JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I don't know if this cop is a version of a freedom fighter or just greedy. The gun owners, especially those who don't own semi autos, that believe the media speak of what law abiding citizens do or don't need are going to wake up too late.

It's a hard sale to a California court that this cop of 22 yrs made a mistake. As I already posted it's all government agencies abusing this law but I don't believe it's purely for financial gain. While there may be a few hundred or possibly a few thousand in profits, how would that be worth a career?
 
I don't know if this cop is a version of a freedom fighter or just greedy. The gun owners, especially those who don't own semi autos, that believe the media speak of what law abiding citizens do or don't need are going to wake up too late.

It's a hard sale to a California court that this cop of 22 yrs made a mistake. As I already posted it's all government agencies abusing this law but I don't believe it's purely for financial gain. While there may be a few hundred or possibly a few thousand in profits, how would that be worth a career?

I would venture to say, that a huge majority of gun owners in Oregon have shown the proverbial middle finger to SB941, and there is a risk in doing so, yet many do because compliance is worse then being judged I guess.:rolleyes:
 
We can flashback to 2012 in this forum and most likely read a few dozens times the words you just typed.
It seems that telling like minded people is not working. This forum is huge in numbers but it does not roll over into
and real world effect. I find that fascinating and disturbing.

The problem isn't unique to the NW or NWFA. It's a problem across the country. Many people have tried many different things to get pro-gun folks to unite. I don't know if anyone really has the answer. It's certainly not a problem of folks not trying different approaches. Fact remains that just because someone is pro-gun, it doesn't mean they are 'all in' for pro-gun issues. How do you convince someone that only cares about shotguns or bolt guns that restrictions on semi-auto rifles and pistols is a bad thing - especially when they often agree with that crap? You get the old BS of "well, it doesn't affect me, so why should I give a sh!t?"

NWFA is a platform for discussions, it can't be the tool that makes people change their minds. If it were that easy, someone would have figured out how to do it long ago.
 
The problem isn't unique to the NW or NWFA. It's a problem across the country. Many people have tried many different things to get pro-gun folks to unite. I don't know if anyone really has the answer. It's certainly not a problem of folks not trying different approaches. Fact remains that just because someone is pro-gun, it doesn't mean they are 'all in' for pro-gun issues. How do you convince someone that only cares about shotguns or bolt guns that restrictions on semi-auto rifles and pistols is a bad thing - especially when they often agree with that crap? You get the old BS of "well, it doesn't affect me, so why should I give a sh!t?"

NWFA is a platform for discussions, it can't be the tool that makes people change their minds. If it were that easy, someone would have figured out how to do it long ago.

Hmm I don't think I said it was unique here ?;)
I will however disagree that it is not a platform for change.

The blunt honest truth of why firearms groups are not proactive? Is Ego, I have seen allot of groups rise and then fall.
They get blinders on and become oblivious to what is really happening. Geees you can see this easy with the NRA,
they do allot, but they miss allot as well. The other issues are that not understanding that sure we have allot of political issues
in this country, but only handful that are in trouble, are Constitutional Rights, so it does change how a group like NWFA, has some civic responsibility to move in that direction. They don't have too, but could. I actually have no doubt NWFA could change things, but the vision is not there to do so. They would be late comer to the game at this point, and as is seen clear there is no interest in being a pro-active resource.
But some day, all this is going to shift one way or the other, hopefully we do not have to go, if only we ???
 
CA also has restrictions on frequency, think all guns are one a month now, use to be just handguns...I'd look but don't care anymore since I moved back to America!

No, while the California legislature passed a bill two years that would have limited long gun purchases in California to no more than one a month, Governor Jerry Brown actually vetoed it. So it never became law.

Handgun purchases in California are now limited to a max of only 5 per year. The legislature passed a bill reducing this number down to only 2, but again, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed that legislation as well, as being too extreme.

California's state legislature is rabidly anti-gun. To the point of being even more extreme than the Governor, who is known for being very liberal himself.

Candidate Gavin Newsom is promising tougher and stronger gun laws for California, if he is elected as Brown's replacement in the Fall. So California gun owners are probably going to face a flurry of even more restrictive new gun laws next year, if Newsom wins.

California is quickly turning into being a nightmare state for gun owners to live in.

Depositphotos_Nightmare_czuber.jpg
 
Last Edited:
From the article.....
Mark Werksman, Gourdikian's attorney, said his client didn't' realize he was breaking the law "but sees now that's what he did."

Gourdikian is a firearms enthusiast who had a large and growing collection for his own personal use, and inadvertently became an unlicensed firearms dealer by buying and selling so many guns in a relatively short period of time, Werksman said, calling his client's actions "a regulatory crime."

