Oregon New federal prohibitors (oregon)

[D-Bo]

So basically my 2 buddies who literally just both went through Oregon Gun Law to have their records expunged, are screwed?

It's highly probable they will be denied.

 

[D-Bo]

Did you request that they produce a copy of the law change or at least referenced which law/code/provision that now ignores state laws?

ETA: If OSP is doing it under the table by way of inter office policy, and know full well the law doesn't actually allow it, it wouldn't surprise me that they would respond very vaguely to "some new feeb law". KWIM?

If it's real, they should have no problem supplying a law/code for reference.

Oregon claims they have no part in it.

 

[solv3nt]

Still need a lawyer. Nothing posted on an internet forum is going to help fix this.

 

[Kruel J]

View attachment 1874961

Prove me wrong, Dude.

 

[solv3nt]

Prove me wrong, Dude.

You're 100% correct. Joining a forum and complaining won't do anything. The reality is the rejection of one permit will likely cause the loss of the others. Food for thought OP.

 

[gmerkt]

This whole thing sounds very ripe for abuse or inattention. Meaning, you call and nobody answers or returns calls. Or you send in paperwork and wait for who knows how long. This is a back door method of denying gun ownership.

It's one thing to drive down to Salem. It's quite another to travel to West Virginia looking for answers at a facility where likely no visitors are welcome.

 

[BDA.45]

It's highly probable they will be denied.

Sent a link to this thread to my buddies. Both are gonna speak with council about the matter. I'll keep you posted on what their attorneys say and how they're being told to proceed......

If this is the way it's going down, it's bubbleguming bullbubblegum.......

 

[Alexx1401]

The part of all this that really burns me is while they are doing this they prove they could give two s about the criminals who they find with guns. All this in the name of safety.

 

[gmerkt]

Looking at the CJIS information site, I found:

All requests for review must be made by the subject of the record through a law enforcement agency which has access to the NCIC III File.

It sounds like an inquiry in person at CJIS wouldn't be an option.

Oregon claims they have no part in it.

The CJIS says:

In addition, agencies must enter, modify, and remove their own records. Promptness in modifying, locating, or clearing records in the system helps keep the information up-to-date and the system free of outdated information.

 

[Yarome]

In addition, agencies must enter, modify, and remove their own records. Promptness in modifying, locating, or clearing records in the system helps keep the information up-to-date and the system free of outdated information.

In these cases it doesn't sound like that's an issue in play. Some said they have previously, and recently, had BGC's go through. Some also said they have a valid CHL in Oregon as well as other states.

What that seems to tell me is... they "were" good to go and the database was properly updated after their expungements.

Something else appears to be rotten in Denmark.

 

[Yarome]

Here's a hypothetical. There have been several pushes for LE to go after prohibited persons making false declarations on a feeb document.. like a 4473.

Sooo... if the feebs are denying persons because they don't recognize state authority to set-aside a conviction... and that person is, in their view, a prohibited person... does that mean that person made a false statement on a feeb document? Even if a state judge has ordered their rights fully restored and instruct such persons that their convictions "never happened" and are free to answer in the negative when asked if they have ever been convicted(?) Specifically addressing the question related to firearms and making it clear their set-aside may not be used against them and they are not required to restore their 2A rights through any separate legal action(?)

Makes you wonder were the slippery slope my lead, hu.

 

[D-Bo]

Here's a hypothetical. There have been several pushes for LE to go after prohibited persons making false declarations on a feeb document.. like a 4473.

Sooo... if the feebs are denying persons because they don't recognize state authority to set-aside a conviction... and that person is, in their view, a prohibited person... does that mean that person made a false statement on a feeb document? Even if a state judge has ordered their rights fully restored and instruct such persons that their convictions "never happened" and are free to answer in the negative when asked if they have ever been convicted(?) Specifically addressing the question related to firearms and making it clear their set-aside may not be used against them and they are not required to restore their 2A rights through any separate legal action(?)

Makes you wonder were the slippery slope my lead, hu.

My buddy asked the staff he talked with about his other firearms and was told he was not prohibited from owning them. It's kafkaesque that they say you're ok owning a firearm but then you aren't approved to buy one.

 

[Yarome]

My buddy asked the staff he talked with about his other firearms and was told he was not prohibited from owning them. It's kafkaesque that they say you're ok owning a firearm but then you aren't approved to buy one.

It most certainly does, doesn't it. That's just all kinds of twisted and both cannot be true.

You're buddy is braver than I am though. I would never inform LE I own other firearms to ask if can still legally possess them.
What if they said, "no"?

 

[gmerkt]

My buddy asked the staff he talked with about his other firearms and was told he was not prohibited from owning them. It's kafkaesque that they say you're ok owning a firearm but then you aren't approved to buy one.

That's too messed up. Do you wonder how the people who said this can think it makes any sense?

A person buys guns under the old rules, that's okay to own those. But under the new rules, he was prohibited. Fortunately for him, this crazy answer was given.

 

[Kruel J]

OP hasn't logged back in since Tuesday. Maybe he decided to get a lawyer.

We used to close up threads like these. NWFA and forums in general aren't great places to offer legal advice or opinions. Google links and code quotes are fine but it still takes an attorney to properly council someone. Even a 1 hour consult would be worth it. Lots of attorneys have a rate for individual consultations that aren't terribly expensive.

 

[arakboss]

The Washington Perry Mason should be all over this?

 

[Yarome]

OP hasn't logged back in since Tuesday. Maybe he decided to get a lawyer.

We used to close up threads like these. NWFA and forums in general aren't great places to offer legal advice or opinions. Google links and code quotes are fine but it still takes an attorney to properly council someone. Even a 1 hour consult would be worth it. Lots of attorneys have a rate for individual consultations that aren't terribly expensive.

Is it better then to open a new thread not attached to the OP?

As I see it, this discussion isn't so much about trying to give legal advice so much as it is trying to understand the laws, and what has been changed that is now preventing otherwise legal to purchase and possess individuals from being able to exercise their 2A rights.

Granted. It may not affect a large number of people, but it does seem important to understand exactly what's going on and how it may have further reaching implications.

I do kinda get it, but it seems that really any questions about firearm laws could easily be shut down with the guidance to go seek professional legal services. Right?

 

[BDA.45]

Is it better then to open a new thread not attached to the OP?

As I see it, this discussion isn't so much about trying to give legal advice so much as it is trying to understand the laws, and what has been changed that is now preventing otherwise legal to purchase and possess individuals from being able to exercise their 2A rights.

Granted. It may not affect a large number of people, but it does seem important to understand exactly what's going on and how it may have further reaching implications.

I do kinda get it, but it seems that really any questions about firearm laws could easily be shut down with the guidance to go seek professional legal services. Right?

I will agree with this.......just my opinion

 

[BDA.45]

Is it better then to open a new thread not attached to the OP?

As I see it, this discussion isn't so much about trying to give legal advice so much as it is trying to understand the laws, and what has been changed that is now preventing otherwise legal to purchase and possess individuals from being able to exercise their 2A rights.

Granted. It may not affect a large number of people, but it does seem important to understand exactly what's going on and how it may have further reaching implications.

I do kinda get it, but it seems that really any questions about firearm laws could easily be shut down with the guidance to go seek professional legal services. Right?

I also agree with closing a thread since we aren't legal advice......HOWEVER, there's been a few curiosities.........

 

[Kruel J]

I'm not closing it.