Firearms Laws and Questions

[CounterOfBeans]

Hey cwegga, thanks for trying to help me sort this out, but my specific question to PhysicsGuy is regarding the specific provision numbers he used ("167; 178.29 and § 178.30") which have no reference to which law body they belong to. I don't have the inclination to try and find words in other law codes that are similar to the ones he associated with these numbers. A) I've got better things to do with my time and B) the words might match'ish coincidentally, but may not be from the same source of law. So like I said, I appreciate the effort to sleuth this stuff out, but I need to know where the numbers he used are from, especially with him associating them by mere proximity to his citation of Title 27. Thanks

 

[fd15k]

Hey cwegga, thanks for trying to help me sort this out, but my specific question to PhysicsGuy is regarding the specific provision numbers he used ("167; 178.29 and § 178.30") which have no reference to which law body they belong to. I don't have the inclination to try and find words in other law codes that are similar to the ones he associated with these numbers. A) I've got better things to do with my time and B) the words might match'ish coincidentally, but may not be from the same source of law. So like I said, I appreciate the effort to sleuth this stuff out, but I need to know where the numbers he used are from, especially with him associating them by mere proximity to his citation of Title 27. Thanks

It is likely a typo, and one should read 478.29 and 478.30 :

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons | ATF

 

[PhysicsGuy]

In regards to the citation questions above, I apologize that the CFR citation was outdated. Originally I was referring to 27 CFR 178.29 and 27 CFR 178.30 which were previously in: Title 27, subchapter M, part 178, subpart C, and their coded sections.

Doing a quick search shows that these regulations have been moved to 27 CFR 478.29 and 27 CFR 478.30. Which can be found in CFR Title 27, Chapter II, subpart C.

The text states:

27 CFR 478.29 - Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

§ 478.29
Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.
No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State: Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,
(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of § 478.96(c) and
(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with the provisions of §§ 478.30 and 478.97.
[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10493, Mar. 31, 1988]

and

27 CFR 478.30 - Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

§ 478.30
Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.
No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or any acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence; and
(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[T.D. ATF-313, 56 FR 32508, July 17, 1991; 57 FR 1205, Jan. 10, 1992]

 

[cybersomatix]

So... Just to clarify. Would it be legal if I, as an Oregon resident, drove a firearm up to an FFL in Washington and met with a third party buyer and then exchanged the firearm through the FFL (Background check and any additional charges for transfer to be added by the FFL)?

Would the exchange of money from the 3rd party buyer and myself have to go through the FFL?

Would the Firearm have to be shipped by other means to the FFL?

 

[Frog]

As

So... Just to clarify. Would it be legal if I, as an Oregon resident, drove a firearm up to an FFL in Washington and met with a third party buyer and then exchanged the firearm through the FFL (Background check and any additional charges for transfer to be added by the FFL)?

Would the exchange of money from the 3rd party buyer and myself have to go through the FFL?

Would the Firearm have to be shipped by other means to the FFL?

As I understand it, as a Oregon Resident, you must deal with a Oregon FFL dealer. The seller (if from Washington) must either present the firearm to his FFL in Washington for delivery to your FFL in Oregon OR technically, must ship the firearm by a commercial carrier. However, I've learned that some FFLs will except person delivery by the seller with acceptable ID.
Frog

 

[Frog]

As

As I understand it, as a Oregon Resident, you must deal with a Oregon FFL dealer. The seller (if from Washington) must either present the firearm to his FFL in Washington for delivery to your FFL in Oregon OR technically, must ship the firearm by a commercial carrier. However, I've learned that some FFLs will except person delivery by the seller with acceptable ID.
Frog

Or vise, versa.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

In regards to the citation questions above, I apologize that the CFR citation was outdated. Originally I was referring to 27 CFR 178.29 and 27 CFR 178.30 which were previously in: Title 27, subchapter M, part 178, subpart C, and their coded sections.

Doing a quick search shows that these regulations have been moved to 27 CFR 478.29 and 27 CFR 478.30. Which can be found in CFR Title 27, Chapter II, subpart C.

The text states:




and

PhysicsGuy.
I finally got around to doing my homework on the "27 CFR 478.29" you cited. Given what "physics" is all about, your use of the word "physics" in your name tells me you value separating emotions from fact-finding, and coming to logical conclusions based on tested evidence. If that's fair of me to say, I'm gonna have to put it out there that my homework doesn't line up with your conclusions.


