Letter: The background check gun law applies to everyone
Published Aug. 9, 2016 -
The Rev. Jeremy Lucas of Lake Oswego wanted to prevent a firearm from going into use. Thats fine and good, but every time a modern firearm changes hands, a background check must first be accomplished, even if that person intends to turn that firearm into a piece of art.
Thats the law we got saddled with. There are exceptions for family transfers, brief loans at shooting ranges, law enforcement and inherited firearms. But this exchange does not fall into one of those categories.
Until the background check is complete, Lucas and the person in possession of the firearm are criminals.
The absurdity of this law was explained before it was passed into law. Now we have this question: Are we going to follow through with enforcement of the law?
Bonus Letter: Bates is puppet to political backers
Steve Bates circulated misinformation in his recent Citizens View opinion piece (Who is really disingenuous? Wilsonville Spokesman, Aug. 3.) His statements are not factually correct, but they are based on his own very partisan background as a two-time candidate for Clackamas County Commission.
Attacking Jim Bernard, one of his political opponents, is a target of convenience for Bates because Commissioner Bernard did not bring the word disingenuous into the discussion at the rural reserve designation meetings sponsored by the Clackamas County Commission.
The charge disingenuous was directed at the process and was made, in fact, by several citizens who seemed to be better informed than the presenters (see, Hundreds attend open house on county land re-designation, Wilsonville Spokesman, July 6.)
Secondly, Bates does not declare his own interest in the matter (his partisan background is indicated by the editors). In fact, Steve Bates ran against Jim Bernard in 2012 and lost, so now he attacks Bernard on fictitious grounds. Whats up with that? A little research shows the reason: Bates received a $15,000 campaign donation from the Maletis brothers in his race against Bernard, the same Maletis brothers who have given more than $60,000 in campaign donations to the three commissioners who voted to spend more than $200,000 of taxpayer money trying to rewrite rural reserves in the French Prairie area that would benefit guess who? the Maletis brothers, land speculators par excellence.
Bates is wrong. This is not about the legitimate rights of property owners. This is about his political backers trying to influence politicians to change legitimate land-use designations in hopes of making huge windfall profits.