares!

    But back to those black helicopters. Do you suppose that those married Canadian homosexuals have a list of legal gun owners in the US, and that when they invade the US they will show up at my door to confiscate my guns? Hmmm.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I go to gun shows on occasion. I think of myself as a responsible gun owner. I sort of get nervous at gun shows because of all the shifty eyes going on in the crowd. Personally I think we should have a national 5 day waiting period to get a gun. As long as that person passes a background check let them arm themselves to the teeth. Anyone that really wants a gun can wait 5 days to get it. If they can't wait 5 days...well...I don't care if they're a decorated combat veteran who spent 12 years in the secret service and 12 in the FBI...if you can't wait 5 days for a gun I don't trust you and I don't think I should. The first thing I was taught in my hunters safety course when I was 12 was always know where the other people with guns are and always be aware of where those guns are pointed. Essentially that means don't trust anyone else for your own safety. With guns I really don't trust people...

  • THE WOLFE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Ginny Burdick is a mindless Safetycrat, who like Cheney believes in her own version of the 1% doctrine. If there is any risk to anyone anywhere, it must be stamped out by the state."

    I LOVE PAT RYAN!

    I say Pat should run against Gordo.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BlueNote, 1) Many people, including myself, favor gay marriage rights, expanded health care coverage, and the rest of the progressive agenda; and also oppose meaningless expansion of gun laws. The Black Helicopter bit is amusing, but off the mark. 2) If Democrats alienate voters by chasing down pet projects like gun control (especially bills that seem largely symbolic) we can kiss goodbye to support from independents and moderate Republicans in future elections (a LOT of Republicans voted for Ted K.), and thus we'd risk losing a chance to promote progressive agenda that can actually improve people's lives.

    As was recently written in a post by Jason McKerr:

    If Democrats force gun control, many centrist democrats, independents, and left-leaning Republicans will become one-issue voters. Iraq, healthcare, ethics and others become secondary. These swing voters believe that there is nothing more important than the Bill of Rights, and even that the Second Amendment protects the other nine. Whether right or not, these voters swing elections.

    That seems like a very sane, non-paranoid bit of political analysis to me.

  • (Show?)

    Zak wrote: Kari says: "I honestly can't think of a reason why a 5 day wait doesn't work for law-abiding people in normal circumstances." Tell that to women murdered each year by spouses and ex-boy-friends violating their restraining orders. Self-defense is a right, and government shouldn't get between people and their rights. Sometimes people really do need immediate access to a firearm.

    Zak, that explanation doesn't cut it. I'll acknowledge that personal safety is a concern - and for some people, that means owning a gun. OK.

    But if you have enough time to get to a gun store (or gunshow) to buy a gun, you have enough time to call the cops. A woman threatened by a spouse or boyfriend who is violating a restraining order should call the police.

    I'm still waiting for a reason that someone would need a gun in less than 5 days that doesn't involve them committing a crime - or can't be solved by calling the cops. (And doesn't involve the black helicopters.)

    I'm a gun rights advocate. I believe that people should be able to own guns. I just happen to think that there are and should be rules.

    The absolutist position is absurd. After all, if the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" is absolute, why can't I own my own rocket-propelled grenade launcher? It's a gun, just with a bigger bullet. For that matter, why can't I own a nuclear weapon? Just a bigger bullet.

    Once we acknowledge that there are limits, then we can have a rational conversation about what those limits should be.

    I would not, for example, support a 6-month waiting period. But five days seems fine to me.

  • (Show?)
    <h1>Gun Shop Owner: Well, you'll probably want the accessory kit. Holster...</h1>

    Homer: Oh, yeah. Gun Shop Owner: Bandoleer. Homer: Baby. Gun Shop Owner: Silencer. Homer: Mmm-hmm. Gun Shop Owner: Loudener. Homer: [drooling noise] Gun Shop Owner: Speed-cocker. Homer: Ooh, I like the sound of that. Gun Shop Owner: And this is for shooting down police helicopters. Homer: Oh, I don't need anything like that...yet. Just give me my gun! Gun Shop Owner (begins wrestling with Homer for the gun): Sorry pal. The law requires a five day waiting period. We've got to do a background check. Homer: Five days?! But I'm mad now! (gun shop owner pulls Homer's gun out of his hands) I'd kill you if I had my gun! Gun Shop Owner (calm): Yeah, well, ya don't.

