Who can be blocked from buying a gun?
»Play Video
PORTLAND, Ore. – On Wednesday morning, President Barack Obama asked a team led by Vice President Joe Biden to come up with a concrete plan by January to reduce gun violence in the United States.
Among the president’s goals: close the so-called “gun show loophole” across the country that allows people in some states to buy guns from private dealers without a background check.
That loophole doesn’t exist at gun stores, however, where buyers already must pass a background check. So in Oregon and Washington, what exactly does that background check entail and what cause would the state have to deny someone a weapon? We decided to find out.
First of all, the “gun show loophole” the president mentioned has already been closed in Oregon and Washington. Even patrons of gun shows must submit to a background check to buy a gun.
Other rules for buying a gun vary a bit between Oregon and Washington.
Waiting period on handguns
- In Washington, you must wait five days to get a handgun.
- In Oregon, you can get a pistol on the same day if you pass the background check.
Who runs background checks?
- In Washington, each sheriff’s office uses the FBI’s database to check a gun buyer’s background.
- In Oregon, gun sellers use the FBI database and a state police unit is designated to check backgrounds.
“Very, very few people who come in to purchase a gun get denied,” said Karl Durkheimer, owner of Northwest Armory gun store in Portland.
People are also prohibited from buying a firearm if they have been convicted of a felony or domestic violence.
Being found mentally ill by court order or being found not guilty by reason of insanity also disqualifies you from legally buying a gun at a gun store.
People who are treated privately for mental illness, however, do not end up in the database. A mental health advocate we spoke with on Wednesday said that’s a good thing.
“If you’re going to put people in a database and adjudicate against them because of their illness, people are going to be less likely to seek treatment and counsel, which is what they’re going to need to learn how to control those impulses,” said Jason Renaud with the Mental Health Association of Portland.
There are currently about 20,000 people in Oregon’s firearms database who are prohibited from buying a gun because of a court order saying they’re mentally ill and a danger to society.
In both Washington and Oregon, there’s no background check required if a private seller simply sells a gun to another private citizen. However, many private sellers still do background checks to limit their liability in case the purchaser does something bad with the weapon.
The officials behind Oregon’s “Firearms Instant Check System” for the state police told KATU that this past week they have seen a record number of requests for background checks.
The facts: You will never stop gun crime in this country. You will never ban all guns. So what is so wrong with limiting what firearms civilians are allowed to own? A gun that can shoot 4-6 rounds in a second do not belong in civilian's hands. A gun that can mow down 26 people in under 3 minutes does not belong in the hands of civilians. ANY CIVILIAN! They belong in the hands of our military and our law enforcement as needed. The majority of legal gun owners are responsible. No one can say they aren't. But the facts shows that people who are using guns irresponsibly (whether legal or not) is on the rise and we are losing innocent citizens. Keep your "normal" guns for home/personal protection or for hunting purposes. We also need to address the violent nature of Americans. Canada & Switzerland have laws similar to the US yet their percentage of deaths are considerably lower. Why is that do you think?
Â
As for the mental health situation, anyone that is diagnosed with a mental illness that has even a slight potential for violence/danger (whether it be via private practice or court determined) should be listed on the registry. Sorry, but "privacy" goes out the window when a person could be a danger to others. What can we do about the ones who are underage? That is a problem that may not be solvable. Putting their name on the registry is possible but why put their name on it if they are not of age to even buy a weapon yet? They will just obtain a gun illegally.
Â
Yes, here is where the pro-gun folks will try to tear me apart. Anyone can get a gun illegally and go on a rampage and shoot people. However, if you reduce the amount of these "assault" weapons then it does make them harder to steal in the long run. If a person doesn't own one, it's not there to be stolen. This would not work right away. It will take time to see the results as is the case with Australia (which has an assault weapon ban) and England (which has a ban on most guns with the exception of some hunting rifles and some handguns). Their numbers in the few years after their bans remained the same. Their numbers now are quite impressive.
Â
Currently, Australia has 30 homicides by firearm each year which is .14% per 100,000 people.
England has 41 homicides by firearm each year which is .07% per 100,000 people.
The USA has 9.146 (and rising) homicides by firearms each year which is 2.97% of 100,000 people.
See the difference?
