National 80% Receiver Law Goes Into Effect

[JustShoot]

No; you see... the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA laws all passed through Congress. The issue here according to the arguments and the lawyers, is whether or not the ATF went beyond their Congressionally bounded authority in doing what they did recently in "expanding" what the law says.

The biggest firearms related lie for Congress was the .. 86 Hughes Amendment . A recorded failed vote remains law.
Also This was orchestrated by the most criminal sociopath in Congress at that time .. Charley Rangel

thanks to 'CalGuns.net' .. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=364163
The video is getting harder to track down, and will eventually be scrubbed in time . This was Posted in 2011 ..It hard to believe ??? that Youtube has legitimately only recorded 56,677 views since Jan 24, 2011.
-

-

 

[CamoDeafie]

The biggest firearms related lie for Congress was the .. 86 Hughes Amendment . A recorded failed vote remains law.
Also This was orchestrated by the most criminal sociopath in Congress at that time .. Charley Rangel

thanks to 'CalGuns.net' .. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=364163
The video is getting harder to track down, and will eventually be scrubbed in time . This was Posted in 2011 ..It hard to believe ??? that Youtube has legitimately only recorded 56,677 views since Jan 24, 2011.
-

-

FOPA itself passed. Hughes Amendment may not have. But ATF and Congress since then have acted like it did. so not much we can do against that sort of chicanery until a complete cleaning of Congress can happen which might take a lifetime or two,.depending on how people vote.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

FOPA itself passed. Hughes Amendment may not have. But ATF and Congress since then have acted like it did. so not much we can do against that sort of chicanery until a complete cleaning of Congress can happen which might take a lifetime or two,.depending on how people vote.

 

[CamoDeafie]

View attachment 1760675

Edit. The alternate, send more senior citizens to Congress.
.

 

[arakboss]

IAW HB2005 (enrolled), you can still buy, sell, and possess unserialized 80% frames and receivers until September 1, 2024. After 1 September 2024, they must have serial numbers to even possess.

IAW federal law, you cannot purchase an unserialized 80% frame or receiver as a kit with a jig.

Do you still believe this, regarding selling them up until Sept 1st? If so can you provide the subsections that you believe provides this Sept 1st exemption?

I believe the exemption provided up until Sept 1st only applies to possession as described in section 4(1)(b) There does not appear to be a Sept 1st exemption for subsection (1)(a).

"SECTION 4. (1)(a) A person may not knowingly offer for sale, sell or transfer a firearm
unless the firearm has been imprinted with a serial number by a federally licensed firearm
manufacturer, importer or dealer, or a gunsmith with a federal firearms license, in accord-
ance with federal law.
(b) A person may not knowingly possess a firearm unless the firearm has been imprinted
with a serial number by a federally licensed firearm manufacturer, importer or dealer, or a
gunsmith with a federal firearms license, in accordance with federal law."

(d) A violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section occurring before September 1, 2024,
does not constitute an offense.

 

[arakboss]

It appears that the first time you are caught, it is a Class B Violation (up to $1000) fine.

Second time you're caught it is Class A Misdemeanor.

Third time is Class B Felony.

Many people might take the risk of being issued a Class B Violation. My guess is once that happens they might not risk getting caught again.

First time:

(3)(a) A violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section constitutes a Class B violation.

Second time:

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a violation of subsection (1)(a) of
this section is a Class A misdemeanor if, at the time of the offense, the person has a prior
conviction under this section or section 3 or 5 of this 2023 Act.

Third time:

(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a violation of subsection
(1)(a) of this section is a Class B felony if, at the time of the offense, the person has two or
more prior convictions under this section or section 3 or 5 of this 2023 Act.

 

[PiratePast40]

What all this means is that it'll be very difficult to sue in state court unless you have standing, i.e., someone needs to stick their neck out and get arrested for possession. This is different than the 5th circuit decision in Vanderstock v Garland in that it's an actual state law and not a regulatory definition. Will be interesting to see the legal teams take on this and how/if they can move a lawsuit forward at the federal level.

 

[arakboss]

What all this means is that it'll be very difficult to sue in state court unless you have standing, i.e., someone needs to stick their neck out and get arrested for possession. This is different than the 5th circuit decision in Vanderstock v Garland in that it's an actual state law and not a regulatory definition. Will be interesting to see the legal teams take on this and how/if they can move a lawsuit forward at the federal level.

