Can't buy a gun?

[BringItUp]

I'd like some input gentlemen (and ladies). Today I visited a Portland gun dealer to buy the pistol I've been researching for awhile but I was refused and this is why. I am an Oregon Citizen. I was living in a N.E. Portland home about a year ago. I committed myself to moving out of this home and into a different home in Portland. On the day I was actually moving my things into the new house, I discovered through personal observation and reference checks that the guy who represented himself to me as the house owner/landlord was mentally unstable and a con artist. Not being able to move back in to the old house and not being able to follow through moving into the new house, I was stuck. A friend from Washington offered to let me stay at their house as a guest until I made different arrangements. I am registered to vote in Oregon and intend to move back to Oregon as soon as possible, but because I could not put a physical Oregon address on the federally mandated gun purchase paperwork, I was banned from exercising my right to contract with this dealer in order to exercise my right to own a firearm. I have no criminal record and I am an honorably discharged veteran of Desert Storm. The dealer told me he agreed with me about the obscenity of the situation but that he was without a remedy for me. I am very disturbed by this arbitrary deprivation of my rights and would love to hear some feedback from someone who is informed about these matters. Thanks and I look forward to all constructive replies.

Read More

 

[sweetbeard]

That happens, I only got an OR DL because that is the only way to buy a gun here... Sorry about your situation..

What was the gun?

 

[friskydingo]

try a different shop?

 

[sweetbeard]

Go to the store, use there internet to change your adrress with the DMV, they will verify that address with the background check... I had to to do that twice.

Or just buy one in WA!

 

[wichaka]

To meet the requirement for state residential status, in any state for that matter, one has to be a resident for a certain length of time..........60-90 days I believe, but I could be wrong.

It just so happens you did not meet that requirement at the time of purchase.

But then I think the whole thing is garbage, are we living in the "United" or "Separate" States of America?

 

[emanon]

"Land of the free" - IF you can pass our arbitrary tests, purchase a permit (if we choose to issue it to you), pay the $200 tax and we don't get catch you breaking one of the almost endless number of ridiculous "laws" and "policies" that we've made up!

It's great that the Supreme Court recognized the 2nd as an individual right but how much can that really mean when they also said "reasonable" restrictions were ok and acted as if it was talking about hunting and home defense?!

 

[BringItUp]

It's interesting you gentlemen raise issue with the term "United" States" using words like "garbage" and "arbitrary". I've been doing some reading about this sort of thing myself the past few years and I've discovered some interesting things by reading case law. What I provide below is not legal advice. I'm just sharing things I've learned with my fellow Citizens.

If you read the 1945 Supreme Court case of Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652; 65 S. Ct. 870; 89 L. Ed. 1252, Mr. Chief Justice Stone actually goes to the trouble of explaining that the term "United States" describes an entity that isn't simply what we commonly presume it to be. He explains that the term "United States" can be contemplated in any of three separate senses, each with its own specific applicability:

sense #1-"the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations." (the common usage/international/non-legal sense[a nation among nations])

sense #2-"the territory over which the sovereignty to the United States [672] extends" (the federal/territorial jurisdiction sense)

sense #3-"the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." (the sense that contemplates the several States and their Citizens)

Bear with me on this. After this paragraph, I will get to how it applies to your feelings about things. In the early 1900's, there were a string of cases that came before the Supreme Court that were all so similar that the Court bundled them together and referred to them collectively as the "Insular Cases". Read some of the opinions of these cases and you will see that the rights of Citizens of States (third sense above) and the rights of inhabitants of territories (second sense above) are not the same thing and they are contemplated differently by the Constitution.

As an example, whether by conquest, purchase or discovery, the federal government receives territory on behalf of the several States as the agent for the union of the several States. Before an acquired territory can become admitted as a State, its inhabitants must demonstrate to Congress their capacity and cultural inclination to govern themselves similarly enough with the existing States so that harmony of the union can be maintained. The Constitution actually places Congress in the role of being the managing custodian of the territories on behalf of the several States until those territories do assimilate well enough to be considered for Statehood. Until that happens the Constitution actually empowers Congress to "grant" rights to territorial inhabitants to the extent that Congress deems appropriate. By that same token Congress can take those rights back at its discretion.

