SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,818
- 365
The general feeling seems to be heavily opposed to the Sanctuary Cities, campuses, and businesses. There is a logical argument against these cites and organizations. The law is the law. It isn't unconstitutional to enforce existing law. Constitutional challenges are supposed to be made through the courts. All true.
In Oregon, several counties have passed ordinances and policies instructing the Sheriffs and police to ignore the State Law.
Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate
Oregon passed a state law requiring that all gun transfers have a background check, even between private parties. For those who don't understand the difference I'll explain.
When you go to a gun shop and purchase a gun from a dealer you have to do a background check. All Federally licensed dealers must do this. In Georgia, if you have a Concealed Weapons Permit you don't have to call the FBI to get approval, but the form has to be filled out anyway. This is because you can't get the License if you have a disqualifying conviction or issue in your record.
This has never been federally mandated for private party transfers. That is to say you buy a gun from a friend, inherit it from a relative, or call about an add on Craigslist or the paper.
In Oregon, those weapons would have to be transferred with a background check. So I wondered how the people here felt about counties in Oregon flaunting the law.
Here again I can see both sides of the issue. I can understand the idea behind the requirement. They are trying to insure that Felons don't get guns from unsuspecting people who would not otherwise sell to that person.
On the other hand, Most people are not former felons. Criminals buy mainly on the black market. Where illegal guns are bought and sold regularly. In that market the value of the gun is determined by how many crimes it's been used in, not the quality of the gun. The more the gun has been used in crimes, the less value it has.
Which side do you support?
In Oregon, several counties have passed ordinances and policies instructing the Sheriffs and police to ignore the State Law.
Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate
Oregon passed a state law requiring that all gun transfers have a background check, even between private parties. For those who don't understand the difference I'll explain.
When you go to a gun shop and purchase a gun from a dealer you have to do a background check. All Federally licensed dealers must do this. In Georgia, if you have a Concealed Weapons Permit you don't have to call the FBI to get approval, but the form has to be filled out anyway. This is because you can't get the License if you have a disqualifying conviction or issue in your record.
This has never been federally mandated for private party transfers. That is to say you buy a gun from a friend, inherit it from a relative, or call about an add on Craigslist or the paper.
In Oregon, those weapons would have to be transferred with a background check. So I wondered how the people here felt about counties in Oregon flaunting the law.
Here again I can see both sides of the issue. I can understand the idea behind the requirement. They are trying to insure that Felons don't get guns from unsuspecting people who would not otherwise sell to that person.
On the other hand, Most people are not former felons. Criminals buy mainly on the black market. Where illegal guns are bought and sold regularly. In that market the value of the gun is determined by how many crimes it's been used in, not the quality of the gun. The more the gun has been used in crimes, the less value it has.
Which side do you support?