    <h1>Gun Shop Owner (five days later): Let's take a look at your background check. It says here you were in a mental hospital...</h1>

    Homer: Yeah. Gun Shop Owner: ...frequent problems with alcohol... Homer: Oh Ho Ho Heh yeah. Gun Shop Owner: ...beat up President Bush. Homer: Former president. (the gun shop owner puts a stamp on Homer's forms) "Potentially dangerous"?! Gun Shop Owner: Relax. It just limits you to three handguns or less. Homer: Whoohoo!

  • pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'm still waiting for a reason that someone would need a gun in less than 5 days that doesn't involve them committing a crime"

    while you're waiting, instead of beating that horse, why not address the actual substantive issue--what does this SB 5197 really accomplish?

    as someone for whom gun rights are barely on my radar, even i know that ginny burdick is a human lightning rod for gun rights advocates--they may as well have invited diane feinstein.

    is Zak J right that this is a "meaningless bill that has little chance of actually affecting public safety"? if not, and it will have a positive effect, then is that effect significant enough to be worth alienating a large bloc of voters? i don't know either way, but that is the issue that needs to be discussed, not insisting that people address a theoretic point.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, Here are a couple examples of women in Oregon who got restraining orders and "called the cops":

    Kelly Supanchick

    Dawn Glick

    They are both dead. There are others similary attacked, many more with less tragic endings. Those convicted of domestic violence are already prohibited from owning firearms under federal law, by the way. It doesn't seem to stop them from killing (Glick was strangled), but a 5-day waiting period would put women like Glick at a disadvantage.

    Budget cuts in the police have made it even more difficult for them to respond in a prompt manner, especially in rural areas.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, it's been a while since someone mistook me for a conservative nutcase.

  • blizzak (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari-

    Two things:

    1. "call the cops" is a joke. Zak is right on that one.

    2. There is extensive case law defining "arms" -- generally limited to the modern equivalent of a musket (i.e. something you can carry for purposes of self-defense). That's why it's OK for the government to regulate things like assault rifles. The nuclear weapon, tank, etc. arguement is a red herring.

  • Jon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why should the rules at gun shows be less restrictive than from licensed dealers in stores?

    Are they?

    From the Brady Campaign website:

    GUN SHOW CHECKS Are background checks required at gun shows? Yes

    State law requires people buying guns at gun shows to undergo the same Brady criminal background check as is required for sales that occur at federally-licensed gun stores. The law was enacted as a citizen ballot initiative in 2000 following the Columbine school massacre.

    Has something changed this?

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with whoever said that the topic of gun rights is probably a no-win topic for a progressive web site. I would like to see more scrutiny of purchasers, but no pre-purchase system is going to weed out all the nut cases.

    In answer to a question above, Washington does not require background checks or waiting periods at gun shows. If you visit a gun show and lay 5 twenty dollar bills on the folding card table in front of "Frank", he won't even ask your name as he hands you a slightly used Bryco P-38 for your very own. Add a 4 dollar box of ammo that you can purchase on your way out the door, and you are on your way toward improved self defense or, if you prefer, holding up a 7-11, or perhaps showing the little woman /man what you really think of her / his cheating ways.

    There is a large gun show at the Clark County Fairgrounds in Vancouver on the last weekend of February if you would care to see for yourself. You will find 95% of the participants to be law abiding folks enjoying the hobby of gun ownership and collecting. It is the other 5% that makes me think that further regulation of gun shows is a good idea. I am glad that Oregon has such a system.

  • Jason McKerr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mostly I've just been reading, but this one made me jump in, along with the blog that Zak referred to.

    "But if you have enough time to get to a gun store (or gunshow) to buy a gun, you have enough time to call the cops. A woman threatened by a spouse or boyfriend who is violating a restraining order should call the police."

    This is particularly uninformed, and I'd like to speak to it.

    1) The supreme court has ruled that you DO NOT have a right to protection from the police (Castle Rock v. Gonzales). So you legally cannot rely on the police for protection.

    2) No matter how fast police response times are to reports, you are generally reporting after the fact

    3) How many times have we seen the failure of restraining orders to protect people? Combine that with Castle Rock, and you are on your own.

    4) According to Bureau of Justice Statistics in late 2006 the average time that it takes for a crime to be reported is 41 minutes. That shows how amazingly meaningless the well-touted police response times are. Sometimes it's just witness recalcitrance, and sometimes it's because victims are hurt, in shock, or otherwise occupied (Reference: Philadelphia Magazine, 11/06).

    This combination of factors does not lend themselves to strong protection by police or any other state organization. If someone is threatened, then 5 day waiting periods causes problems. Instant background checks are easy and fast, so I'm not sure I have a problem there. My intent isn't to argue that we should be careful about who should have guns. My intent is to debunk the "police protection" myth that so many rely on. There is good evidence and law that shows you cannot rely on police.