Â
There is a population difference which this accounts for, but there is also more people in the USA that own guns. You can't argue the numbers. What you can argue is why we haven't done something before now? We, as Americans, should have been more persistent after Columbine. It took the killing of little ones to finally wake up and see we have some major gun, violent nature, and mental health problems in this country. Almost every pro-gun person I have heard speak or I have read feels that their rights are being stolen from them. I have yet to see a realistic thinking person say that the right to bear arms should be revoked. For that matter, I have the right to free speech. It does not mean that should go out in the world and start threatening people and spewing hate. It's very clear that we, as a society, are not able to regulate ourselves under the current laws when it comes to firearms. These are weapons. Created for the sole purpose of being a weapon unlike a car. The car argument is a moot point. Cars are not created to be used as a weapon but as a form of transportation. The majority of deaths are accidental/human error or mechanical failure. The ones that are DUI and/or reckless driving, which can be considered a pre-meditated act, are vehicular manslaughter. There are more deaths per capita by car then by guns. BUT 60% of ALL homicides nationwide are by firearm. The numbers show, that while cars are responsible for more deaths, those deaths do not fall into the category of homicide and thus are not being used as a weapon.Â
Â
I have a good friend, former military & Republican mind you, who owns a rifle and a handgun. He also has 2 sons who he is teaching gun safety to. He also has a gun safe in which he keeps his handgun. He is a staunch supporter of firearms. What he has said is that, while it may be a legal right to own a gun, he sees it as NOT a right but a privilege and that privilege does not need to include owning a weapon of mass annihilation. His words..not mine. My wish would be that we all would view it as a privilege that can be taken away if abused. This is my opinion. I accept that a lot will not agree. But please, look up the numbers. The statistics do not lie or have an opinion.
 @Kymberlie2873 Let me know when we pass laws *requiring* the police to protect us (they don't, SCOTUS said so); then you can have my firearms.  Maybe.
Private sales should require a background check, but then again, how do you enforce that? Also, just having a mental illness should not preclude you necessarily from getting a gun. The key is whether that mental illness makes that person a danger. But private treatments should be checked.
If a few people here are willing to seek compromise in order to keep the status quo on which fire arms are available to law abiding, mentaly sound individuals then I must insist that congress can do the same. A little creativity to come up with a means to regulate the possesion of assault rifles that can satisfy the gun fanatics as well as the fear mongers is not out of the question. I see a few suggestions here and I am sure there are many more out there. Perhaps, taking a cue from motor vehicle licensing, a means of annual or semi annual review could track the where abouts of registered assault rifles as well as monitor the setting in which they are kept. Who knows.
This is a difficult issue and will not likely be solved by stripping the rights of individuals and companies to enjoy their freedoms in order to protect us from a minority of law breakers.
 @33 Except I suspect you'd probably be disappointed with what type of regulation cars are burdened with. https://www.facebook.com/regulateGunsLikeCars
@ChrisJ82 Not what I am suggesting. More of an expansion on the process of annual/semi annual registration of vehicles. Applied to assault rifles it would include a review by law enforcement of the registered address, individuals living at said address as well back ground information pertaining to criminal background and mental/ behavioral issues of all residents and claimed method of securing said weapons (purchase of safes and triggerlocks can be verified). Again, just a suggestion for a starting point.Â
It is funny the government thinks that they will be able to control the automatic weapons problem. They must remember that illegal citizens and illegal drugs still enter the country without being monitored every day. The next phase will be weapons. Way to go Mr. President!!! You J@CKA$$!!!!
Thank you for pointing that out to everyone who isn't putting enough thought into this subject. People operating outside of the law will always have access to guns. Those of us citizens who are abiding by the CURRENT AND EXISTING LAWS are not the ones causing the problem. Stricter laws would not have prevented any of the events of the past week that have sparked so much debate.
If you want background checks on all transactions (well only the legal ones at least), I would propose we do completely away with the FFL system, so that there's no longer a state sanctioned monopoly on transfers, and leverage modern smart phones. Make an app for that! That way anyone can run a background check at anytime from nearly anywhere, but the FFL system MUST go.
@ChrisJ82 - privacy ? anybody can do a background check on anyone at anytime ?
to whoever thinks that criminals will buy guns no matter what law. what a dumb consideration guys... first of all, you cannot really judge black and white. many of these people are mentally disabled, not criminal. you got it? so when you are in that condition, access to firearms is key. if they can find guns in mum's bedroom is one thing, if they have to go to a store, wait 5 days, undergo a background check, and pay 100s of dollars is another.