That said, I might be wrong. But please resist the urge to presume I'm wrong just because my conclusions cast doubt on the tradition of federal interference of citizens' gun rights and freedoms. I hope you simply take what I've found as new evidence, evidence that belongs under the lens of logic only, evidence that if taken for what it says, strongly suggests that our gun rights are not "subject to" compliance with 27 CFR 478.29. For those who live and breathe their rights and actively engage the issues of defending gun rights, the following information is worth looking farther into.

The function of "regulations" is to implement "laws" (i.e. statutes). Legislators "enact" laws. Executive branch administrators "promulgate" (decree, announce) regulations.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implements statutes of the United States Code (USC).

We can't make informed decisions about what the law says until we read the definitions of the terms used and the provisions that define the legislative intent. That said, since "27 CFR 478.29", uses the word "person" to describe who must comply, we have to know how "person" is defined for "27 CFR 478.29", and we have to read the legislative intent provision for Part 478.

CFR 2013, 2014
Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms
Chapter II - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice (Parts 400 - 646)
Subchapter B - Firearms and Ammunition
Part 478 - Commerce in firearms and ammunition
Subpart A—Introduction
§ 478.1

"Scope of regulations.

(a) General. The regulations contained in this part relate to commerce in firearms and ammunition and are promulgated to implement Title I, State Firearms Control Assistance (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44), of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213) as amended by Pub. L. 99-308 (100 Stat. 449), Pub. L. 99-360 (100 Stat. 766), Pub. L. 99-408 (100 Stat. 920), Pub. L. 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), Pub. L. 103-322 (108 Stat. 1796), Pub. L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009), and Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).

(b) Procedural and substantive requirements. This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to:

(1) The interstate or foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition;

(2) The licensing of manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition, collectors of firearms, and dealers in firearms;

(3) The conduct of business or activity by licensees;

(4) The importation of firearms and ammunition;

(5) The records and reports required of licensees;

(6) Relief from disabilities under this part;

(7) Exempt interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition; and

(8) Restrictions on armor piercing ammunition.

[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10490, Mar. 31, 1988, as amended by T.D. ATF-354, 59 FR 7112, Feb. 14, 1994; T.D. ATF-363, 60 FR 17450, Apr. 6, 1995; T.D. ATF-401, 63 FR 35522, June 30, 1998; T.D. ATF-471, 67 FR 5425, Feb. 5, 2002]"


"Subpart B—Definitions
§ 478.11

Meaning of terms.

When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof. ...


Person. Any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partner-ship, society, or joint stock
company."


Regarding the explicit focus on "commerce" in the "scope" provision above, is the exercise of a right (to armed self-defense) "commercial"? No

Regarding "person", as defined for "27 CFR 478.29"

If the context of "same general class", in explicit terms,
"means"...

"..., corporation, company, association, firm, partner-
ship, society, or joint stock company."

Then the context of the words "same general class", in
explicit terms, "means"...

commercial/artificial entities or "individuals"
who work for them

Regarding citizens,

1) Since 2nd Amendment rights are not "commercial",
and

2) Since citizens are by nature not within the "general
class" that the CFR describes as

"..., corporation, company, association, firm,
partner- ship, society, or joint stock company.",

3) Logic requires the conclusion that "27 CFR 478.29"
does not apply to citizens' exercise of rights.

For corroboration, the principle of limiting a law to the "scope" of a "same general class" is written into the Oregon Constitution as well, at Article 4, Section 20, which reads:

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall
embrace but one subject, and matters properly
connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed
in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an
Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act
shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be
expressed in the title."

Same for the Washington Constitution, at Article 2, Section 19:

"SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No
bill shall embrace more than one subject, and
that shall be expressed in the title."


As if to be redundant and conclusive about what the "single-subject" requirement means for interpretation of laws that relate to rights, Oregon's Legislators remove all doubt about "infringement through interpretation". See ORS 174.030:

"174.030 Construction favoring natural right to
prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
other against it, the former is to prevail."