    On a more personal note, I have personally been a witness to violence where the police showed up long after the violence was over, and told us that the likelihood of the criminals being caught was zero. This was told to us after grievous, permanent wounds were caused.

  • Jason McKerr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Eric said, "WELL REGULATED"

    Those are two of the first 3 words in the 2nd Amendment. And those are the two words most frequently ignored by those who site the Constitution as a reason to have no regulation of guns whatsoever."

    This logic is a little specious. First, well regulated applies to the Militia in the clause, not the Right to Bear Arms. Miller did affirm that weapons applied to the right are under the scrutiny of their militia usefulness.

    However, there are two ways to read the Second Amendment. First, as seen in Lockyer v Sylveira is that there is no individual right and that the clause is directly dependent and subordinate.

    Second is the reading by the 5th Circuit (Emerson), that said that the clauses should be read "in pari materia" or to harmonize the clauses. Readings:

    1) "Because arms are important to militia only, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but is subject to the state's interest"

    2) "Because arms are so important to the common defense, and common defense is militia oriented (all able bodied males), the individual right to bear arms is paramount in defense of the state."

    So there are currently conflicting rulings on the subject, and the Supremes have not weighed in. As for me, looking at historical context and precedents, I believe the latter is the correct reading (Rights being granted to people and collective but not just the collective, right of the people as opposed to right of the state, and historical readings of the Constitutional Conventions and writings of people like Madison and Sedgwick).

    Jason

  • (Show?)

    I agree with whoever said that the topic of gun rights is probably a no-win topic for a progressive web site.

    Win? Win what? This is a blog, not a political campaign.

    We're not going to avoid meaningful, interesting conversations here (like this one) because of what the bad guys might think.

    It's perfectly appropriate to have a debate about this topic. Personally, I'm learning a lot.

  • Warren (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ===== I'm still waiting for a reason that someone would need a gun in less than 5 days that doesn't involve them committing a crime - or can't be solved by calling the cops. =====

    How about ... I travel down to Southern Oregon to visit my son. He says, "let's go shoot some skeet." I say, "I didn't bring my shotgun." We go to Walmart and I buy a shotgun in order to shoot some skeet with my son. In 5 days I'll be home. This isn't the crime, and I don't think the cops will loan me one of theirs ...

    To some people, buying a gun is like buying a set of golf clubs - not a new car ...

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To clarify, long guns (shotguns and rifles) have no waiting period, just an instant background check over the phone. Handguns do have a 5 day waiting period.

    If you are shooting trap with a handgun, you are a hell of a lot better shot than I am!

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's no waiting period if you have a concealed handgun permit--they figure you've already checked out.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd like to take a minute to apologize to Mr Stillwell & BO in general for my unfortunate name calling. It's wrong in the first place and stupid in the second.

    Kari, the police come after the crime. The issue regarding gun shows is this, I give you money and you give me a gun in 5 days? I don't think so. How do I get the gun, Oh, I pay you to ship it to an FFL. Now a 3rd person is involved and shippers.

    Hey Ginny, suppose I just meet the badboy seller down the street, your BS then has no effect. Monkey business is all it is, see how self-important I am looking out for you - to absolutely no effect other than to make law abiding citizen's lives difficult. You've got your IBC, now get out of my face, leave me alone. Suppose I've just done the same to your "right" to speech, tell me about it... I've made you safer.

    There's no point in going on and on about "gun control" being sensible and somehow required and somehow non-invasive. If you want to poke holes in the 2nd, then all the others are up for grabs and you've got no bitch when they get poked. People say, the Constitution gets amended, it does, the problem is with those rights that pre-exist the Constitution.

    Mr McKerr, Miller was mooted at the SC. Do not pass go do not collect... Moving on - as a matter of ludicrousness, Lockyer v. , the BOR does not give the government rights, not ever any place - Brady herring BS that the government is giving itself the right to arm??? (that would be why it says "people" - it means government)

    The state is not the militia. It is particularly not the militia. Both arguments you make in blowing the dependent clause out of proportion ignore the direct connection made to "security of a free state" which you will notice does not include the definite article "the" or proper noun USA it uses the general or indefinite article "a" which has an entirely different meaning than what you try to give to it. Because you do not wish to have the other Amendments subect to games the only amendment that gets such English revisionism applied to it is the 2nd. (Gonzales tried it on Habeas Corpus)

    If it's secutity you're after, the 1st has gotten way more people killed than all the privately held guns ever have.

