New Brady Scorecard Shows Oregon Lacking Common Sense Gun Restrictions

Oregon voters strengthened its gun laws in 2000, closing a loophole by requiring Brady background checks on the purchases on all gun sales at gun shows.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - A watchdog group says officials in Oregon have done little to keep criminals and other dangerous people from easily obtaining guns, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the new redesigned scorecards are being released today for all 50 states.

"Oregon hasn’t done enough to protect its citizens against gun violence and is allowing dangerous people to have easy access to guns," said Shawn Alford, President of Ceasefire Oregon. The state has yet to extend Brady background checks to all gun purchases and limit bulk purchases of handguns.

The Brady Scorecards are designed so that states can score up to 100 points across five major categories of laws: Curbing Firearm Trafficking; Strengthening Brady Background Checks; Child Safety; Banning Military-style Assault Weapons; and making it harder to carry Guns In Public Places. The national state-by-state scores are available in complete category-by-category detail at bradycampaign.org.

"It is deeply troubling that Oregon could receive such a low score on protecting families and children in our state from gun violence," Alford said. "We can do better than this, and I expect Oregon’s elected officials to take action to improve our failing score."

Oregon voters did take a significant step to strengthen its gun laws in 2000 by passing a ballot initiative to close the gun show loophole by requiring Brady background checks on the purchases on all gun sales at gun shows. Voters approved the ballot initiative by a margin of 62%-38%.

"We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. Our gun laws are so weak that, in most states, there are few or no laws to prevent gun violence," says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is true at the federal level as well. We need effective gun laws to curb gun violence and illegal gun trafficking."

The Brady Campaign scorecards provide a new and redesigned analysis of whether states are enacting the laws needed to protect citizens from gun violence. The new scorecards also show states how their gun laws can be strengthened and their scores improved.

* States can earn up to 35 points by taking all measures 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 only five points in this category.

* States can earn up to 25 points by "Strengthening Brady Background Checks." This involves requiring background checks on all gun sales and requiring a permit in order to purchase firearms. 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 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 10 points by making it harder to carry "Guns In Public Places" (except for 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, not permitting "shoot first" expansions in self-defense laws, and not preventing municipalities from passing their own gun laws. Oregon scored only six points in this category.

We 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 lcav.org.

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.

Jefferson February 5, 2008 9:44 pm (Pacific time)

See what state (below), home of far left liberal senator Tom Daschle is about to do! Also several other states have already passed similar laws and no increase in crime, in fact the gungrabbers and the grossly uninformed are besides themselves because facts simply trumps their obscene propaganda: PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A measure allowing law-abiding people to carry guns on the campuses of South Dakota's public universities was approved Monday by the state House of Representatives. The House voted 63-3 to send the measure to the Senate after supporters said allowing students, faculty members and others to carry guns would help deter mass shootings.

Anonymous February 5, 2008 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

To clear something up: there is no such thing as “assault weapons.” They are a myth. Even in California, where a more stringent ban on so-called “assault weapons” remains in effect (since the ban expired), semi-automatic rifles that merely differ in appearance from the banned weapons are still perfectly legal in California. Comparing rates of fire (a popular propaganda Brady tactic), a modern semi-automatic pistol is not appreciably faster than a double-action revolver from the 19th-century A.D.. (Unless of course you are like some poster's and have no ability/familiarization with weapons outside of what the "voices in your head " tell you! LOL). Even if the ban had been effective, criminal misuse of semi-automatic rifles was already rare. Criminals prefer the convenience and concealability of handguns. Get it!?

Jefferson February 5, 2008 1:22 pm (Pacific time)

People the far left has their talking points and at least one poster continues to paraphrase them. As usual their lack of both knowledge and experience is the basis for this individual's opinion, who also continues to not understand that the majority of Americans simply do not care about uninformed opinions in this matter. Suffice, I am never surprised about what comes from certain genomes...

