Oregon sending state troopers to investigate firearms purchase denials

[SuperiorDG]

Coming to a State near you.

The Oregon State Police is now dispatching troopers to gun stores when would-be gun buyers are denied purchases following a failed background check.
State police penned a letter to gun dealers across the state on June 18 advising them of the policy.
“This revision will include enforcement action involving persons attempting an unlawful firearms transfer through a licensed firearm dealer, during a voluntary party check, or a background check at a gun show,” the letter reads.
As detailed in an OPS training bulletin on the subject, in the event of a denial by the state’s Firearm Instant Check System, state troopers would be dispatched from patrol to the dealer’s location to investigate.
In the investigation, troopers will be required to determine the “suspect’s culpable mental state” and instructs personnel that, to assess if a crime has been committed, they have to prove the suspect “knowingly” was aware they were not qualified for a firearms transaction.
According to Northwest Public Radio, the change in policy came from Gov. John Kitzhaber’s office following a call from Republican state Sen. Ted Ferrioli for the state police to enforce existing state laws that make it a misdemeanor crime for prohibited persons, such as felons, to attempt to obtain a firearm.
However, its not just felons that are being caught up in the OSP dragnet.
The Oregon Firearms Federation, a state gun rights group, contends that at least two would-be gun buyers soon found themselves answering questions from state troopers in the past month. In one of these cases, contends OFF, the trooper arrived at the gun dealer and spoke to the buyer in the parking lot. In the second, state police visited the denied buyer, who was also a concealed carry permit holder, at his home.

Neither case resulted in an arrest.

“The Oregon State Police have become pawns in the political games being played by the anti-freedom legislators in Oregon,” said Kevin Starrett, OFF’s executive director to Guns.com Tuesday.

Starrett argues that already overstretched state law enforcement officers are being squandered due to the change in policy.
“Scarce resources are being misused as part of an anti-gun agenda,” Starrett said. “The State Police won’t even say how many people they are arresting or harassing as a result of this policy and we have reliable information that the line officers being dragged off of patrol to ‘start investigations’ of gun buyers are not happy about the policy.”
“This is another example of Oregon’s complete inability to manage resources without massive waste,” he added.

http://www.guns.com/2014/07/02/orego...chase-denials/

[Great-Kazoo]

SO do we want enforcement of law? The outcry of, with all the denials, why only X arrest seems to echo. Most are glitches in the name / not giving a SS # when buying a gun. Some are for things done as a youth in states like IL, where even though "expunged" or so told. IL still has a record of an arrest. Not the follow up Convicted / Not Guilty or DISMISSED.

Yet once again LE is being used to play politics, as in CT and NY.

[68Charger]

Yeah, Oregon seems to be great stewards with public funds/resources....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...acare-website/

[cstone]

I don't have any details about what Oregon is doing, but the concept of someone investigating why an individual is denied the right to purchase a firearm seems to be long overdue. If the person attempting to make the purchase is prohibited from owning/possessing based on criminal conviction or adjudicated mental condition, then criminal charges for attempting to purchase a firearm may be appropriate. If the denial is based on inaccurate information, then the process should be fixed and the data corrected so that the citizen can make their purchase.

I would prefer no background checks conducted by the government for the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, however, when the duly elected government institutes a system that denies citizens their right, some form of redress is necessary. If we are compelled by law to undergo background checks, then the government has a burden to enforce the law when violated and insure that the system does not violate the rights of citizens who are not in violation.

Just my $.02

[Zundfolge]

I'll be honest, I thought this was standard procedure for failed BGCs everywhere.

[68Charger]

I don't have any details about what Oregon is doing, but the concept of someone investigating why an individual is denied the right to purchase a firearm seems to be long overdue. If the person attempting to make the purchase is prohibited from owning/possessing based on criminal conviction or adjudicated mental condition, then criminal charges for attempting to purchase a firearm may be appropriate. If the denial is based on inaccurate information, then the process should be fixed and the data corrected so that the citizen can make their purchase.

I would prefer no background checks conducted by the government for the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, however, when the duly elected government institutes a system that denies citizens their right, some form of redress is necessary. If we are compelled by law to undergo background checks, then the government has a burden to enforce the law when violated and insure that the system does not violate the rights of citizens who are not in violation.

Just my $.02

On principle I agree with you- but for the state to ignore the costs associated with it is plain irresponsible... but par for the course in blue states- keep down that road and they'll have the same fate as Detroit.
I believe the cost/benefit ratio is going to be insane on this exercise- criminals generally do not submit BGCs, There may be a few parking ticket violators caught, but it's a waste of resources.
I don't have any statistics handy, but I'd bet large that the VAST majority are mistakes...

Either way, I think it's a good idea- as long as they start keeping track of the REAL COST of BGCs... every officer dispatch to find out that a p looked like a q is money wasted that does NOTHING to improve public safety... It's likely that at some point, they'll just pass it on to consumers...

[merl]

Sounds like a perfect place for a trial period. Investigate all denials for 1 year and assess the cost-benefit. If not cost effective send letters to everyone for 1 year and asses the cost-benefit (do more people pay the parking ticket or whatever immediately). If still not cost effective, is it worth having a law that is not worth enforcing. (the answer to the last one it yes because the state does not pay the cost portion)

[Bailey Guns]

This may be new in Oregon, but it isn't here. I can recall being dispatched to denials a few times in the late 90s. Mostly it was for warrants but occasionally for associated criminal history. I never made an arrest on anything other than a warrant, though. I had more than a few people arrested in my store for warrants discovered during a BGC, too.

[SideShow Bob]

This may be new in Oregon, but it isn't here. I can recall being dispatched to denials a few times in the late 90s. Mostly it was for warrants but occasionally for associated criminal history. I never made an arrest on anything other than a warrant, though. I had more than a few people arrested in my store for warrants discovered during a BGC, too.

But you were either local LE or County Mounty, Not State, correct ? State Troopers are spread way to thin already without having to respond to or follow up on every denial.

[OneGuy67]

CSP would not know how to enforce this type of situation nor is it their mandate. They are traffic related enforcers, not state police. Big difference.