It would be easy and relatively low risk to get standing. The first offense is only a Class B Violation which does not include any jail time. Maximum fine is $1000 and you have to forfeit the offending frame or receiver.

 

[Local Loader]

HB 2005 Lawsuit Announced. – Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[PiratePast40]

It would be easy and relatively low risk to get standing. The first offense is only a Class B Violation which does not include any jail time. Maximum fine is $1000 and you have to forfeit the offending frame or receiver.

It just occurred to me that several of the big cases were brought on by the 2A issue being a minor part of the alleged crimes.

 

[The Heretic]

It would be easy and relatively low risk to get standing. The first offense is only a Class B Violation which does not include any jail time. Maximum fine is $1000 and you have to forfeit the offending frame or receiver.

I don't think that you need to be in actual violation to have standing. For many of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs just have to show that they were somehow impacted by the law, not necessarily arrested for violating it.

 

[The Heretic]

HB 2005 Lawsuit Announced. – Oregon Firearms Federation

Donated to the cause.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't think that you need to be in actual violation to have standing. For many of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs just have to show that they were somehow impacted by the law, not necessarily arrested for violating it.

5. Individual Plaintiffs Dallin Montgomery, Nick Holdway, and Kevin Walters, all
Oregon citizens and members of Organizational Plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. ("FPC")
and Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. ("OFF"), together with similarly situated Oregon-resident
FPC and OFF members, face imminent and irreparable harm as a result of the Bans.

6. Plaintiffs bring this challenge because they unquestionably face "a realistic danger
of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the law's operation or enforcement." Skyline Wesleyan
Church v. Cal. Dep't of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs seek
to vindicate their rights, and to immediately and permanently enjoin enforcement of Oregon's Bans
as required to conform the law to the Constitution's text and Supreme Court precedent.

 

[Yarome]

I don't think that you need to be in actual violation to have standing. For many of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs just have to show that they were somehow impacted by the law, not necessarily arrested for violating it.

I think the issue with standing comes down to the faithful application of the law VS lawfare of activists courts.

By legal standards, a person denied or has their 2A rights infringed upon alone, even without punishment, constitutes irreparable harm and has standing. Many courts will ignore that. Taking it one step further, anyone that faces actual criminal prosecution if the law "does go" into effect has standing. (which is where we're at now with HB2005)

The recent trend of the activist courts though has been playing the game of... "since the law has yet to go into affect, there has been no, and cannot be any harm... therefore... they have no standing". It's lawfare at it's finest by denying to recognize any standing until the law is in effect and someone has had irreparable harm put upon them before they will recognize standing.

That allows unconstitutional laws to go into affect and impact all law abiding citizens... until such time... as someone actually get's convicted under it and is both willing and financially able to file suit to challenge that law.

It's easy to see how some might come to believe that is the only way to establish standing. In practical application among the activist courts, that's often true. Under the actual law though the bar for standing is more along the lines of a "good faith showing" (It will harm me if it goes into affect).

 

[PiratePast40]

Ellen was nice enough to send us a nice "compliance sheet" to help us with HB2005:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/NR_DOJ_QA.pdf

 

[Yarome]

Ellen was nice enough to send us a nice "compliance sheet" to help us with HB2005:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/NR_DOJ_QA.pdf

View attachment 1941071

Clicken to enbiggen and zoom... a bit more legible for older eyes.

 

[Local Loader]

Clicken to enbiggen and zoom... a bit more legible for older eyes.

View attachment 1941084

So what exactly do they mean by "ghost gun" parts? Are all the parts used called "ghosts guns" now?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

So what exactly do they mean by "ghost gun" parts? Are all the parts used called "ghosts guns" now?

Maybe this?

 

[PiratePast40]

So what exactly do they mean by "ghost gun" parts? Are all the parts used called "ghosts guns" now?

No, they did initially try that but got called out. It's just the pieces of aluminum and plastic that can be machined into something that meets the ATF definition of a frame or receiver that they're intending to control. At least for the time being. Next session will be even worse if conservatives don't vote because of mean tweets.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Think certain States are gonna try to pass a requirement to serialize every firearm component and require BG checks/transfers for parts kits... if Congress can't.

Edit. Barrels, bolt groups, slides, fire control groups, things of that nature. Including spare parts and replacement barrels