Kind of a weird slant for the Mercury to take, trying to spin "enforce existing laws" as "enhance [a] state agency's authority" -- did the agency previously lack the authority to enforce the existing law?
Or is it some sort of knee-jerk anti-Republican bias? (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day -- so the GOP could be too.)
@anonymous1 It's my understanding that there was ambiguity regarding the Oregon State Police's authority to investigate failed background checks. An opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel clarified that they did have the authority.
Unfortunately the Senate Republicans refused to even allow a vote on the universal background check in 2013. This nod to allow the OSP to follow up on failed background checks, just clarifies that the OSP should in deed do their jobs and enforce the meager gun safety laws we have on the book. Still does nothing to close the gap on the 40% of private gun sales in Oregon that occur without background checks. It's like we are a haven for gun tourists. Oregon has worse gun safety laws then Georgia. Events like the Reynolds shooting make the republicans look like gun nutters for not supporting gun safety. Last time the Oregon Senate republicans voted against gun safety they lost two seats. We are not gun control advocates, we are gun safety advocates.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Although the SCOTUS went with the NRA in Heller, looking at ACTUAL original intent shows that the framers meant exactly what they said: "A well regulated militia," NOT every jackass with a small penis compensating with a firearm.
Also, if the NRA were, as they occasionally claim, actually interested in gun safety, they WOULD want guns kept out of the hands of violent criminals and people with mental health issues.
Learned, perhaps, by hearing the public radio story on this from last month?
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-oregon-to-investigate-failed-firearm-background-checks/
Or is it some sort of knee-jerk anti-Republican bias? (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day -- so the GOP could be too.)
Although the SCOTUS went with the NRA in Heller, looking at ACTUAL original intent shows that the framers meant exactly what they said: "A well regulated militia," NOT every jackass with a small penis compensating with a firearm.
Also, if the NRA were, as they occasionally claim, actually interested in gun safety, they WOULD want guns kept out of the hands of violent criminals and people with mental health issues.