Yes these last couple provisions are State provisions, but what's consistent is the principle that the law and logic lands on the side of liberty to exercise rights. Given the Oregon requirements for "proper connection" and a "single subject", and given that "licensing" has been made integral to all of this, notice how in the definition of "license", the "proper connection" within the definition is the word "commercial". See definition of "license" in Oregon ORS 183.310(5) (Administrative Procedures Act):

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this
chapter: (5) "License" includes the whole or part of any
agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or
similar form of permission required by law to pursue
any commercial activity, trade, occupation or
profession.

No other words but "commercial" describe what "license" is legislatively meant to apply to. No other words can be implied into this definition either. See ORS 174.010:

"174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In
the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is
simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or
in substance, contained therein, not to insert what
has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted;
and where there are several provisions or particulars
such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will
give effect to all."

Therefore, since the principle of protecting and maintaining rights is consistent in all of the previous provisions, and since this same principle is the foundation of the federal Constitution as well, laws like "27 CFR 478.29" and "licensing" can have no "proper connection" to the fundamental interests at stake with self-defense rights or citizens' exercise of them.

 

[tedacker]

PhysicsGuy.
I finally got around to doing my homework on the "27 CFR 478.29" you cited. Given what "physics" is all about, your use of the word "physics" in your name tells me you value separating emotions from fact-finding, and coming to logical conclusions based on tested evidence. If that's fair of me to say, I'm gonna have to put it out there that my homework doesn't line up with your conclusions.


That said, I might be wrong. But please resist the urge to presume I'm wrong just because my conclusions cast doubt on the tradition of federal interference of citizens' gun rights and freedoms. I hope you simply take what I've found as new evidence, evidence that belongs under the lens of logic only, evidence that if taken for what it says, strongly suggests that our gun rights are not "subject to" compliance with 27 CFR 478.29. For those who live and breathe their rights and actively engage the issues of defending gun rights, the following information is worth looking farther into.

The function of "regulations" is to implement "laws" (i.e. statutes). Legislators "enact" laws. Executive branch administrators "promulgate" (decree, announce) regulations.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implements statutes of the United States Code (USC).

We can't make informed decisions about what the law says until we read the definitions of the terms used and the provisions that define the legislative intent. That said, since "27 CFR 478.29", uses the word "person" to describe who must comply, we have to know how "person" is defined for "27 CFR 478.29", and we have to read the legislative intent provision for Part 478.

CFR 2013, 2014
Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms
Chapter II - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice (Parts 400 - 646)
Subchapter B - Firearms and Ammunition
Part 478 - Commerce in firearms and ammunition
Subpart A—Introduction
§ 478.1

"Scope of regulations.

(a) General. The regulations contained in this part relate to commerce in firearms and ammunition and are promulgated to implement Title I, State Firearms Control Assistance (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44), of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213) as amended by Pub. L. 99-308 (100 Stat. 449), Pub. L. 99-360 (100 Stat. 766), Pub. L. 99-408 (100 Stat. 920), Pub. L. 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), Pub. L. 103-322 (108 Stat. 1796), Pub. L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009), and Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).

(b) Procedural and substantive requirements. This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to:

(1) The interstate or foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition;

(2) The licensing of manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition, collectors of firearms, and dealers in firearms;

(3) The conduct of business or activity by licensees;

(4) The importation of firearms and ammunition;

(5) The records and reports required of licensees;

(6) Relief from disabilities under this part;

(7) Exempt interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition; and

(8) Restrictions on armor piercing ammunition.

[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10490, Mar. 31, 1988, as amended by T.D. ATF-354, 59 FR 7112, Feb. 14, 1994; T.D. ATF-363, 60 FR 17450, Apr. 6, 1995; T.D. ATF-401, 63 FR 35522, June 30, 1998; T.D. ATF-471, 67 FR 5425, Feb. 5, 2002]"


"Subpart B—Definitions
§ 478.11

Meaning of terms.

When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof. ...


Person. Any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partner-ship, society, or joint stock
company."


Regarding the explicit focus on "commerce" in the "scope" provision above, is the exercise of a right (to armed self-defense) "commercial"? No

Regarding "person", as defined for "27 CFR 478.29"

If the context of "same general class", in explicit terms,
"means"...

