3 Glock switches seized by police from 3 juveniles in Pdx

[wired]

All the gun controllers did was shift the burden of keeping a registry to the FFL, while passing a law that prohibited the govt from keeping a registry to appease the NRA or gun rights community that they no longer worried about the government keeping a registry. If a court order is easy to get then its the same thing just an extra step. The gun controllers won that round.

That was 57 years ago and the same system is still here

 

[CLT65]

It may be a registry of sorts, but it's not a central registry where they have all the information at their fingertips. Oregon's system is more central, but still not a true registry like they want.

Neither the bound book system or Oregon's UBC system are true registries, in that guns can still pass from hand to hand without being on the books in your name: between family members or those moving to and from other states. There's no legal requirement that they be registered to you, like the NFA registry.

As it is now, you could have that AR in your safe that you bought from a gun show or a buddy 20 years ago. It could have passed through numerous hands back in the day and is effectively untraceable, yet still completely legal for you to own.

That would not be the case if all semi-autos were entered into the NFA registry. Merely possessing it without it being registered in your name would be a big problem. That's the difference between a quasi-registry and a real registry.

 

[wired]

It may be a registry of sorts, but it's not a central registry where they have all the information at their fingertips. Oregon's system is more central, but still not a true registry like they want.

Neither the bound book system or Oregon's UBC system are true registries, in that guns can still pass from hand to hand without being on the books in your name: between family members or those moving to and from other states. There's no legal requirement that they be registered to you, like the NFA registry.

As it is now, you could have that AR in your safe that you bought from a gun show or a buddy 20 years ago. It could have passed through numerous hands back in the day and is effectively untraceable, yet still completely legal for you to own.

That would not be the case if all semi-autos were entered into the NFA registry. Merely possessing it without it being registered in your name would be a big problem. That's the difference between a quasi-registry and a real registry.

Yes, that would be a true registry and that's what incorporating semi autos into the NFA would accomplish. Universal background checks and a true registry.

In any case by law, the ATF is not forbidden from building a registry they're just forbidden from having a searchable registry.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

State registries to me are the biggest immediate threat. WA passed a law in 2018 that each gun owner must have a yearly background check to continue to own guns they already have. It is currently unfunded but it's the law.

The WA yearly background checks can be denied for any reason (says so in the law). Fe owner didn't pay $25k deposit or insurance for each gun (currently being proposed), future home storage inspection laws, or whatever. Violate one of the ever increasing laws and your right to own new or existing guns can be denied.

A state registry (which is being created right now via the current WA permit/license system) gives them all the info they need to confiscate if this yearly background check law is ever funded.

 

[RVTECH]

That's the difference between a quasi-registry and a real registry.

Yet I STILL wonder if the SB 941 requirement of an FFL transfer for a private sale might be a de facto 'real' registry.

My thought has always been if a gun is sold legally through an FFL, then possibly changes hands once or more ILLEGALLY, then down the road is again sold LEGALLY through an FFL won't there be a problem with the names not matching from the original seller/buyer?

I might be looking at this incorrectly due to inexperience with the 'system' however when SB 941 took place that was my FIRST thought - IE that it would be some sort of a registry/tracking system - and could be used to prosecute those if the names did not match from a previous transfer.

 

[wired]

Yet I STILL wonder if the SB 941 requirement of an FFL transfer for a private sale might be a de facto 'real' registry.

My thought has always been if a gun is sold legally through an FFL, then possibly changes hands once or more ILLEGALLY, then down the road is again sold LEGALLY through an FFL won't there be a problem with the names not matching from the original seller/buyer?

I might be looking at this incorrectly due to inexperience with the 'system' however when SB 941 took place that was my FIRST thought - IE that it would be some sort of a registry/tracking system - and could be used to prosecute those if the names did not match from a previous transfer.

Yes, that would be under state law, but not federal

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yet I STILL wonder if the SB 941 requirement of an FFL transfer for a private sale might be a de facto 'real' registry.

My thought has always been if a gun is sold legally through an FFL, then possibly changes hands once or more ILLEGALLY, then down the road is again sold LEGALLY through an FFL won't there be a problem with the names not matching from the original seller/buyer?

I might be looking at this incorrectly due to inexperience with the 'system' however when SB 941 took place that was my FIRST thought - IE that it would be some sort of a registry/tracking system - and could be used to prosecute those if the names did not match from a previous transfer.

Re 4473 it is not a transfer of ownership like a car title. It is a background check for the buyer. Also for atf records. I don't know what sb 941 is.

For 4473 there must be a check on serial number to see if it's stolen in there also when the background check is done I assume?

 

[Koda]

Re 4473 it is not a transfer of ownership like a car title. It is a background check for the buyer. Also for atf records. I don't know what sb 941 is.

For 4473 theremust be a check on serial number to see if it's stolen in there also when the background check is done I assume?

While this is true its also evidence a transfer took place.

 

[wired]

Re 4473 it is not a transfer of ownership like a car title. It is a background check for the buyer. Also for atf records. I don't know what sb 941 is.

For 4473 there must be a check on serial number to see if it's stolen in there also when the background check is done I assume?

No . There's no check on the serial number

 

[ilikegunspdx]

No . There's no check on the serial number

Good to know thx. I never saw it mentioned in 4473 form as a purpose but I just assumed it happened anyway.

 

[RVTECH]

I don't know what sb 941 is

That is what made the private transfer of a firearm in OR required to go through an FFL.

 

[RVTECH]

While this is true its also evidence a transfer took place.

