Oregon State Gun Law Scorecard

Brady Campaign State Scorecard: Oregon has closed gun show loophole but needs to do more.

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - While Oregon law requires Brady criminal background checks on all gun buyers at gun shows, it still lacks other strong gun laws that prevent illegal gun trafficking, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In the organization’s 2009 state scorecards released today for all 50 states, Oregon earns just 17 points out of a total of 100.

“While we are proud to be one of seven states that has closed the gun show loophole, we call upon Congress to pass legislation to close this dangerous loophole at the federal level,” said Penny Okamoto, spokesperson for Ceasefire Oregon. “Since most of Oregon’s neighboring states have not closed the gun show loophole, gun traffickers can simply go to Washington, Nevada or Idaho gun shows and buy guns without background checks and bring them into our state,” continued Okamoto.

In 2000, voters approved Measure 5, by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent, to close the loophole and require background checks on all gun show sales. The Brady Campaign is advocating for legislation to close the gun show loophole at the national level. “We call upon other states and Congress to follow Oregon’s lead and close the gun show loophole,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign.

During Oregon's last legislative session, Ceasefire Oregon and the Brady Campaign strongly supported legislation, HB 2853, that was a top priority of Governor Kulongoski and the Oregon State Police to ensure names of Oregonians who are prohibited from buying a gun under federal law because of their mental health history be reported to the National Criminal Instant Check System (NICS). The legislation was signed into law last year and is a significant step forward in preventing gun violence.

The state’s complete scorecard results can be accessed at www.bradycampaign.org. The categories covered by the Oregon 2009 scorecard are as follows:

· States can earn up to 35 points by taking steps needed to “Curb Firearm Trafficking.” States can fully regulate the gun dealers within their borders, limit bulk purchases of handguns, provide police certain technology to identify crime guns, and require lost or stolen guns to be reported to the police. Oregon scored just six points in this category.

· States can earn up to 27 points by “Strengthening Brady Background Checks.” This involves requiring background checks on all gun sales, requiring a permit in order to purchase firearms and laws regulating ammunition. Short of universal background checks, states can also close the gun show loophole, at least requiring background checks for all gun show sales. Oregon scored just seven points in this category.

· States can earn up to 20 points by “Protecting Child Safety” when it comes to guns. States can require that only childproof handguns be sold within their borders, require child safety locks to be sold with each handgun, hold adults accountable for keeping guns away from kids and teens, and require handgun purchasers to be at least 21 years of age. Oregon scored zero points in this category. · States can earn up to 10 points by “Banning Military-style Assault Weapons,” as well as banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. Oregon scored zero points in this category.

· States can earn up to eight points by restricting most “Guns In Public Places” to trained law enforcement and security and by allowing localities to “Preserve Local Control” over municipal gun laws. This includes keeping guns out of workplaces and college campuses, not forcing law enforcement to issue concealed handgun permits on demand and not preventing municipalities from passing their own gun laws. Oregon scored four points in this category.

Brady Campaign officials acknowledge the research of Legal Community Against Violence on state gun laws. Their publication, “Regulating Guns in America,” and website served as a basis for our analysis. For more information about Legal Community Against Violence, see www.lcav.org.

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

andrew April 26, 2010 9:01 pm (Pacific time)

I am going to prevent from good/bad dichotomizing (right/wrong), and or black and white thinking. As a veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the federal government has taken my ability to buy my first firearm. There conclusion, being that I can't handle my VA funds appropriately, they presume I am unfit to possess, transport, or sell a firearm/weapon/any of it's kind. To make a long story short, I think the Brady Handgun is an excellent approach, I can't think of anything else. Hopefully, veterans of foreign wars, soldiers in general, or any other persons, are not labeled unfit, and if they are reimbursed for such unjustice.

andrew April 26, 2010 9:15 pm (Pacific time)

I want to keep from good/bad dichotomizing (also known as black and white thinking). The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, is an excellent approach, I can't think of a different one. Hopefully, in the future, veterans of foreign wars, soldiers, and other human being, is not targeted falsely and if so receives reimbursement. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and have had my ability to buy my first firearm stripped away from me, from the VA. They based it on the fact that I can't handle my finances, so they said under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, I can't possess/transport/buy any form of ammunition/weapons/firearms.

Jon March 3, 2010 5:17 pm (Pacific time)

To Okamoto and Ceasefire: If you cannot focus your energies on something worthwhile that does not infringe on our Rights, go back to California or someplace that accepts 2nd Amm. stomping, idiotic thinking and behavior.