"..., corporation, company, association, firm, partner-
ship, society, or joint stock company."

Then the context of the words "same general class", in
explicit terms, "means"...

commercial/artificial entities or "individuals"
who work for them

Regarding citizens,

1) Since 2nd Amendment rights are not "commercial",
and

2) Since citizens are by nature not within the "general
class" that the CFR describes as

"..., corporation, company, association, firm,
partner- ship, society, or joint stock company.",

3) Logic requires the conclusion that "27 CFR 478.29"
does not apply to citizens' exercise of rights.

For corroboration, the principle of limiting a law to the "scope" of a "same general class" is written into the Oregon Constitution as well, at Article 4, Section 20, which reads:

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall
embrace but one subject, and matters properly
connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed
in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an
Act which shall not be expressed in the title, such Act
shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be
expressed in the title."

Same for the Washington Constitution, at Article 2, Section 19:

"SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No
bill shall embrace more than one subject, and
that shall be expressed in the title."


As if to be redundant and conclusive about what the "single-subject" requirement means for interpretation of laws that relate to rights, Oregon's Legislators remove all doubt about "infringement through interpretation". See ORS 174.030:

"174.030 Construction favoring natural right to
prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
other against it, the former is to prevail."

Yes these last couple provisions are State provisions, but what's consistent is the principle that the law and logic lands on the side of liberty to exercise rights. Given the Oregon requirements for "proper connection" and a "single subject", and given that "licensing" has been made integral to all of this, notice how in the definition of "license", the "proper connection" within the definition is the word "commercial". See definition of "license" in Oregon ORS 183.310(5) (Administrative Procedures Act):

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this
chapter: (5) "License" includes the whole or part of any
agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or
similar form of permission required by law to pursue
any commercial activity, trade, occupation or
profession.

No other words but "commercial" describe what "license" is legislatively meant to apply to. No other words can be implied into this definition either. See ORS 174.010:

"174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In
the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is
simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or
in substance, contained therein, not to insert what
has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted;
and where there are several provisions or particulars
such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will
give effect to all."

Therefore, since the principle of protecting and maintaining rights is consistent in all of the previous provisions, and since this same principle is the foundation of the federal Constitution as well, laws like "27 CFR 478.29" and "licensing" can have no "proper connection" to the fundamental interests at stake with self-defense rights or citizens' exercise of them.

OK, so putting it in terms I can understand. I should be able to buy, sell or trade as an individual, in state or out of state because I am protected by the Constitution. A law that violates the constitution is unenforceable. If that is where you were going, I totally agree. Might have a heck of a time in court!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

OK, so putting it in terms I can understand. I should be able to buy, sell or trade as an individual, in state or out of state because I am protected by the Constitution. A law that violates the constitution is unenforceable. If that is where you were going, I totally agree. Might have a heck of a time in court!

A) Yes, if I was determining the law as a juror (see below), I would say that that's the message being made by those provisions, and
B) You're right, heck of a time indeed... because there aren't enough We The People types who are aware of this stuff to be able to form a jury out of any given jury pool who will be able to make the informed decision needed to acquit someone who merely wants to exercise their rights without government interference.

But that's an education thing and that's why I'm posting this stuff. And oh, by the way, if you've ever been on a jury, you probably noticed how the judge told you that they would determine the law and tell you what it is, and that you (the juror) would be in charge of determining the facts. Turns out that's not true either it seems. See Oregon Constution, Article 1, Section 16 (keeping in mind that Article 1 is Oregon's Bill of Rights):

"Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

The underlining emphasis above is mine. But the bold type text at the bottom of this quote isn't. That's how you find it on the ORS website. This is the only place in Article 1 where someone has gone out of their way to emphasize a particular thing. Notice that what they emphasize is the part about the jury's rights that judges only tell juries, ... which de-emphasizes the part about the jury's "right" that judges want to keep for themselves, i.e. determining the law.

If juries are intended to be a citizen's safeguard against judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, and if judges are lying to juries about their "rights" and civic duties, then, as a prosecutor might say "Is the judge's suppression of jury-based 'due process' beyond reasonable doubt?" If I was on a jury, I would be compelled by the plain words of Article 1, Section 16 "to determine the law" with an answer of "yes".