I make these references because "citizens" are not "Citizens". If you look at the post-Civil War Amendments, specifically the 14th Amendment, you will see that it refers to "citizens of the United States". You will notice in that amendment that it purports to protect these "citizens" against violations of their privileges and immunities, their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, etc. While protection of precious rights gives us liberty-loving Americans a big warm fuzzy, these are protections that were already provided for by the original Bill of Rights. So are these post-Civil War protections frivolous redundancy? No. If you notice the last section of the 14th Amendment (section 5), it is an enabling clause which says that the 14th Amendment's protections ONLY have effect when Congress passes legislation (laws) to enforce it, consistent with Congress' duties regarding territorial inhabitants. The 14th Amendment's protections don't operate by their own force like protections under the Bill of Rights do. Up throughout the language of the Constitution leading up to the post-Civil War Amendments, reference to the term "(C)itizen" is only made using a capital "C". Those described in post-Civil War Amendments are only referred to using a small case "(c)itizen" and in every one of those amendments which pertain to the rights of one kind or another of "(c)itizens", an enabling clause is placed at the end which renders those amendments provisions mute and toothless unless Congress breathes life into them by passing legislation to make them effective. But unlike a Constitutional amendment, a mere law that is passed to protect a right can merely be repealed by another mere law passed by any future Congress in different political climates.
The States and their Citizens are the authors of the supreme law of the Constitution and they drafted it making an allowance for the federal government to have Washington D.C. as its own venue to function. The federal government is the creation of the several States. D.C. is territory ceded by the States to their federal government creation, and as such, it cannot be considered on the same Constitutional footing with the several States. Therefore, D.C.'s citizens live in a condition where they are Constitutionally disabled from enjoying the full bloom of Constitutional protection enjoyed by State Citizens. Read the Mar 20, 2000 opinion of Adams v. Clinton; 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 to confirm this.

Now consider the general definition of "United States" in the Oregon Revised Statutes provided by the chapter dealing with legislative construction below:

ORS 174.100 (8) “United States” includes territories, outlying possessions and the District of Columbia." This definition of "United States" is clearly only consistent with the second sense of that term described in Hooven and Allison mentioned at the start. This definition is silent to consideration of the member States of the Union within the third sense of the term in Hooven. If the general contemplation of "United States" in Oregon State statutes only considers federal territories, possessions and D.C. itself, are those who are Citizens of Oregon also citizens of federal territories, possessions or D.C.? In other words, when you sign your name to a piece of paper under penalty of perjury that says you are a "citizen of the United States", are you, really? According to what sense? What sense of "United States" is in effect when you sign your name to paperwork dealing with DMV, voter registration, firearms purchases, etc?
Are the intuitions we feel about the slow erosion of our rights a primal way of us knowing that mere laws should not be capable of diminishing our fundamental rights as free people? ORS 336.057 is a law that has been on the books in Oregon since 1923. I traced it myself in the Multnomah County Courthouse law library. This law, as it still sits today, requires all public schools in Oregon to provide a class dedicated separately to studying the Constitution (as well as US History) for a minimum of five years (from the 8th through the 12th grade to be exact). If students had the opportunity to study the Constitutions for five years they would have time to study actual case law written by legal scholar judges who dig through public records to determine original intent. They would emerge from high school with their fellow students/Citizens armed with a fortress of fundamental knowledge of what a republican form of government actually is to form a society whose rights were unassailable and whose civic participation was keenly informed. However, the effect of Oregon's public school curriculum policies functionally oppose the enforcement of this law. The result: generations of Oregon Citizens who enter society deprived of the fundamental education they need in order to know their rights and be able to defend their rights intellectually- fundamental knowledge that those who later go on to swear oaths of office as public servants need in order to swear their oaths without perjuring themselves by swearing to uphold and defend something they have little knowledge of. Are we State Citizens as contemplated by the Constitution or territorial citizens as contemplated by the Constitution whose rights can be legislated away at Congress' discretion? Thanks for your consideration.

 

[wichaka]

Oooooooooooooook

 

[BringItUp]

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah. I know. It's easier to explain and discuss in person over coffee. I get it that it's a lot to chew on, but I included Supreme Court case law citations because I definitely don't expect anyone to simply take my word for it.

 

[coctailer]

The FFL did not want to break the law. Buy the gun when you are back in an Oregon home.