Natalie February 19, 2010 10:58 am (Pacific time)

Jeff Kaye~D'you keep printouts of ALL my previous comments or just the ones taken too personally? Should be a thick folder by now...LOL

Anonymous February 19, 2010 12:37 am (Pacific time)

Oregon should be proud. The "Gun Control Scorecard" should read "Tyranny Control Scorecard". It is ironic that Oregon, with concealed carry protected by most Sheriffs, allowed in nearly every public place, and with few limits on ownership... has one of the lowest gun crime rates and, as far as I know, never had a mass shooting at a university. Gee, same for Utah, with even less gun control. You think they'd realize that...until you realize that gun control isn't about protecting people, it is about controlling the people and paving the way for radical and tyrannical government agenda. No thanks. I'm proud to live in Oregon.

Jeff Kaye~ February 18, 2010 11:48 pm (Pacific time)

Awesome UFC promo! Looks like a good card... I can't wait for that Silva vs. Bisping fight. I think Minotauro's past his prime, but I thought that before, and he's proven me wrong more than once. No predictions but: Fireworks likely in the cage. No gun control there. Could be, however, always the chance that a fighter will "pull out" or "abort". Just thought I'd throw that in there for Natalie. Not throwing any slippers, though. ;}

Jagur February 18, 2010 3:18 pm (Pacific time)

Without the 2nd there would be no 1st. There are 20,000 gun laws already, how about enforcing those!

Anonymous February 18, 2010 2:23 pm (Pacific time)

What gun programs? The 2nd Amendment does not have any programs, it is a clear statement that needs no intrusion nor tinkering with by the government. As far as how are tax money is allocated, that is done through the legislative process, so I'm okay with that. The Brady group is not a commission, it is a special interest group, like the Violence Policy Institute and others of similar ilk who have as their end game, gun confiscation. Our Bill of Rights and the Constitution does not care what are ideology is.

Natalie February 18, 2010 1:09 pm (Pacific time)

How d'you guys manage to mix these different topics together? Anyway, it's not just the woman's body, that we're talking about. It's another human being inside that body. And that human being should have the right to live. If the woman's life is in danger, then self-defence term can be applicable. Though I consider giving your life for your child more honorable. If the woman for whatever reason just doesn't want the baby, she should set up that baby for a closed adoption thus finding a loving home for the child and making another couple happy at the same time. The argument that it's a torture not to know if that baby is OK with strangers is not valid, since the mother herself is already willing to abort, thus to terminate the life. And if a woman has a supportive man by her side and not just a sperm-donor that refuses to take care of her and the baby we wouldn't see so many abortions in the first place. Only women know how they feel after losing a child, willingly or due to miscarriage. We would rather skip that joy-ride, believe me on that.

Anonymous February 18, 2010 11:14 am (Pacific time)

What does abortion protestors have to do with the Brady agenda? The 2nd Amendment is part of what we are founded on in terms of "rights." I could frankly care less what an individaul does with their pregnancy, let their God sort it out later. But in terms of taxpayers being forced to pay for something they disagree with on moral grounds has debate merit. In fact it was that issue that impacted the healthcare house legislation by a significant number of democrats, and in effect caused the senate to not have that benefit in their bill. Just the same, it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, one is a natural right, the other is also a right, but one should not be taxed to cover the procedure. Plenty of rich fat cats out there pushing abortion rights, even late term abortion in the 36th week, let them "walk the walk" and pony up some of their own funding.

Editor: So, reading between the lines, you are basically against a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body if your taxes have to pay for it? Do you imagine some of my tax money goes to support programs that relate to gun ownership? I reckon they do, but that's OK with me, because I believe people deserve real freedom, not just the selective type that allows you to own a weapon, but keeps women unable to choose what they can do with their own bodies. For the record, most people I know who 'lean left' do not rally for gun control, I can't talk about the Brady commission or any of them, but the average person I believe believes that all guns could never be removed from society anyway, and people do have a right to defend themselves. At any rate, thanks for your comment.

Anonymous February 18, 2010 10:32 am (Pacific time)

Oregon has one of the lowest gun crime rates, not just in the states, but the entire world. Why would Brady and other gungrabbers ignore that? Like most of those who have an agenda that focuses on reducing freedom, they use emotion based on disinformation.

Editor: Do you include abortion protesters in that figuring? Since you care about freedom, I just thought I'd ask.

[Return to Top]