And by the way, let's look at Article 1, Section 22 below while we're at it:

"Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

 

[nwwoodsman]

Okay guys, please forgive me if this has already been asked a hundred times but I can't seem to find answer. I live in Oregon and will be camping near Swift Resevoir in a few weeks. I do not have a Washington CHL. It is my understanding that open carry is legal in Washington and Washington state parks. Can anyone verify that this is correct? Also, is it legal for me as an Oregon resident to transport a handgun over the river, locked up and unloaded with mags, firearm and ammo stored seperately?

 

[Nwcid]

I laws are written pretty straight forward, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41

You can legally open carry. You can legally transport them. In WA there is NO requirements for position of ammo, or locked cases, or locked up guns for them to be transported. The ONLY rule on transport, without CPL, is unloaded. So you could have the gun and the loaded mag laying on the seat next to you and be perfectly legal.

 

[nwwoodsman]

Thanks for the link and the reply. Pretty familiar with Oregon gun laws but the other side of the border is a whole new ball game.

 

[tommy98466]

I would probably take the gun to an FFL and have the gun transfered into my name. Should be as simple as that. If there is any question by the FFL at the time of transfer, just be honest and say that you thought you were making a legal transaction, but you found out later that it was an issue, and you wanted to get it straightened out. There shouldnt be any problem with that, and you will be covering your butt from any later possible questions or issues.

You can't undue a crime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

You can't undue a crime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

So what if ignorance of the law is actually in reality, something that is manufactured (via public schools) by the very same government that will later hold you accountable to it? Oregon's public schools are required by law (ORS 336.057- 1923 to present) to provide "courses of instruction" devoted to the Constitution for a minimum of 5 years (8th-12th). Likewise, Oregon's public schools are also required by law (ORS 336.067- 1929 to present) to provide "special emphasis" on, among other things, "obedience to law", the US Constitution, AND the Oregon Constitution.

As a graduate of Oregon's public school system myself, I know for a fact that I received absolutely no exposure (let alone "special emphasis") to learning the basics of how to read and accurately understand the laws so I would never need ignorance as a defense. I also received absolutely no study time on the Oregon Constitution (again….let alone "special emphasis"). The actual "law" requires these things, but the policy of Oregon's public schools has historically been, and still is, to bypass these requirements. In doing so, it follows that public school's go beyond enabling the ignorance that lays a legal minefield at our feet our entire lives, given schools' policy-based non-compliance with these laws… they actively fabricate it.

 

[tommy98466]

So what if ignorance of the law is actually in reality, something that is manufactured (via public schools) by the very same government that will later hold you accountable to it?
Well all I can tell you is that you need to run for school board and correct those errors in curriculum. It still doesn't give you the right to claim ignorance of the law as a defense.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Regarding your "right to claim ignorance" remark… theoretically speaking, if public schools also suppressed the law that required them to teach kids how to read and write, would you tell those kids after they graduated that they don't have a right to be illiterate or that they don't have any excuse for not starting their own personal ABC's and phonics curriculum?

Illiteracy comes in many forms, to include the legal variety. In a nation like ours where it's organizational cornerstone IS the rule of legislatively-enacted law, how is it that even in a State like Oregon where the law literally requires schools to place "special emphasis" on the law (again- ORS 336.057 & ORS 336.067) and the State/federal Constitutions, that the "emphasis" for where to place blame for legal illiteracy is instead put on the victims who were too young and naive as students to know they were getting screwed out of their knowledge of the law? Because of generations of this dereliction of duty by public schools in Oregon, the minimum five years worth of opportunity students are supposed to have (during their formative, impressionable years) is lost, and after those K-12 years, this educational opportunity becomes a burden that "graduates" are told they must bear on their own, while of course trying to hold a 9-5 job, raise a family and attend all of life's other adult errands.