Neal Feldman February 5, 2008 10:45 am (Pacific time)

Jefferson - Again you rant sophistry and make claims of proof you have never met the burdens of using claims of experience/expertise that ou have never substantiated. However you ask me to show a case where there are lots of guns yet high crime rate... how about Somalia? Data also shows that a gun in the home is far more likely to be used against a family member or other occupant than against an intruder. The facts remain that guns are deadly weapons and reasonable laws should exist to deal with them. It is also difficult to defend a need for more than a shotgun, a hunting rifle and a handgun in a home. What military force are they planning on going up against? Also it is clear the 2nd amendment is not absolute as it is ridiculous to allow private citizens to possess nukes or ant other WMD such as chemical or biologicals. So clearly limits are reasonable, it is just a matter of where to draw the line. As for collectors there is no reason the guns in their collection be fully functional. A small piece essential for firing but not visible from the outside cann be removed rendering the weapon safe. As for offering opinions that is all ANYONE is doing here. As for all your claimed qualifications, Mr Mitty, you have not substantiated your claim to even one of them and your statements are not those of one with your claimed qualifications which brings serious doubt as to the honesty inherent in your claims. Ah well...

Jefferson February 3, 2008 7:03 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks Neal. As per your below posts it becomes quite clear that you simply are offering an opinion, obviously an opinion unsupported by "real" facts/data, and that seems to be your M.O. regardless of the sunject matter. Which is fantastic. For clarification purposes for others, my below comments were directed at the above article and the Brady Bunch gungrabbers. The bottom line is that there are over one hundred millions guns in America, they are not going away. The majority of Americans continually let congress know that if they mess with our 2nd Amendment they will be removed from office. Look at their legislation! Those from a certain genome will always try to present their myths about guns, but like you Neal, facts will expose them for their complete lack of understanding in this matter, or maybe there is an agenda? Many people think there is! The data shows that the better armed the population is, the lower the crime rate. Try to disprove that Neal! As far as my professional background Neal, what have you done. Before you got off the bus here in Oregon, what have you done that bettered your adopted community? Was your abbreviated military adventure your only experience in both vocation and education? My position on guns and the Brady people should be clear, even to those with poor reading skills, and as far as global warming there is a growing population of professionals who simply don't buy into the scam, just like the "ethanol" scam. I certainly do not have an extensive background in meterology/climatology, but I am well trained in knowing how to read and interpret professional journals in this area (which I use for investment purposes), so reducing my exposure to financial loss makes me more than a little focused on this topic. What is your background in this area Neal? Have you professional experience crtiquing scientific articles? Even non-scientific professional articles? Or do you just let what you feel on some topic be your impetus for sharing your opinion? I think it is the latter Neal, and frankly there are times I have enjoyed that opinion, though I will make a comment when I disagree. I try not to belittle you when I do that Neal, and that is not the only difference between you and I, either...and I am very thankful for that.

Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 2:58 am (Pacific time)

Jefferson - LOL! Super degrees in everything, being the greatest military mind on the planet (and who knows? Next you might claim to be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound) are 'not extraordinary'? Sure thing, 'Clark'. Anything you say. >snort< And the facts are irrefutable that your 'hero' North is a criminal who violated his oath and the laws of the land he was sworn to uphold. Not the definition of 'hero' by any sane standard. But he fell on his sword to protect your demi-god Reagan, so of course like a good little neocon you elevate him to sainthood. No surprise there. It just further exemplifies the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the neocon movement. Ah well...

Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 2:50 am (Pacific time)

Jefferson - I do not need a graduate degree in climatology. Plenty of those who have such hold the same views. In fact the significant majority does. There are, of course fringe 'flat earther types' in every field and it sure seems you have tied your position to the kite of that crew in the climatology field. And we have all heard many times how you have super degrees in everything, are the world's foremost military expert etc etc etc. Thank you Mr Mitty. >yawn< No I do not have a CHL in Oregon (or anywhere else). So what? I am fully familiar with the operation and use of firearms as well as other weapons, explosives etc. Again, so what? The issue under discussion is the second amendment and whether it is unlimited. It clearly is not unlimited or absolute since no right is unlimited or absolute. Not even the right to life. You cannot do ANYTHING you like in the name of your personal survival. And there is nothing 'new found' about my knowledge on the subject. And of course I need no CHL to own firearms or know about their use. You DO know what a CHL is, right? It allows some folks to carry a CONCEALED handgun in many, but not all, places (try waving a CHL and try and get a gun into a federal court for example). But if I want to carry a loaded shotgun openly down the street I am fully in my rights to do so. I am not allowed to do so in a menacing manner and I will likely attract law enforcement attention but there is little they can legally do to stop me. As for the illegitimacy of your comparison your sophistry in no way proves any correlation with your claims and the fscts. Someone could as easily point out the greater number of trees in Vermont per capita compared to WDC or that WDC does not produce great maple syrup being the cause... they would equally have failed to prove causal correlation. This is why your unsubstantiated claims to super degrees in everything as well as the rest of your laughable claims fall flat and make you just look dishonest. Because no one who actually did have such would make most of the statements you make. To me the concept of assault weapons has tended to be a form more than a function. There are those which while not full auto can easily be made to be and are even sold with kits specifically for that purpose. To me mainly the issue with assault weapons is the mindset of someone attracted to owning such is not the stable type I'm particularly comfortable knowing owns something that can allow them to kill with the twitch of one finger... the Rambo Wannabe type if you will. Personally if it did not violate privacy it might be a good idea to require psych evals for gun owners. After all law enforcement and soldiers have to go through them. Do YOU want crrazies owning guns? But there are limits so that idea likely will never fly. You make a grave mistake, though, when you assume that just because I do not agree with you on the issue that I have not researched enough. I just know human beings far too well and on the whole I would not trust the vast majority with a wooden spoon much less a firearm. But I do not seek any total ban. I do seek sanr restriction and regulation, and yes that includes registration. The fearmongering regarding registration is as laughable as it is shrill. There are clearly those society should not allow firearms and there is no possible way to check that without registration. Waiting around for the neighborhood psycho to gun down half the local school kids is not acceptable to me at least. Is it acceptable to you? Yes gun crime records are better for CHL holders. Then again committing a gun crime pretty much precludes you from holding a CHL. So that is sort of like pointing out that very few NBA players are under 5 feet tall... so claiming that playing basketball promotes physical growth. Cart before the horse, rhetorically speaking. And again if you think making up cutesy names like 'Brady Bunch' etc helps your cause you are sadly mistaken. It just makes you appear immature, petty and desperate. Just so you know. Ah well...

Jefferson February 2, 2008 5:52 pm (Pacific time)

I frankly don't see my educational, military or business background as anything extraordinary, just the way my life has unfolded. Though I imagine for people who sit on the sidelines and write about what other people do may be rather uneventful and unfullfilling, I certainly am glad I am a doer and not something other than a doer. Those of you out there who have taken Geography courses (e.g. ,Physical and Cultural) I am sure most have had exposure to both meterology and climatology curriculum. I also took graduate courses in climatology, but I took it for investment reasons...I do considerable investing in futures, e.g. , agri-products... By the way Col. North has made over 20 trips to Iraq/Afghanistan as from a recent report, the military personnel who know him have frequently referred to LTC North (Ret) as a very heroic individual, and I am part of that same fan base. Suffice, buy more guns and ammo whenever possible!

Henry Ruark February 2, 2008 2:39 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Now, to heroic war record including Col. North as "hero" and statement "he might have made it under my command", debate with Sen. Morse, grad degrees in education et al, now with "a graduate background in climatology" --all on self/say-so ! Must be hydra-headed with at least five brain-boxes, as well as wide chest to wear all those service ribbons... Verrry PEculIAR, don't you think ? Easy to claim ANYthing but where's ID-proof, including Op Ed full-statement stance on ANYthing ? Editor awaits your real contribution in form sure to draw Comments, if you dare... and "retaliation" unproven way to escape.