  • Orygunner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pat, you rock. Some of the nanny statists here need to take a lesson.

    Zak, you're absolutely right about the typical urban liberal's stance on guns alienating independents. I'm an independent---every time someone like Kari spouts off about guns, I get more and more alienated from Democrats. There doesn't seem to be an expansion of the already bloated nanny state they don't support. Their default position seems to be command, control, regulate. Individual liberty is beside the point.

    <hr/> <h2>Kari wrote: Pat (and Chuck) -- I still haven't heard a clear answer to my question: Why should gunshows have looser rules than gun dealers?</h2>

    Gee, how about individual citizens being able to buy and sell a perfectly legal item without the nanny state inserting its nose into their business? Oh, I forgot, Dems only care about individual liberty when it suits their purpose. The salad bar version of the Bill of Rights. Take what you want and leave the rest. Got it--message received. I'll try to remember that next November.

    As for you being a "gun rights advocate," don't piss down my back and call it rain. Everything I've ever seen you write (or heard you say on the radio) about guns serves to undermine the intent of the Second Amendment and Sec. 27 of the Oregon State Constitution. And maybe you should have a five-day waiting period before you can add another comment. It's just "reasonable regulation" after all.

  • (Show?)

    I think we need to get a few things straight, to make sense of this conversation.

    (1) There may be a "gun show loophole," but unless I'm mistaken, it has NOTHING TO DO with a 5-day waiting period. Since 1998, it has been possible to do nearly-instant background checks, and the Brady Bill recognizes that advance in technology. The 5-day waiting period has not existed since 1998.

    Insisting on background checks for gun show purchasers would provide some balance between a gun show purchase and a store purchase. Insituting a 5-day waiting period would not - it would put gun show purchases in a category with store purchases between 1993 and 1998. Talk about lack of balance.

    If I am mistaken in my facts, somebody please correct me.

    (2) Kari, you say that if you have time to buy a gun, you have time to call the cops. If calling the cops were a reliable method of self-defense, you'd have a great point. But have you ever had a police officer tell you that they would like to help, but that your story does not establish enough grounds for them to come out to your residence? Is it so hard to imagine that scenario? Is it so hard to imagine that some people are cool-headed enough and well-enough trained to handle a firearm in a tense situation?

    The idea that a 5-day period is for "cooling off" is, as I understand it, a misconception. The 5-day period was a recognition of the technology of 1993, which did not allow for instant background checks. If you want to advocate for "cooling off" periods, I don't think you can use Brady as your basis - you're going to have to start from zero on that one.

    (3) Chuck, can you please elaborate on your Constitutional views? I do not know what "well-regulated" meant in the 18th Century. However, I am pretty sure that we have nothing remotely like an 18th-century militia today. I suspect society would be better off if we did, but that's the reality we have to live with. My confusion is this: in the absence of a well-regulated militia, isn't much of the basis of the 2nd Amendment simply absent? If so, it makes a lousy foundation for intelligent discussion.

    (4) Also for Chuck: It seems to me that the worst possible situation is to have strong gun control laws for dealers (in Federal law) and weak ones at shows (in State law.) I think I'd rather have EITHER strong OR weak gun control across the board, than have a convoluted system like that. Do you agree with that statement, or do you think it's worth holding strong on gun shows, even at the expense of having an intelligible system?

  • (Show?)

    Gee, how about individual citizens being able to buy and sell a perfectly legal item without the nanny state inserting its nose into their business?

    If we want to recognize guns as "perfectly legal" then let's get rid of the nanny state laws that say convicted felons may not be in possession of guns. What business of the nanny state is it, anyway, whether convicted felons have guns or not?

    In fact, for many convicted felons, whose lifestyles revolve around criminal activity, they are the folks most likely to actually need a gun. We need to facilitate the acquisition of the tools of their trade, not make it harder.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for the education and advocacy on waiting periods. I've learned a lot here.

    As for my core question - Why should gunshows have looser rules than gun dealers?

    Orygunner responded, Gee, how about individual citizens being able to buy and sell a perfectly legal item without the nanny state inserting its nose into their business?

    As I said, again and again, I understand your arguments about looser restrictions -- but that's still not an argument why a dealer in a store should have one set of rules, while a dealer in a convention hall should have another set of rules. I'm still baffled as to why anybody would expect or want two sets of rules.

    As for you being a "gun rights advocate," don't piss down my back and call it rain.