Even for people who have done plenty of law reading since they "graduated", they are still in the minority. And as such, if they ever find themselves as a defendant in a case where their exercise of a right is twisted and painted as a crime by agendized prosecution, such a defendant can't expect to enjoy the benefit of a jury who is capable of coming to their rescue… because the vast majority of those who make up jury pools "graduated" from public schools that deprived them of the opportunity to learn reeeeally important things about how to read the law accurately for themselves… which in Oregon would be necessary in order to exercise their rights in an informed manner AS jurors under Oregon Constitution Article, Section 16, which says (in part):

"In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law…"

That's right, Oregon's own Constitution under Article 1 (Oregon's "Bill of Rights"), says that it is a citizen's right (as in right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to be armed) to determine not only the facts of a case… but to determine the law itself. Under this right, the "law" itself is as much on trial as the defendant. And how many times have jurors found people guilty against their conscience because they were told by a judge that the law required them to be found guilty. I have personally witnessed an Oregon criminal proceeding where the judge flat out told the jury that his job was to determine the law and their job was to determine the facts. If public schools had complied with ORS 336.057 & 067 lo' these many decades, it's no stretch to surmise that a jury in this situation would know that the judge was lying to them and act accordingly.

Given that knowledge is power, the 4th of July is nothing more than the fourth day in the seventh month in a nation that is constitutionally and legally illiterate. And please don't assume I've done nothing to address this issue through proper channels, and please don't excuse yourself from taking the issue up on your own now that you know about it.

 

[tommy98466]

Regarding your "right to claim ignorance" remark… theoretically speaking, if public schools also suppressed the law that required them to teach kids how to read and write, would you tell those kids after they graduated that they don't have a right to be illiterate or that they don't have any excuse for not starting their own personal ABC's and phonics curriculum?

Illiteracy comes in many forms, to include the legal variety. In a nation like ours where it's organizational cornerstone IS the rule of legislatively-enacted law, how is it that even in a State like Oregon where the law literally requires schools to place "special emphasis" on the law (again- ORS 336.057 & ORS 336.067) and the State/federal Constitutions, that the "emphasis" for where to place blame for legal illiteracy is instead put on the victims who were too young and naive as students to know they were getting screwed out of their knowledge of the law? Because of generations of this dereliction of duty by public schools in Oregon, the minimum five years worth of opportunity students are supposed to have (during their formative, impressionable years) is lost, and after those K-12 years, this educational opportunity becomes a burden that "graduates" are told they must bear on their own, while of course trying to hold a 9-5 job, raise a family and attend all of life's other adult errands.

Even for people who have done plenty of law reading since they "graduated", they are still in the minority. And as such, if they ever find themselves as a defendant in a case where their exercise of a right is twisted and painted as a crime by agendized prosecution, such a defendant can't expect to enjoy the benefit of a jury who is capable of coming to their rescue… because the vast majority of those who make up jury pools "graduated" from public schools that deprived them of the opportunity to learn reeeeally important things about how to read the law accurately for themselves… which in Oregon would be necessary in order to exercise their rights in an informed manner AS jurors under Oregon Constitution Article, Section 16, which says (in part):

"In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law…"

That's right, Oregon's own Constitution under Article 1 (Oregon's "Bill of Rights"), says that it is a citizen's right (as in right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to be armed) to determine not only the facts of a case… but to determine the law itself. Under this right, the "law" itself is as much on trial as the defendant. And how many times have jurors found people guilty against their conscience because they were told by a judge that the law required them to be found guilty. I have personally witnessed an Oregon criminal proceeding where the judge flat out told the jury that his job was to determine the law and their job was to determine the facts. If public schools had complied with ORS 336.057 & 067 lo' these many decades, it's no stretch to surmise that a jury in this situation would know that the judge was lying to them and act accordingly.

Given that knowledge is power, the 4th of July is nothing more than the fourth day in the seventh month in a nation that is constitutionally and legally illiterate. And please don't assume I've done nothing to address this issue through proper channels, and please don't excuse yourself from taking the issue up on your own now that you know about it.

STOP IT. You are going off the edge. Take it to your legislator. NOT HERE!!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Point1:
If you've taken a chance to look at any other posts by me on this thread, you'll notice they're a bit on the long'ish side. And the reason for that is that I research laws and cite laws to back up what I say… often to include case law for clarification. People who spend time researching an issue and sharing the fruit of that research with others do so so that others get a chance to see an issue from an other angle or with more clarity. Backing up what I say with evidence and reasoned arguments does not constitute "going off the edge" simply because you refuse to escape the comfortable confinement of easy platitudes you've been pummeled with you whole life (i.e. "ignorance of the law is no defense"). Rather, evidence and reasoned arguments are an invitation to you and others to test what I say, do some research of your own, and second-guess what I say with your own evidence and reasoned arguments.