 

[BringItUp]

To be sure he didn't want to break the law. I commend him for that and because I myself have the upmost regard for the law and proper enforcement of it, I wouldn't intend to put him in a position of sidestepping the law. And I do apologize in the event my long-winded entry on 10-18 pushed the limit of etiquette for this forum. But my point in raising many of the points I did was to present for fellow members' consideration the proposition that our public education system leaves many Americans unequipped with an adequate familiarity of the State and federal constitutions, and they enter society groomed to defer, without inquiry, to what others tell them the law is, to assume that words used in the law mean only what they mean in common usage and to presume that "policy" is synonymous with or is always in harmony with the "law". Constitutional unfamiliarity strips we Americans of our capacity to defend our rights intellectually on the home front, leaving us vulnerable to forfeiting those very rights that our service people have, and are still, dying on foreign soil to protect and defend; including the 2nd Amendment.

I am not an attorney and the words I'm sharing are for discussion/education purposes only-not legal advice. I am a privately motivated student of law and I do enjoy reading case law pertaining to original intent of the scope and meaning of matters pertaining to our rights as "We The People". Identity is crucial in the law and how the law treats you, and Citizenship is an expression of our identity. The Supreme Court has spoken often on the issue of the two types of "citizen" (example: the Insular Cases) contemplated in law. These two "citizens" are not equal in standing, nor in their degree of constitutional protection. The importance of being able to discern what type of "citizen" is being considered in any given law should not to be dismissed since some of these laws may diminish or transform the nature of our constitutional rights if we consent to them. From what I have read in case law (example: Hooven and Allison mentioned in my entry above), the term "United States" has at least three ways in which it can be contemplated in law. One of those pertains to matters of federal, territorial jurisdiction only and another pertains to matters contemplating the several States united under the Constitution. Both versions have their own brand of citizens, but only one type of citizen enjoys the full bloom of constitutional protection; a State Citizen. I don't want to soak up any more space than is appropriate here, but I just want to put it out there that it's worth actually looking at the defined terms of laws that ostensibly impose on our rights. Keep in mind that when reading these laws, they are required to pertain to one subject only matters properly connected to that subject (example: Oregon Constitution, Art IV, Sec. 20). Be mindful when a general term like "person" or "state" or "citizen" or "United States" is being used because if it is associated with terms of a commercial, federal or territorial nature within a law, legislative construction provisions require them to be contemplated in that sense. These terms easily draw many people into believing some laws apply to them when it likely does not. The federal form that prevented me from exercising my 2nd Amendment right was backed by ATF, Title 18 USC and other federal law language of this sort. While all my State records indicate I am a State Citizen, it is federal laws that prevent me from participating in the exercise of the very same rights that I served to protect and defend and though I understand the task presented by trying to overcome the overwhelming momentum of the impositions we as a "free people" have acquiesced to, it is no less my duty to my country to take opportunities to share information that can help regain what has been lost. Our troops deserve it. With respect, thanks for your indulgence.

 

[friskydingo]

wow............. you write a lot.

 

[BringItUp]

Yep

 

[friskydingo]

not a bad thing, just.... a lot

 

[BringItUp]

Thoughts, questions, contributions about the content are welcome of course.

 

[Otis]

First I must admit I have not read the books that have been written in this thread but it seams like you feel as though your rights are being taken away here.
My opinion:
The gun shop is not saying you cannot own a gun they just don’t want to sell you one. It is like going to a bar, if they don’t want to serve you alcohol they don’t have to. They are not taking your rights to possess alcohol they just done want to be responsible for the situation.

 

[BringItUp]

Hello Otis. I concede that the novels....I mean, threads I posted previously don't give the warm fuzzy that only quick-fix, information bytes can, but when you can round up a couple extra minutes, you might give them a look. You mentioned that my issue may just be a matter of the dealer exercising his prerogative to not sell me a pistol. I understand you don't know me, but just to be clear, I would be quite alright with a refusal if for some reason, a gun shop owner and I somehow hit it off bad and he decided not to do business with me because we didn't click. Frankly, I would probably take my business elsewhere myself if I felt a personality clash with any business proprietor. That's the act of freely exercising your constitutionally-protected right to contract with anyone you please, or....choosing not to.
In this case though, the dealer literally told me he wanted to sell me the gun, and that he sympathized with my situation, but he did not want to risk any friction from the feds if the paperwork did not have all the information on it that it required. Since, this situation will repeat itself in any gun shop I visit (assuming all gun shops are as compliant as the shop I visited), then because my denial is a product of the owners of gun shops not taking the time to research the definitions of the terms in gun laws and be versed in their proper applicability, I am indeed functionally being deprived of my 2nd Amendment right without constitutionally-mandated due process.