Â
Also, of they really want to do something bad, at least we need to make their life harder and enforce rules.
Â
the short story is that this is not black/white honest/criminal.
Â
Law should 1) make harder to get guns 2) enforce the penalty inflicted 3) enforce the rules.
Â
also, if people in America stop thinking about guns and stuff like that, the "image" of gun will quickly change. it is time.
 @Joseph <snort> How cute, you think laws will change things when it's now possible to print out unregistered guns at home, only hours before they're intended to be used, with no serial numbers.  Welcome to disposable, untraceable firearms.  You're gonna be able to regulate weapons like you can sugar cookies.Â
This comment has been deleted
Carry this on over at the article about it, eh?
 @Fed up Fed Â
http://www.katu.com/news/tech/Click-print-shoot-Downloadable-guns-possible-184494111.html
Take it up over there.
Â
It's ad hom; it is saying that because I "watch too much TV" my argument must be wrong.
 @brendan  @Fed up Fed @brendan, you don't really get it do you? so your point is "because technology will advance, legislation will fail" so no legislation is better. LOL. isn't an option to ban, when technology will be ready, home gun-printing devices in they will exist? you are surrendering to the inevitable, to the out-laws. But i guess it's a moot point talking to you. You'll never learn.
 @Fed up Fed Too much TV, nice ad hom attack there.  Sadly, I haven't owned a TV since about 2002, when I got rid of my 13" B&W for emergencies (It got pulled out last on 9/11).
Â
How long do you think before it is printed out fully?
Â
Solve this problem:
Someone wants to make sugar cookies, but diabetics oppose this (this is an example, reading *anything* into details of the analogy is folly).  Turns out, the person can buy the ingredients for these things, use a $1500 appliance (oven) and make them at home, from scratch, with no one knowing they did.  Untraceable.
Â
When you can figure out how to prevent sugar cookies from getting into the hands of diabetics (that don't care if you want them to have it or not), you've learned how to control guns.
Â
Printed guns are an early, but realistic technology. Â bet most of it is solved in 2-3 years, and in the mean time, idiots that do NOT see this coming, will still be trying to control guns.
Â
You can make a gun at home that is disposable, unlisted and untraceable. Â Who cares if it only fires 6 shots *first time they got it to work*. Â Again, go look up how many gun crimes involved 5 or less shots fired. Â Most domestic crimes in fact.
 @Fed up Fed  Guess your google-fu just sucks.
Â
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ggggggggggggggg-article-1.1213618
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/12/06/3d-printed-gun-fires-real-bullets/
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/3-d-printed-gun-fires-6-shots-then-falls-apart-1C7404226
Â
All over the news 3 weeks ago.
Â
6 bullets is enough to rob a store, mug someone, or kill your ex.  It's not a TV show.  Notice the regulated part (lower) is the one being printed.  Also, this is perfectly legal as well - one is allowed to make their own unregistered, non-serial number firearms.  There are no 'obvious' reasons, especially considering that you mistook real news for a TV show.
 @brendan  @Joseph Actually, sugar cookies that are sold in stores are regulated. The companies who produce them have to make sure they pass FDA regulations and also are taste tested on a random basis to ensure quality. :)
Also, any felon or mentally unstable person can buy a gun. Â Just not at a store or gun show. Â It happens all the time.
 @RandyH change the law :) it happens all the time in other subject of a community.
 @Joseph  @RandyH Do you think a change in the law will prevent them from getting a gun? Ever hear of the black market and illegal purchases?Â
 @scoreboard  @RandyH so let's just abolish all regulating laws right? they are useless in your opinion.
Gun laws only affect honest buyers. Â People who buy guns for crimes don't get them from a store, to expensive. Â They just just use Nickel Ads, Craigslist, street corners, theft, word of mouth. Â No laws will stop that as criminals don't care about laws. Â I've bought several rifles and handguns over the years just word of mouth in backrooms, no law stops that, all legal. Â How do they stop guns if they can't stop drugs and never will.
 @RandyHÂ
Â
How about this? "Car laws only affect honest buyers. Â People who buy cars for crimes don't get them from a store, too expensive. Â They just just use Nickel Ads, Craigslist, street corners, theft, word of mouth. Â No laws will stop that as criminals don't care about laws."