    Well, I'm certainly not an absolutist - as you apparently are. But that doesn't mean I'm in the hardcore gun control camp. I believe in gun rights, but I don't believe those rights are absolute.

    Up above, Blizzak tried to claim that my argument about nuclear arms, rocket propelled arms, etc. was a "red herring." No, it's not.

    He wrote, "there is extensive case law defining 'arms' -- generally limited to the modern equivalent of a musket". That's exactly the point. The word "arms" is limited. It's not an absolute.

    Once we've started drawing lines, the question is no longer, "shall we draw lines?", but rather "where should we draw the lines?"

    You want 'em drawn over here. Ginny Burdick wants 'em drawn over there. Most folks are sitting somewhere between.

  • (Show?)

    BlueNote,

    I missed your comment before. Now I'm confused. I see that Burdick's proposal would attach a 5-day waiting period to hand gun purchases at gun shows.

    But I don't think there's a 5-day waiting period for ANY kind of gun, since '98, when purchased from a licensed shop.

    Am I mistaken? If so, can you point me to an article or something that explains it?

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari:

    I see three arguments for having looser restrictions at a gun show.

    1.) One opposes current restrictions and wants to avoid adding any new ones. It's like saying "since the FBI can hold you as a material witness for two weeks without access to a lawyer, why shouldn't local police be able to do the same?" Because the FBI shouldn't be able to it either, but there's precious little I can do to change the FBI. I can try to safeguard my rights from further erosion.

    Another analogy: Since homosexuals can't legally marry in Oregon , why shouldn't the same restriction apply to civil unions which are a lot like marriage? Because the first restriction is wrong and we shouldn't allow similar restrictions. (Full discloser, I opposed M36 strongly. I'm not a bigot.)

    2.) Gun shows are not gun stores. It's like asking why the same rules that apply to grocery stores don't apply to farmers' markets. A lot of the same rules DO apply. Some rules do not. Because they're different, but similar, things.

    3.) The absence of a compelling reason NOT to do something, is not a compelling reason TO do something. I.e. if you want to restrict my rights, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's necessary, not on me to demonstrate that it's unnecessary.

    So I would turn the question around: Why should gun shows have the same rules as gun dealers? I'm still waiting for someone to answer that question.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete, you are correct that since the Brady bill expired a few years ago, Oregon has had instant approval for both long guns and handguns. Washington still has the 5 day waiting period for handguns (but instant approval for long guns), and it was the Washington handgun waiting period that I was referring to, and which would apply to gun shows if the proposed Washington bill passes. The best site I have found for state by state gun purchase rules is: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=waitxstate

  • Jason McKerr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chuck, Miller was not "mooted." While the case was reversed and remanded, the key finding by the Supreme Cource that didn't "moot" Miller was the finding that the NFA was not in conflict with the Second Amendment. From the Finding, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    It DID NOT, as anti-gunners claim, settle as a matter of law that Militia control trumps the right.

    As for the other stuff, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think you read it carefully, because I think (although it's hard to tell from what you're saying) that I agreed with you. The second reading (the one I agreed with) from 5thr circuit/Emerson is the one that upholds gun ownership as an individual right and not subject to Militia interpretation.

    The opinion is a great read in fact. I wish I could write so eloquently as sam Cummings Here's the opinion: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html

    I don't think any Amendments, including the Second, should be subject to games. I was simply attempting to describe how the two different readings of the law have been applied in two different Circuit Courts (9th/Lockyer, 5th/Emerson).

    So again, I think i agree with you, except as to how Miller allows NFA to continue.

    Jason

  • (Show?)

    The absence of a compelling reason NOT to do something, is not a compelling reason TO do something. I.e. if you want to restrict my rights, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's necessary, not on me to demonstrate that it's unnecessary.

    Wow Zak, logic like that is a thread killer. I think that we should have that carved above every door in the state capitol building.

    <hr/>

    One more empirical observation re gun shows:

    They are always absolutely crawling with cops trawling for felons. Were I a felon, it's the very last place that I'd go looking to purchase a gun.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with the sentiment, Pat. But to give credit, it was Bert Lowry who wrote that bit about bills needing to show they will have a meaningful impact before they get passed.

  • (Show?)

    Bert L, and all those echoing the "onus" argument:

    I'd like very much to know whether or not you agree with the following statement:

    We, as a society, have an interest in making sure that certain classes of people - say, recently-released violent felons, and people with diagnosed and untreated mental illness that predispose them to sudden violence - be prevented from purchasing firearms.

