SB 243 : Relating to Firearm Background Checks (Senate)

Position: Support Status: Senate Judiciary Committee

SB 243 requires a 72 hour waiting period between the time a background check is approved and the transfer of the firearm to the buyer/transferee. The amendment also bans rapid fire activators and allows certain public buildings to prohibit people with concealed carry handgun licenses from carrying loaded, hidden guns into those buildings.

Update

4-9 (S) Do pass with -4 amendments.
4-9 (S) Work Session scheduled at 3:00 PM
4-3 (S) Work Session scheduled at 3:00 PM in Hearing Room E.
3-27 (S) Public Hearing held at 3:00 PM in Hearing Room E.
1-17 (S) Referred to Judiciary.
1-13 (S) Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
At the request of: (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary)
Chief Sponsors: None
Regular Sponsors: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President.

SB 243 passed with the -4 amendment which can be read here.

  • Requires a 72 hour waiting period before an arms dealer can transfer a firearm after a sale,
  • Bans rapid fire activators like bump stocks,
  • Places public area restrictions on carrying concealed firearms.

After Oregon’s Permit to Purchase law (Measure 114) takes effect, people with a PTP will still undergo a background check every time they attempt to purchase or transfer firearms (exceptions for sale or transfer between immediate family members). This bill will add a waiting period of 72 hours between the time the arms dealer requests the background check and the check is approved and the time the purchaser can take possession of the firearm.

Waiting periods reduce gun homicides and gun suicides.

  • “Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%.”  M. Luca, D. Malhotra, & C. Poliquin, Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 (46) 12162-12165, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619896114 (2017).
  • “A subgroup analysis also found a significant 9-percent reduction in firearm suicide rates among older victims in states that introduced waiting periods, ” RAND Gun Policy in America,
  • Some people claim that women are particularly at risk of violence from abusive partners when they cannot access firearms on demand. That view fails understand the realities of intimate partner violence and fails to consider the many tools available to women–to everyone–who are concerned about safety. The state of Oregon provides laws that require abusers to be disarmed and allow other actions to be taken to keep the abuser away. These tools include Domestic Violence Restraining Orders and Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
  • Additionally, studies indicate that waiting periods actually reduce the rate of domestic violence. In a 2009, Roberts found that “a waiting period of between two and seven days significantly lowered total and firearm-specific intimate partner homicide rates compared with no waiting period,” (RAND 2024)

  • Court cases upholding waiting periods:

    • Silvester v. Becerra (2018) – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period, ruling that it did not violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in place.

    • McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – While this case incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments, it did not address waiting periods specifically. However, the decision acknowledged that some gun regulations, such as background checks and restrictions for felons, are permissible.

    • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – This case struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban but stated that some gun regulations, including “longstanding prohibitions” and conditions on commercial sales, are constitutional. While it did not address waiting periods directly, it left room for reasonable regulations.

Rapid fire activators are weapons of war and do not belong in our communities, schools, houses of worship, or streets.

  • The main difference between a fully automatic gun and a semi-automatic gun is that a fully automatic gun fires continuously when the trigger is held down or pulled, while a semi-automatic gun fires one bullet per trigger pull.
  • Fully automatic firearms are legal in Oregon under the 1934 National Firearms Act. (ATF) This bill would not change the legality of fully automated firearms covered under the NFA. This bill addresses rapid fire activators.
  • Rapid fire activators enable a shooter to make a semi-automatic firearm fire as if it were a fully automatic firearm. A rapid fire activator was used by the shooter in the October 1, 2017 massacre in Las Vegas to kill 60 people and injure 413 more with gun firearm or shrapnel. More than 450 other people received non-firearm-related injuries in the shooting.
  • The massacre, the most deadly in American history, occurred while Donald Trump was the US President. After the Las Vegas massacre, Mr. Trump banned bump stocks but his own Supreme Court struck down that ban in 2024. (CNN)

  • In Aposhian v. Barr (2020), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal ban on bump stocks implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the Tenth Circuit’s decision in place.

    Similarly, in Gun Owners of America v. Garland (2022), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed challenges to the ATF’s bump stock ban. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari meant that the lower court’s ruling remained effective.

    While the Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of bans on rapid-fire activators, its choice not to review these cases allows the lower court decisions upholding such bans to remain in effect.

Cities, counties, and districts can control who is bringing loaded, hidden guns into public buildings.

  • Cities, counties, districts or other entities that are defined as municipal corporations may adopt a policy prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms even if the person carrying a firearm has a valid Oregon concealed handgun license. That policy can include the building, the grounds adjacent to the building or controlled by the city, county, district or municipal entity.
  • A few concealed carry firearm permit holders believe their presence is enough to deter shootings. That is a deadly and misguided thought.  A 2021 article in JAMA Open Network found “armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present.“
  • The same study further found “An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns.“
  • Gun-free zones give law enforcement officers the tools to remove an armed person from a building before an altercation becomes violent.
  • Finally, the US has more than 400 million firearms in civilian hands. If the presence of firearms actually reduced crime, the US would be the safest country in the world. We are not. In fact, gunshot wound is the leading cause of death of kids and teens in the US. (Johns Hopkins and KFF)