Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Just Jim, May 5, 2015.
So how will the bill affect collectible guns?
What collectable? If it's a firearm, register it.
So the way I read SB 941 it defines a "transferor" as a person who is not a gun dealer or licensed as a manufacturer or importer who intends to deliver a firearm to a transferee.
So can a curio and relic licensee purchase a curio and relic firearm from an out of state gun dealer (FFL) and have it shipped to him without undergoing a background check?
The same question would arise if a curio and relic licensee is purchasing a curio and relic from a gun dealer (FFL) in Oregon. Since the gun dealer is not considered a transferor under SB 941 then a background check would not be needed?
It seems the law only addresses transferors who are not gun dealers. But I think it would prohibit a curio and relic licensee from purchasing a curio and relic firearm from an Oregon non-dealer without going through a background check.
So what does everyone else think?
Ya it would have been nice to have input on the bill so people would know where they stand.
Im considering my C&R null and void. I've said elsewhere, Prozanski was well aware of the C&R license (my senator told me directly), did not put a provision for it. No way am I going to risk getting arrested for a $100 mosin.
I'm just going to mail my License to Prozanski and at least ask for a refund.
Good idea Bolus, don't hold your breath for a reply.
I'll continue to purchase with my 03 FFL. A Cut Above Pawn recognizes my C&R and so do the dealers and people I buy from online. I would love to see a legal challenge on the C&R point. I contend since it is not addressed by SB 941 then Federal law has precedence.
Im not the one willing to take that challenge. The 03 FFL does say that all state laws apply. That's why I asked them to put it in the law specifically.
Here are the gun laws as they are in Oregon.
As a relatively new 03 FFL holder, I'm definitely not happy about this either. I honestly don't know yet how it will affect us. I wrote Senators and Reps over and over and over again, and even Gov. Kate this morning on the missing 03 FFL exemption (as well as the missing CHL exemption, among other things). I'll stand by and wait for now. I'm hoping that it will be judged okay to be exempt from BGC if the transferor is from out of state, such as an 01 FFL like Aim Surplus. I guess we'll see.
All in all, a lot of stuff to be pissed about right now. I do like the idea about asking the state to pay for a refund, just to make a point.
This is the part of the law we, as 03FFLs, have been operating under:
As used in ORS 166.250 (Unlawful possession of firearms) to 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) to 166.295 (Renewal of license) and 166.410 (Manufacture, importation or sale of firearms) to 166.470 (Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms):
(1) Antique firearm means:
(a) Any firearm, including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system, manufactured in or before 1898; and
(b) Any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this subsection if the replica:
(A) Is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or
(B) Uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and that is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
Like Bolus, I really would like it outlined. In California the C&R is worthless because of the UBC and all the restrictions on mag capacity, etc. I'd hate to see it happen here. If my C&R becomes worthless then I too want a refund for the cost and recompense for all the times I would've renewed.
I've not read into SB941 in any detail yet. During testimony yesterday, some questions were being tossed around about exemptions for things like loaning or selling to a family member, which, apparently is in the bill. But the potential exemptions for CHL or 03 FFL - I don't recall those questions being addressed, at least during the testimony I was able to listen to.
On an upside I will be having a 1917 Tula made 1891 Mosin Nagant arriving this week to my house. SUCK IT FLOYD!
The penalty is on the transferor. So what can Oregon do to an out of state transferor if they are in compliance with their state law and federal law regarding C & R? Where is the transfer occurring? Is it in their state? That's where the firearm is and that's where the money goes.
I agree that this needs to be clarified but I doubt the Oregon Department of Justice will be putting out any opinions on this matter.
It could be in their haste to pass this law they left a loophole for C & R holders.
This is from Hayward's office after I expressed my disappointment that it was not addressed:
" As I mentioned, I spoke with the chief sponsor's office regarding this piece of the legislation. Their office took note of our concerns regarding the C&R licenses and we communicated that our constituents disagreed on this piece of the bill. Unfortunately, it did not mean that an exemption was guaranteed. Sen. Steiner Hayward does not sit on the committee that the bill was heard in and because of that she was not allowed to introduce amendments to the legislation and therefore we did not have the power to make the requested changes.
Ultimately, the Senator voted in support of the bill because she believes it will be a tool to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people"
I call bull shyte since they could make modifications anywhere along the line. But then that would force it into a joint committee to hammer together a composite of Senate and House versions. It's clear as a sunny day the plan was to make up for lost opportunities due to the focus on Kitzhaber. With that no longer commanding attention and Gov.Brown in until the next election cycle the window was there to sail it through.
Just talked to a family tonight that has an estate of guns that they need moved. When they find out the cost and inconvenience of the state interfering with the sale of their property they were very upset. Lots of old guys will die and the state will rape the families on his guns.
They would be smart to go through an auction house to move a collection. Then it becomes the buyer's problem.
Trying to get a reputable FFL to take on the estate, I know some honest men. However normally they don't buy an entire estate but sell on a percentage basis. That is the future, everyone is going to get part of your estate and your family gets screwed. If it were not for the FFL requirement I know private parties that could buy it all and save the family tons of money.
Separate names with a comma.