Â
let's stop all the laws that regulate social and civil life. because law abiding citizens will always do the right thing... LOL
Â
 @Joseph  @RandyH Because one can never REALLY be certain who is going to drink/toke/shoot-up before driving, let"s just ban all cars. At least close the car show loophole.
Â
Honda Civics tend to be in a higher number of accidents. Let's ban them first. Red cars are associated with speeding and aggressive driving. Yup, ban red cars too. I would speculate that more people are killed by red cars than so-called "assault" weapons.
Â
Since you are throwing out some statistics how many of the guns used in a homicide this year were used by the legal owner who followed the purchase laws? And how many were stolen or obtained illegally and used by someone operating outside of the law? Law abiding citizens are NOT the problem. This issue comes down to people not the tools available to them. Chain saws and swords are available and easy to use to. Crazies will just find another way.
 @Conspirator  @Joseph  @RandyH Actually, 60% of all homicides are caused by guns. This includes all vehicular homicides as well. So guns are the main weapon of choice for murder. Why? Ease of use and ease of availability. Those are facts. You can't deny numbers.
@RandyH "Gun laws only affect honest buyers" Bull.
 @Mechanic @RandyH Which is why those laws worked so well in Connecticut, where they have virtually EVERY "common sense" gun law ever asked for.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  " The HUGE difference between guns and drugs is, you can literally GROW drugs. How's about you go out back and plant your guns in the ground and see what kind of crop you get?"
Â
3D Printing puts firearms in the same category as those drugs you mentioned.  It's not so specialized equipment, when you set it up, download the plans off the internet (like any other recipe) and make one.
Â
"Why you would even pretend for a second that we can't"
Because the moment you could 3D print a gun, gun control went out the window. Â It may be in its early stages, but see where it is in 3 or 5 years.
 @Fed up Fed Firstly, every technology starts that way.  Remember how much DVD players cost when they first came out?  Trying to use a technology early before its price point is poor form as an argument against it.  Computers used to cost $2-3k.  Now you can buy a practically disposable for under $200 that is far, far more powerful than those old ones.
Â
Second: it has. Â 6 times at least. Â There's a video, go watch it.
Â
Third: Notice you said "can" not "will";  shell account somewhere, proxy, VPN, open WiFi spots - getting something from the internet anonymously is something every 16yo knows how to do today.
Â
Fourth: Yeah; take the yellow out, and all of a sudden no microcode. Â Also, not all printers have them. Â Most ink jet do not; all it does is print serial number and time - not very useful for stolen printers, or ones picked up off of CL for free on a curb.
Â
Making your point based on a *young* technology that isn't even remotely close to being fully developed to its potential only refutes *where the technology is at now*, not where it can be in 2,4 or 10 years.
Â
Fact: they made an working AR-15 that was untraceable and fired rounds.  Also, $100k is NOTHING to a terrorist group (What, you think only local criminals would take advantage of that?) for printing out hundreds of these in a "safe house" somewhere.
Â
Stick to your too much TV tactic. Â It makes it easy for even the tweakers to figure out the level of discussion you've shown yourself capable of.
Â
http://d.facdn.net/art/two0wls/1305669798.two0wls_our-discussion.jpg
The laws should change in one aspect... Hold the gun owner liable for their guns falling into dangerous hands. That will fix the problem. Or at the very least give us someone to blame that isn't a emotionally, mentally, physically, psychologically challenged, snapper.
 @Lips How do you know who the gun owner is?  Oregon doesn't even register firearms (go try to register one with the state)
This comment has been deleted
 @TheUglyTruth so what? we give up civilization?Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  Excellent comment!
 @Fed up Fed  @TheUglyTruth Funny. Cities that have gun laws that would make even the most ardent lib-tard drool have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the country. I guess they aren't interested in facts.
Â
Also funny how people think that this great country who landed a man on the moon, split the atom, built the Hoover dam, yet, somehow can't seem to stem illegal immigration and drugs or even balance a budget or live within it's means.
Â
Â
Always buy from a private party.
I's hardly the government's business whether or not you,
as a law abiding American, buy or sell a legal piece of personal property.
Â
It's amazing that people trust an organization (the Govt) whose record of
misdeeds and illegal activities are common knowledge.
Â
Any other organization that committed similar bad deeds would not
be trusted by anyone and would have been long gone years ago.