Point 2:
The only thing in my last post that I can imagine being seen as "going off the edge", was my reference to schools suppressing the teaching of reading and writing. By itself, of course that's ridiculous (though I do hear how some schools have stopped teaching cursive writing), but when someone frames such an absurdity from the beginning with words like "theoretically", or "hypothetically" (like I did) or…., that means they're using the absurdity as a tool to make their original point easier to see or relate to. This technique is used all the time by authors, professors, judges, etc to build arguments that arrive at conclusions. Failing to recognize that and instead using it as a reason to cast dismissive aspersions only serves discredit to you.

Point 3:
RE: your words - "STOP IT. You are going off the edge. Take it to your legislator. NOT HERE!!". If people are in a position to impose themselves as content referees on this site, they usually have the title of "administrator" or "moderator" under their name. I notice the words "active member" under yours though, which is also what I have under mine. So if you can get in touch with Joey Link (the originator of the site) or any other moderators to have them review what I wrote so that they can tell me to "STOP IT" and "NOT HERE!!", then I'll be much more convinced that the Northwest Firearms community is opposed to perspectives that are based on legal/historical facts.

Like I said, don't assume I've done nothing. I have taken this point up directly with Oregon's head social sciences curriculum planner. When I provided her with the same evidence I've posted here, and more, and asked her to reconcile the huge discrepancy between these laws and what schools actually do, she conceded after consulting her legal affairs manager that she could provide no laws that vindicated present policies against the evidence I provided. Instead, she dismissed the issue by saying that existing curriculum policy was OK with her… as if to say that bypassing ORS 336.057 & 067 by preference was a firmly accepted practice at the State planning level.
This is why I'm hoping to share this information with concerned fellow citizens. This issue is much bigger than my resources allow for and should not in the first place be made into a cause that's doomed to failure by being championed by one or even a mere handful of people. We all know that shear political force of numbers is the only way to fix it and because it's your kids'/grandkids' future that's at stake here, your life will very much be affected by the perspectives they hold and decisions they make as our future leaders. But because of all the people who go on to swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions and laws.. who "graduate" as constitutionally/legally illiterate, the immensity of the problems that result announces itself. Knowing how keep this oath or be a legitimate juror makes this issue not "my" issue… it's yours and everyone else's who value the well-being of their communities, states and nation.
If you truly value and honor all those who have died in the name of protecting and preserving what we love about our county, then flippant dismissiveness and evasion of the issue is the last thing that should entire your mind. I don't want anyone to take my word for it. The evidence I'm providing speaks for itself and the issue needs no centerpiece leader to be what it is: an issue that should be recognized as the emergency it is. Those who are now exposed to it should look up the laws themselves to verify it (to include Wilson v. Chancellor - 1976) and start taking it up with their own kids/grandkids, neighbors and local school boards. We are in contempt of ourselves, our veterans, and our future if liberty-lovers are unable/unwilling to recognize the tragedy of waving the flag and shooting off fireworks once a year, while allowing what we celebrate to be eaten away one generation at a time through the cancer of constitutional/legal illiteracy that "our" schools feed into our society like an IV drip. Had ORS 336.057 & 067 historically been carried out as a routine part of our basic education experience (like our legislators no doubt intended), then yes, I would very much agree with the blanket statement of "ignorance of the law is no defense".

 

[TC2164]

you're correct, I had my definition of bequeathing off in my mind. I was thinking of something different. (living trust/will)


Anyways, a living relative can give you a firearm from out of state through legal means using a license holder. (and following local laws)

A living Will is normally done for medical purposes only. See living will . A living trust is for assets handling while alive but not able to handle them. A Living Trust Explained. I think you meant a Last Will and Testament which is not executed until the person is declared dead and the executor of the estate goes through l process of executing the will legal means. see Last Will and Testament - Definition, Examples, Processes

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So... Just to clarify. Would it be legal if I, as an Oregon resident, drove a firearm up to an FFL in Washington and met with a third party buyer and then exchanged the firearm through the FFL (Background check and any additional charges for transfer to be added by the FFL)?

In a word, yes. I have done so myself.