"If he had gone out and gotten a $25 license to be a firearms dealer, none of this would have happened," he said.

Prosecutors say they plan to request a prison sentence of 30 months but Werksman said he'll be asking that Gourdikian get probation.

Obviously this lawyer is delusional. An FFL costs much more than just $25.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Thanks for the research Lance. Since moving, I only check into items that will affect me when traveling down there. Didn't know he vetoed it. I've been saying this for a while, when Jerry Brown is the voice of reason in the CA government...they are in trouble! He has actually vetoed quite a few anti-2A laws during this tenure.

Update...I think:
SB 1177 is a new bill that passed, limiting rifle sales to the same as handguns, similar to the one he vetoed before. From what I can tell it is still on his desk.

The California DOJ website still shows handguns limited to one every 30 days:

Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
  • There is no limit to the number of handguns that you may own but you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Handgun transactions related to law enforcement, private party transfers, returns to owners, and certain other specific circumstances are exempt from the one-handgun-per-30-day purchase limit.

    (Pen. Code,§ 27535.)
 
Thanks for the research Lance. Since moving, I only check into items that will affect me when traveling down there. Didn't know he vetoed it. I've been saying this for a while, when Jerry Brown is the voice of reason in the CA government...they are in trouble! He has actually vetoed quite a few anti-2A laws during this tenure.

Update...I think:
SB 1177 is a new bill that passed, limiting rifle sales to the same as handguns, similar to the one he vetoed before. From what I can tell it is still on his desk.

The California DOJ website still shows handguns limited to one every 30 days:

Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
  • There is no limit to the number of handguns that you may own but you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Handgun transactions related to law enforcement, private party transfers, returns to owners, and certain other specific circumstances are exempt from the one-handgun-per-30-day purchase limit.

    (Pen. Code,§ 27535.)

Trying to keep track of all of the gun control legislation in California is giving me one huge headache. I appear to be making some mistakes.

I thought that I read a news report to that effect. But maybe I have suffered a mini stroke today. i don't know.
 
I think it's impossible for anyone to keep up...that's their plan. Looks like the rifle limits is just a replay of a few year back. They have made it so just about anyone with a firearm down there is breaking some type of law. Sad.
 
I think it's impossible for anyone to keep up...that's their plan. Looks like the rifle limits is just a replay of a few year back. They have made it so just about anyone with a firearm down there is breaking some type of law. Sad.

Yes, the California legislature is back again with the one long gun a month bill. They plan to get it passed again in next year's legislative session.

I'm sure that the then Governor Newsom will be most happy to sign it into law. Honestly, the Republican candidate has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected, in a state that voted 62% for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
 
Sorry, the biggest crime commited wasn't the LE selling firearms, but rather the fact, after caught doing illegal activities, arranged, and about to be brought before a judge...this LE was...

ALLOWED TO RESIGN & KEEP HIS PENSION!

Probably in six figures per annum and I bet a cookie jar stuffed with nickels, he wasn't convicted of a felony so this "federal" law-breaker keeps his retired LE privilege(s).

Shades of Parkland's School Resource Officer!!
 
You no longer can be a gun nut in the state of Kalifornia and the DA will put another notch in his fat belly belt. Beware in your past have you ever sold a gun, because if it was used in a crime you are up the creek without a paddle. Criminal by remote control now.
 
22 years risking your life and selling guns the old way without all these gonna get yah little rules. I am old enough to remember the times when you could sell any or all the guns you had without the goodie two shoes looking over your shoulders. Police departments used to sell guns seized at crimes, now they must be destroyed like some evil thing. A cop doing 22 years dealing with criminals among other things, helping people, putting his life on the line, deserves his pension. Constant chipping away at the Second Amendment with each little rule will soon take away our guns because you uttered some forbidden word while holding your gun. Pretty soon all houses will have "gun free zone" signs by law. Big Brother here in the west coast is watching. Spad:eek::eek:
 
Im confused as to what is immoral about selling guns without an ffl
It is not Immoral, it is under California Law, at the minimum, and likely Federal Law, illegal.
Two different words. Illegal and Immoral.

I had to re-read the article twice looking for 'Immoral' :eek:
 
It is not Immoral, it is under California Law, at the minimum, and likely Federal Law, illegal.
Two different words. Illegal and Immoral.

I had to re-read the article twice looking for 'Immoral' :eek:
The poster i was replying to asked something along the lines of "how bad of a guy was he?" I can see now the og post has been modified.
 

Upcoming Events

Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA
Lakeview Spring Gun Show
Lakeview, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top