Jefferson February 2, 2008 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

Gun comments below. Global warming scam: Neal you have a graduate background in climatology? I do! You even have an under-graduate background in climatology? Regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment, just what do you know Neal? I see you do not have a CHL here in Oregon, right? Of course that does not prevent you from having a gun or acquiring knowledge about guns and crime, or even the so-called assault weapon ban scam...so why don't you go do some research and dazzle us with your new found knowledge on this subject, instead of offering an uninformed opinion...As far as comparing Vermont with Washington DC, well in the very recent past the Brady bunch has always given DC (guns are illegal there!!) a high score (didn't you know Neal?) for dancing to the Brady anti-gun tune, and Vermont, and other area's that have good common sense approaches (like Oregon) to the 2nd Amendment have been graded poorly(oh woe, if the Brady bunch disapproves). What is interesting is that the data clearly shows that DC has probably the highest gun crime rate in the nation/western civilization (high Brady score) and Vermont one of the lowest gun crime rates (low Brady score). Suffice Neal, I really do respect your opinion, no kidding, but maybe if you do some more research in this matter you'll come to the same conclusion that the majority of Americans (and our Founding Fathers) is that the 2nd Amendment works just fine and the government needs to minimize their intervention...Neal what is an assault weapon to you? I recall Sen. Feinstein (whose multiple body guards[whose training I am quite familiar with] carry specially licensed automatic weapons) gave a list of options that she considered to fit an assault weapon description/profile. Note: None of the previously banned weapons was an automatic, and automatics have been banned since the 1930's unless you have a special license. So Neal, outside of boot camp, what is your experience with so-called assault weapons? The gun crime rate for those who hace CHL's is literally lower than sworn police officers. Laws on the books are fine, simply enforce them and no more government intervention is needed. The Brady bunch, who do you think helps fund this group? I know, and so does Yale Prof. Lott, probably the best authority on guns and crime on the planet...

Neal Feldman February 2, 2008 4:29 am (Pacific time)

mike - Well you have been proven as wrong in your claim that your post would not be put up as you are wrong in pretty much everything else you said in the post. I have a life, thank you very much, and I have also read and fully comprehend the second amendment to the US Constitution. Your statements border on the incoherent. This country is hardly 'destroyed' and pf the long lists of things that are wrong in this country I seriously doubt you could even show that 0.001% of them are caused by gun laws. So you feel there should be no weapon laws? So you think Bubba should be allowed to drive around with a thermonuclear device hooked up to the gun rack in his pickup or have nerve gas or other biological or chemical WMDs, huh? Sure seems to be what ou are saying. Either you are for no limits or you allow for limits, and if you allow for limits then the only real argument is where the limits should be. And your desperate attempt to drag Hitler into it is nothing but hysterical hyperbolic histrionics and flawed/fallacious critical thinking. To say the least it certainly does not in any credible way help your case. And gun laws predate 1935 and just because one person abused power does not mean that all laws are bad. You would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. But rant on... it serves a useful purpose for sane folks to be able to point to the ravings of an unhinged gun nut from time to time. Ah well...

Neal Feldman February 2, 2008 4:18 am (Pacific time)

Anonymous - Where am I watering down anything? There is no such thing as an unlimited right. Even the first amendment rights are not absolute. What I put forth most would find more than reasonable. Why would you need more than that? Are you one of the wingnut yahoos who feel folks should be allowed to have nukes and Saryb gas etc? And no I don't care what religion someone is so long as they do not try and force it on me or anyone else. What does that part of your statement have to do with the discussion? Ah well...

Neal Feldman February 2, 2008 4:12 am (Pacific time)

Jefferson - Anyone calling global warming 'a scam' is in deep delusional denial. The evidence is incontrovertible and any time those like yourself try and disprove it all you do is show how you clearly do not comprehend even the most basic aspects of the concepts. And you think the gun laws are the ONLY differences between Washington DC and Vermont that might have a relevant effect on the data? I think your examples clearly prove your lack of credibility. And are you claiming that since the assault weapon ban lapsed there has not been even a single death or attack due to a weapon that would have been banned under that law? Really? Ah well...