    If you agree, what do you think is a reasonable way to approach that problem, without infringing on the rights of "the rest of us," or being unduly derogatory toward those individuals? Not asking for a policy draft, just a rough sketch.

  • (Show?)

    I don't think we really need a waiting period if we have an instant background check.

    I'm persuaded that there might be reasons why you would want to get a gun right away for self protection, similar to why a woman might want to get an abortion without a 5 day waiting period. And as I said before, I don't want to ban any kind of gun.

    The point is to make it harder for convicted criminals to buy guns legally.

    I realize requiring background checks for private individual transactions would be kind of burdensome. But I just don't see why so many millitant gun rights activists are so keen to protect the rights of convicted criminals to own guns.

    As Kari noted, the right to bear arms is not without limits. You can't own a nuclear weapon, an RPG, bazooka, or a bradley fighting vehicle.

    Are you all saying that regular average citizens should have the right to own any of the above? If not, you are agreeing that there should be some limits on the right to bear arms.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete:

    I don't know whether I agree with that statement. Is there a big problem with recently convicted felons or people with violent mental illness buying handguns at gunshows and committing crimes with them within the first 5 days? If so, I'd certainly consider it.

    I think a more pressing societal problem is convicted drunk drivers getting drunk and driving again. Why not have a 5 day waiting period and background check for the purchase of alcohol? Or perhaps license drinkers and only allow sales to people who havce current, valid "drinking licenses."

    I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question: Why should gun shows have the same rules as gun dealers?

  • (Show?)

    Bert,

    Just to clarify a couple points:

    (1) I intentionally avoided any mention of gun shows in my question. I'm looking for a general sense of your perpective.

    (2) I have not advocated waiting periods. Above, BlueNote clarified that neither the Feds nor Oregon law requires a 5 day period for ANYONE - dealer or show sales. Only Washington requires them, for dealers - which makes the specific reason for this thread, in my view, a non-starter. It's a Washington issue, with negligible imapact in Oregon, since you can already buy a gun in Oregon wherever you want with no waiting period.

    So at this point, I'm looking at this forum as an opportunity to learn something about your perspective, rather than an argument to be won or lost. Hope you agree, because I really am interested. Gun culture is not something I was exposed to much growing up, but I was taught to have great respect for it. My sense is that I am not alone here - so please, educate us.

  • dddave (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Most folks that have a checkered past dont go buy guns where background checks are needed.

    Please post the data that shows why this legislation is needed. How many crimes have been committed because someone was stopped from getting a pistol at Bi-mart, then got one at a gun show. Just like Senate Bill 49, restrict all ATV owners because 17 children have been killed over a six year period and we dont even know if anything would have been different if the legislation was in place. Now if we can just take away all guns and all ATVs, will everyone be happy?

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete:

    I certainly think there should be some restrictions on gun ownership. It would be silly to insist, for instance, that prisoners in the state penitentiary should be allowed to carry guns. In general, though, I oppose restrictions to personal freedom that are founded on hysteria rather than any actual need.

    And there's hysteria on both sides. Gun control advocates either don't understand the real risks associated with such things as gun shows (very small), or they are dishonest. And we all know how hysterical and dishonest some of the NRA "education" videos are. They convince gun owners that any minute now Ted Kennedy is going to descend from a black helicopter, burst into their houses and take all their guns.

    So, while I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment (and the whole Bill of Rights, actually), to me this is more about common sense. Is there a real societal problem of any consequence that needs to be addressed? And does the proposed restriction address it?

    There was a thread a month or two ago where people were insisting that GPS devices and proof of capacity (and rescue insurance, and all sorts of other things) should be required of climbers on Mt. Hood. It was a hysterical response to a week long news story about missing climbers. While it is a terrible personal trajedy, in societal terms, the occassional lost climber is not a big deal. Not when you compare it to drug use, AIDS, teen pregnancy, health care access, etc.

  • (Show?)

    Bert,

    I think you and I can agree that the hysteria at both ends of the argument is highly counterproductive. In fact, I can't think of any issue where it seems more important for calm, consensus-minded people to reclaim the argument from the zealots. In my view, the first step toward doing that is to stop reacting as though hysterical arguments are coming at us, when it's not the case.

    So let me, Pete, state as clearly as I can: I do not advocate waiting periods for the sake of "cooling off." I do not want to see rights denied mature and rational people, if it can possibly be avoided. I also do not want a situation where the rules governing gun shows and gun shops are so arcane, that there is an appearance of protection/nannying, but a reality of easy access; I think that's about the worst possible result. Fortunately, it seems that it's Washington, not my home state of Oregon, that has to deal with that reality; and so I'm not inclined to spend much effort on that particular point.