 

[BringItUp]

Last time I bought a pistol (HK .40 cal at a Collector's West Show at Portland Expo), I did have a physical Oregon address to put down on the federal pistol-buying paperwork and I failed to consider that there might be cause to dig any deeper into the issue of federal conditions imposed on lawful firearm ownership. By recently visiting and being turned away at the gun shop I mentioned earlier, I was introduced to the fact that I can be denied opportunity to exercise my 2nd Amendment right without having been made ineligible for gun ownership by actual due process of law.

In my immediate and apparently naive disbelief, I started this thread in the hope that one of my fellow 2nd Amendment fans could shine light on a lawful quick fix remedy for my situation. I started that thread in the vein of it being about MY PROBLEM, but as I received replies that confirmed the apparent popular acceptance of these federal conditions to gun ownership, I realized that it wasn't just MY PROBLEM. The reason why I wrote a couple books, as Otis described them (understandably so), was to put the notion of the possibility on the table that because most of us don't receive much of an education on our state or federal constitution's in school (as required in Oregon law by ORS 336.057), nor do much independent scrutinizing of the laws or terms that affect our rights, we as "The People" (in whom "all power is inherent and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness-Or.Const.Art.1,Sec.1) are vulnerable to being conditioned to believe something that does not pass constitutional muster.

I dropped the ball in my later threads by continuing to speak as if this issue were MY PROBLEM, probably at the expense of sounding like a whiner. I don't like whiners any more than anyone else, so I want make known here that the "books" I wrote in prior threads were for the benefit of all my fellow gun owners to consider as they apply to all of us. I function on the notion that it's the civic duty of all Citizens to remember who they are in the social hierarchy with the government they created. To forget our civic place and duty as free people is to make a tragic farce out of the sacrifice our military members have made and continue to make and to render "We The People" as the jesters of our own court under the gaze of future generations' scornful judgment of the diminished states of existence they will inherit.

I don't want to carry on a monologue however because I'm not here to stroke my own ego. If the members of this website community see any value in probing the issue any further, I'll contribute as I am able, but in lieu of that, I'll let the following quote from the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona be the last I offer on the matter to avoid burdening the forum:

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966) [Source: Westlaw] "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

 

[Otis]

Hello Otis. I concede that the novels....I mean, threads I posted previously don't give the warm fuzzy that only quick-fix, information bytes can, but when you can round up a couple extra minutes, you might give them a look. You mentioned that my issue may just be a matter of the dealer exercising his prerogative to not sell me a pistol. I understand you don't know me, but just to be clear, I would be quite alright with a refusal if for some reason, a gun shop owner and I somehow hit it off bad and he decided not to do business with me because we didn't click. Frankly, I would probably take my business elsewhere myself if I felt a personality clash with any business proprietor. That's the act of freely exercising your constitutionally-protected right to contract with anyone you please, or....choosing not to.
In this case though, the dealer literally told me he wanted to sell me the gun, and that he sympathized with my situation, but he did not want to risk any friction from the feds if the paperwork did not have all the information on it that it required. Since, this situation will repeat itself in any gun shop I visit (assuming all gun shops are as compliant as the shop I visited), then because my denial is a product of the owners of gun shops not taking the time to research the definitions of the terms in gun laws and be versed in their proper applicability, I am indeed functionally being deprived of my 2nd Amendment right without constitutionally-mandated due process.

A reason for someone not to sell you somethind doesnt have to be personal. All i am saying is that eventhough that gun shop wants to sell you a gun he sees a huge headache in front of him and he just doesnt want to deal with what might happen. Unfortunately you are stuck in that gray area. Maybe that gunshop owner just doesnt know if it is legal or not. My guess is that if you go to another one they may know your situation. Worth a shot i would say.
Another idea is to find someone that can sell in both Washington and Oregon. I think Coctailer in this forum can do that. I just purchased my XDm from him about a week ago and i think he is licensed to sell in both states.

 

[PCArms]

I am an Oregon Citizen. I was living in a N.E. Portland home about a year ago. ...
I have no criminal record and I am an honorably discharged veteran of Desert Storm.

Sometimes PEOPLE volunteer too much info. . . .

All you need is a LEGAL ODL or CHL # to purchase in Oregon.
Once you told him you DON'T live at the address on your ODL, you were screwed.
If you would have just filled out the form, they would have run the background check on you and you would have walked out with the gun.


Ooops, guess I need to go back to "THE OTHER BOARD" It is "PRIVATE"

Pat