Neal Feldman February 2, 2008 4:05 am (Pacific time)

Rick - The US has more guns in private hands than any other industrialized nation and yet we have one of the highest violent crime rates and murder rates of the industrialized nations. That pretty much blows gaping holes in the argument that more guns means more safety. In fact it pretty well proves the opposite. Ah well...

mike February 1, 2008 7:42 pm (Pacific time)

Get a life!! 2nd amendment, you should read it. Oregon is very safe, because we have firearms! Gov't like unarmed citizens, You all make me sick, And you will not post this, because you have an administrator deciding which one to put on. There should no Gun Laws to any law abiding citizen!!! Your anti firearms movement destroy this country and you be ashamed. Hitler invented Gun registration in 1935.

Anonymous February 1, 2008 2:48 pm (Pacific time)

I'm glad Neal doesn't have a problem with someone having a shotgun, hunting rifle or maybe a handgun. What other amendments doe's he want to water down? He probaly wouldn't even care if someone were Baptist, Jewish or maybe Catholic.

Jefferson February 1, 2008 12:17 pm (Pacific time)

The huge national database clearly shows that those states that have CHL's, gun crime is far lower than those area's that don't. Simply compare Washington DC (no 2nd Amendment rights there...case pending) with Vermont (do not need a licence to carry concealed). When the so-called assault weapons ban (a scam like global warming) expired, then what happened? Recall Sens. Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, Levin, ad nauseum, that the streets would run red with blood! Suffice, the more people that are armed, the lower the gun crime rate. In fact the revocation rate in Oregon for CHL's is statistically nil...also their crime rate is below that of sworn officers! The Brady bunch, just what is their real end game?

Rick February 1, 2008 5:43 am (Pacific time)

More Guns Less Crime by Lott pretty much debunks all the Brady bunch ideas for "making a difference" in gun violence. On the other hand laws like "The Castle Doctrine" where the lawful use of a gun is protected, do indeed reduce crime and as a bonus reduce court costs for crime victims who use a gun to save themselves. As for me, the lower Oregon scores on the Brady Bunch Scorecard, the better. Just look how "safe" California and Washington DC are.

UH60L January 31, 2008 6:52 pm (Pacific time)

In the five years after the Brady bill was passed......there were 9 school shootings.

The only thing it did was keep me from buying magazines for my ruger 10/22. Now I can buy them again. It's great for target shooting, or shooting varments in eastern oregon grass fields.

Neal Feldman January 31, 2008 1:51 pm (Pacific time)

I try and negotiate a moderate position on the gun issue. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but same as with every other right it is no unlimited. There are some extremist whackjobs who honestly think the 2nd guarantees the right of individuals to own nukes, chemical and biological WMDs etc. There are just as ludicrous, to my mind, as those who wish to ban all guns everywhere. If someone wants to own a shotgun, a hunting rifle and maybe a handgun, none of which are capable of full auto, I have no issue with this. I have an issue with those who want to own personal arsenals. If you ask me the simple fact they want to own such is a great big red flag screaming they should not be allowed to. Why do they need such an arsenal? As for collectors there is no reason that a gun owned as a collector piece must be functional. A small part can be removed which makes the gun non-functional but still perfectly authentic for collection purposes. Guns are tools. Utility is the watchword for legitimate owners. That is why so-called 'assault weapons' are an issue because it is the attitude and mindset of those who insist on owning such things that brings into serious question whether they should be allowed to. But to those who claim they oppose any limits unless you support personally owned nukes or other WMDs you support limits... the only question is where the line is drawn. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 31, 2008 1:35 pm (Pacific time)

Sorry but the caption is jarring... an attempted attempt? What the heck is that? lol Ah well...

[Return to Top]