And this is exactly what I believe could cause a problem if a once FFL transferred firearm changes hands illegally, then LATER goes through an FFL.

My thought is maybe the last 'legal' owner might get a call or visit?

 

[CLT65]

Yet I STILL wonder if the SB 941 requirement of an FFL transfer for a private sale might be a de facto 'real' registry.

My thought has always been if a gun is sold legally through an FFL, then possibly changes hands once or more ILLEGALLY, then down the road is again sold LEGALLY through an FFL won't there be a problem with the names not matching from the original seller/buyer?

I might be looking at this incorrectly due to inexperience with the 'system' however when SB 941 took place that was my FIRST thought - IE that it would be some sort of a registry/tracking system - and could be used to prosecute those if the names did not match from a previous transfer.

I agree that it's a type of de facto registry, just like they wanted. It was sold to us as a background check, but the fact that they refused to exempt CHL holders who are already vetted, proved that what they were really after was a registry. That's always been the goal.

It's still not quite a full registry though. I have lots of guns that I've owned for decades. The state of Oregon has no knowledge of many of them, and yet they're still legal for me to own. Also, those moving here from out of state have no obligation, or even any way to "register" any guns they may bring with them. There are millions of legally owned guns out there that aren't in any kind of registration.

 

[RVTECH]

I have lots of guns that I've owned for decades. The state of Oregon has no knowledge of many of them, and yet they're still legal for me to own.

As I do also. I rarely bought a new gun pre 941.

However I BELIEVE the 1st time a used gun is sold privately through an FFL it is NOW (maybe for the first time ever) 'on the books' so to speak and that starts a 'paper trail' on it and can be tracked.

I believe SB 941 was nothing more than a 'system' by which to get some, previously un-papered guns 'ON PAPER'.

 

[CLT65]

And this is exactly what I believe could cause a problem if a once FFL transferred firearm changes hands illegally, then LATER goes through an FFL.

My thought is maybe the last 'legal' owner might get a call or visit?

Good question. I gave an on-the-books gun to my brother-in-law a few years ago, perfectly legal because of the family exemption. He has since moved out of state. If he were to sell it to someone there, no BGC required, and they moved back here, and the gun came under scrutiny for whatever reason, would I need to prove what happened somehow? I'm not worried about it.

On the other hand, if multiple guns involved in crimes come back as originally purchased by the same person, with no record of legal transfers since, I assume that person would be under some scrutiny, and maybe they should be.

However I BELIEVE the 1st time a used gun is sold privately through an FFL it is NOW (maybe for the first time ever) 'on the books' so to speak and that starts a 'paper trail' on it and can be tracked.

True. I think the long game is to eventually get them all on the books, one way or another.

 

[wired]

Good question. I gave an on-the-books gun to my brother-in-law a few years ago, perfectly legal because of the family exemption. He has since moved out of state. If he were to sell it to someone there, no BGC required, and they moved back here, and the gun came under scrutiny for whatever reason, would I need to prove what happened somehow? I'm not worried about it.

On the other hand, if multiple guns involved in crimes come back as originally purchased by the same person, with no record of legal transfers since, I assume that person would be under some scrutiny, and maybe they should be.


True. I think the long game is to eventually get them all on the books, one way or another.

Yes they will come speak to you. I have had cops , not Feds, on my doorstep asking me where a gun was they found the box for in a "drug house" . I had sold it to a co worker 8 years prior.

" Get off my porch ! " …

 

[Koda]

And this is exactly what I believe could cause a problem if a once FFL transferred firearm changes hands illegally, then LATER goes through an FFL.

My thought is maybe the last 'legal' owner might get a call or visit?

It could happen but IMO the odds are really low. As mentioned above the BGC doesn't check if the gun is stolen so there would be no motivation to pursue the person who sold it without a BGC unless the gun turned up in a crime scene later on, a prosecutor could charge the person who first transferred it illegally.

Touching back on the whole "registration" subject IMO (as I understand things) the BGC only wants a way to "trace" ownership. Ownership is the whole idea behind a registration scheme for either confiscation later or solving (not preventing) crimes. The govt only cares about ownership.

 

[RVTECH]

so there would be no motivation to pursue the person who sold it without a BGC unless the gun turned up in a crime scene later on,

And I get this and it makes sense BUT again MY thinking is that BGC system keeps data on guns bought and sold legally - and could therefore be easily accessed on subsequent sales/purchases, OR it might 'automatically' identify a new seller as NOT the ORIGINAL seller of the gun (such as if it changed hands illegally AFTER a legal sale.)

Again this is just speculation and may NOT be the case but it certainly wouldn't be hard to add this to the BGC database of gun owners.

 

[Certaindeaf]

As far as MAC SMG accuracy goes you put a pumpkin out at 50 feet I'll put 25 rounds in that thing in under 3 seconds. Bet your bottom dollar on it.

The world is your pumpkin.
You go!

 

[Koda]

And I get this and it makes sense BUT again MY thinking is that BGC system keeps data on guns bought and sold legally - and could therefore be easily accessed on subsequent sales/purchases, OR it might 'automatically' identify a new seller as NOT the ORIGINAL seller of the gun (such as if it changed hands illegally AFTER a legal sale.)

Again this is just speculation and may NOT be the case but it certainly wouldn't be hard to add this to the BGC database of gun owners.

Empirical evidence the gun controllers only care about ownership not preventing crime. The only thing the BGC does is prove the buyer is legal to buy, and records that attempt along with the serial number... ownership.