    But I think the thing I want above all, is for people on the "pro-gun" side to engage wholeheartedly in a debate about what IS good policy. After all, you guys are the experts. You guys are the ones who promote understanding and responsibility, thereby providing tools that chip away at irrational fear and policy constructed from it. You guys maintain a world view in which it's possible for an individual to take a certain degree of responsibility for his own safety, rather than relying solely on law enforcement, and I thank you for that.

    I get very frustrated by the notion that it's somehow the burden of the rest of society to demonstrate the need for sound policy. I can understand that the hysterical arguments of rabid gun foes tempt you into that position, but at the end of the day, you inhabit the same world as the rest of us. A manic-depressive, meth-addled ex-con could just as likely attack you or your family as attack me or mine. How are we as a society to minimize the risk of that happening?

    You are in a position to share wisdom and provide leadership. I hope you embrace that role, rather than continuing to say the debate is unimportant.

  • chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Follow the money. That shows you where the interests are that propose laws. For those who think they are actually working for the common good with this kind of legislation, it is time for you to quit being gov't pawns working to limit the liberties and pursuit of happiness of the masses just because it is then supposedly easier to deny a handful of miscreants access to arms. Like that is going to happen. I'd much rather have a felon buy a gun at a gun show than break into a home and take it.

  • (Show?)

    They are always absolutely crawling with cops trawling for felons. Were I a felon, it's the very last place that I'd go looking to purchase a gun.

    Uh...felons are not the brightest guys in the world. It's why they're convicted felons, and not just condo developers or something.

    I was foreman on a jury trail in Multnomah County a couple of years ago where a convicted felon was cauight buying multiple guns at an Expo Center show --nasty-looking pieces-- and we barely, barely got a conviction out of it. He'd had a rough life, y'know?

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete Foresyth, "well regulated" was a military term for correctly equipped and turned out, it did not infer "Regulations" as we now use the term.

    Oregon complies with Federal law on gun sales, that's good. Burdick wants more, that's what I dislike about that woman - she's a liar. I'm sorry, she does not tell the truth - she has an agenda which her Oregon background makes clear. Anyone who listens to her is walking the confiscation route.

    Re: Felons - another BS made up "that's a restriction" arguement, hey - a felon forfeits several rights and has to take court action to have them re-instated.

    Re: Miller. Miller was not heard at the SC for the simple reason that Miller was deceased, no petitioner.

    My argument about "a free state" is that it has exactly no meaning Re: State. It doesn't mean Oregon or US it means a free state, that includes the option of removing the existing State which is clearly not in the Government's interest, other than government of the people. These concepts are essential to an understanding of what is meant by the Constitution, it is in direct lineage from Ancient English Law, Common Law, the Declaration of Independence... The Constitution did not back up from the Declaration, it simply codified it. You do not have freedom of speech because the government tolerates it, you have it as an inherent right - preceding the codification of the BOR, the government guarantees it. I have a right to arms from the time a human picked up a rock, I don't need a BOR to have it, the government needs it to keep its hands off, because governments don't like it. The English (try their gun laws) had laws regarding exactly what kind of personal weapon you were allowed, swords, knives, bows, etc and the Americans did not and still do not. It would take me several weeks to go through the steps and then I could buy fully automatic machine guns, yep 50 Caliber, I don't want one and I don't want to offer Sammy the carte blanche to inspect the gun.

    On my next to last gun purchase I got hung up by IBC, so OSP and myself and gun shop had a little converstation, regarding we'd gone over the time limit and he was going to sell me the gun with or without their approval and that the next time I got hung we'd be in court and they'd lose. To make it short, my name & SS# and I have a gun, immediately. The State's role is clearly understood at that level, some folks here need brush up.

    Re: why I want a gun when I want it. It's exactly none of anybody's business. I'm IBC, butt out. I don't get to tell you squat about your religion. (look all rights have an absolute limitation - inevitible universally catastrophic outcomes, ie "FIRE" in a crowded theater) I cannot carry a weapon into Court, that exercise is reasonably restricted.

  • (Show?)

    Chuck,

    I've been hoping you'd reply, but I find it tough to follow a good deal of what you say, and I also have a few other questions.