Â
These are the people you trust to give the nod to gun buyers/sellers?
Â
The hypocrisy in this country sickens me.
Â
 @Mipsfer "law abiding American, buy or sell a legal piece of personal property"
Â
this is funny. so is it applicable to all ""properties"? can you buy, sell, own an atomic bomb? i guess no and you'd agree with me. so there is only one problem: where do we draw the line. it is NOT all or nothing. it is a matter of pros and cons.
Â
Lately, the gun laws in USA i would argue caused more cons than pros. so let's change it.Â
Â
Â
Where can you legally buy an atomic bomb?
 @Mipsfer Trust the very ''fast and furious'' government? No way, Jose.
This comment has been deleted
 @Fed up Fed  @ChrisJ82  @Lips  @Mipsfer You can skip forward to about the 2:30 mark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1G5x0XmNiA
Â
Or if a Senate hearing isn't to your liking perhaps the DOJ-OIG's official report? http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.pdf
Â
This is what happens when you only watch MSNBC, you could even have the decency to go look up John Stewart's coverage of it. He's at least an honest liberal, or dare I say almost libertarian. CBS also had some good coverage of the entire debacle as well.
We have enough gun legislation as it is. Why are you blaming the tool and not the individuals who perpetrate such crimes. A gun is a tool likea hammer. It is the person who commits the act.
 @Fed up Fed  @Lips  @Mipsfer Oh except it wasn't one guy and every official source, including Eric Holder contradict that forbes article. The author of which is being sued for the libel/slander in it.
I have a son with severe metal health issues. He's been a bully and and cheat and liar his whole life.and no amount of meds will ever help him. God forbid he gets a gun or assault rifle. It would make Conn look like a picnic.
He been in jail and in prison and nothing helped. My greatest fear is that he'll eventually loose it completely and , well I'll say no more. That's we I'm so against semi auto or auto assault weapons.
The some of you NRA types live and walk in my shoes.
So what you are saying is your son can't be trusted with matches, car keys, axes, kitchen knives, pocket knives or can opener. HOW is that the responsibility of law abiding citizens? If you are concerned your son will steal someones guns what do you do with your car keys at night? In the hands of the wrong person it's just as dangerous. There are a lot of really busy crosswalks in Portland. That's very naive.
 @Doc Holliday2 What are you gonna do if he finds out how to PRINT guns out? (Or finds someone who can?)
 @Doc Holliday2 So because your son has mental issues that involve various underlying factors that have led to him being arrested, that warrants banning assault weapons? If its that bad, get a court order against his will that gives you the authority to have him committed. If you arent willing to do that, don't preach about changing the laws because of what is happening in your personal life. I am all for upping background checks and doing all of that, but I will not hold somebodies hands or make concessions solely because somebody can't get a handle on their own life and issues involved within.Â
 @Doc Holliday2 That doesn't sound like there's any problem with the gun laws. He sounds like he doesn't belong walking freely through society without a keeper.
 @Doc Holliday2 He doesn't sound like someone who could pass the background check to get weapon legally.
 @Saltire  @Doc Holliday2 All he needs to do is steal a gun when one of his friends or family aren't looking.Â
 @Saltire  @Doc Holliday2 exactly, but as the article says, today background check is not mandatory in all circumstances. do you guys get it? that's why a law is absolutely needed.
 @ChrisJ82  @Saltire  @Doc Holliday2 so are we going to dismiss driver license and exams because a "law abiding citizens" will not act in improper way in any case? what's the difference between regulating car and driving and regulating possessing and using fire arms? does having a driver license constitute an additional "hassle" for you? why deadly weapons should be regulated less than cars? really, i don't get the reason. well, actually i do: i am not American, so all this mess around guns is totally non-sense for me. it is in your blood i guess. you guys need to change attitude towards guns and freedom to posses them, we are not in the 1800s now and some laws (and amendments in the constitution) need to change accordingly IMHO.
 @Joseph  @Saltire  @Doc Holliday2 and how pray tell is this law going to make prohibited persons do a background check?
Â
Meanwhile, the law abiding face additional costs and hassle by being forced to deal with an FFL.
 @Doc Holliday2 If he's such a menace to the public, then why is he out in it? I don't mean to sound insensitive--I have one of those relatives too--but thank God he's not a pyromaniac because what would we do?
Â
Ban high-capacity lighters?Â