    (1) Well-regulated: no quarrel with your definition, it matches my understanding of the term. So, what do you propose should be done about the complete absence of an entity deemed by the founding fathers as necessary for the security of a free State? Your distinctions among Oregon vs. US vs. abstract notion of "state" do little to address that question. I think it's a very important one. If that entity is so essential, what can be done to restore it? What - BESIDES the right to bear arms - must be done to make its existence possible? Surely that right alone is not sufficient, since we have a right to bear arms here, but we don't have those militias. The closest thing I can think of is the Minutemen down south but they sound more like an ad hoc vigilante army than a well-regulated militia.

    (2) You say that anyone who listens to Burdick is walking a certain route. Not true. I listen to Burdick for the same reason I listen to you: hers is a voice I respect, and I'm looking to learn something. If she has lied, please tell me exactly what she said that is false. According to what BlueNote said above, Burdick's claim of a disparity between Washington gun show regulation and Washington gun dealer regulation seems true enough to me. Again, I would say that Oregon's lack of a 5-day waiting period is a good thing.

    (3) You concede that it's OK to deny certain rights to felons. Would you say the same of minors, or people with diagnosd-but-untreated violent tendencies? Is there anybody else in that category? What about an otherwise-reasonable man who just caught his wife cheating, and can't stop his hands and eyes from twitching as he's attempting to make the purchase? Does the dealer bear any responsibility for his customer's actions (as we assume with bartenders)? Is this kind of scenario so uncommon that it's unwise to take t into account when constructing legislation? I am not presupposing any "right or wrong" answers to these things, just saying that it's hard to follow your line of thinking without a better understanding of where you come down on issues like this.

    (4) In another post, you conceded that your constituents have different demands than New York City constituents. Do you think NYC constituents are misguided, or do you think that places like NYC should have different laws than eastern Oregon?

  • (Show?)

    does the dealer bear any responsibility for his customer's actions (as we assume with bartenders)?

    Isn't it interesting that charging bartenders with policing the behavior of their customers is now just taken for granted in the general debate?

    I'm recalling that the idea that one might legitimately sue the manufacturer of a certain type of machinery if they fail to work correctly (motor vehicles)is often routinely conflated with the idea that you can legitimately sue a manufacturer of another type of machinery (guns) if they work as designed.

    (And yes Pete, I am aware that you did not make this argument, just using it as counterpoint to your assumptions re responsibility.)

  • (Show?)

    (And yes Pete, I am aware that you did not make this argument, just using it as counterpoint to your assumptions re responsibility.)

    Thanks for acknowledging that, Pat. I actually believe pretty much the opposite - that in most cases, pinning the blame on bartenders is harmful, due to the damage it does to the notion that an adult drinker is responsible for his/her own actions. My phrasing was sloppy and invites misunderstanding.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete, catch me on email, I just lost 15 minutes typing.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pete, I'm sure we've passed the interest threashold of most BO's and I keep forgetting to check back down here, get in touch cbutcher(at)bakervalley(dot)net.

    But quickly, felons by definition accept this loss as part of their punishment. The forms ask if you are a nut, addict, etc; is there much point? Charles Whitman was not demonstrably crazy when he purchased his arms, he did get there - though.

    Burdick has used BS figures repeatedly and makes unfounded claims as fact, she's a liar. I don't mind disagreements, but I object to lies. (Known cooked statistics are lies) I'll debate the philosophy, the words, the thinking, but liars get my goat.

    I believe I said NY likes her (Hillary) and I'm glad to let them keep her. The US Constitution is not subject to the whims of the States and the BOR is way not thanks to the 14th. Nobody likes that one when it doesn't do their "pet" project's work. I am the militia, I am well turned out, and I understand that it is every citizen's responsibility to support and uphold the US Constitution. That includes against people who are elected if they abrogate their role. That is the meaning of "a free state," the free state is that of the people, not any governmental body or geographic limit. There is no requirement for a "minutemen" organization, though the construct is not forbidden it has certain drawbacks.

    This is a poor forum to carry on an extended and involved discussion. Talk to me by email, there are better ways t do this - and even keep it public.

  • randy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    you have it all wrong, liquor is what we need more control over.we need a 5 day waiting period for any alcohol purchase. drinkers need to be fingerprinted and fill out forms attesting to their ability to drink and be a good citizen. bze kills more people than guns, yet we have open bars for people to get drunk.

    bars are akin to being able to stop and buy ammo and guns along the freeway so you can take care of any traffic problems.

    why dont we focus on the real problem in america instead of discussing it at the bar on the way home.

    its a case of the self righteous endorsing laws they want but conveinently sidestepping the biggest problems.

    there are more laws on the books regarding firearms than drugs and drink, but since most advocates of gun control use these substances, so they will never address them as a problem.

in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon