Oregon HB2005 definitions

[JGSFAB]

(17) "Undetectable firearm" means a firearm:
(a) Constructed or produced, including through a three-dimensional printing process,entirely of nonmetal substances;
(b) That, after removal of grips, stocks and magazines, is not as detectable as a security exemplar by a walk-through metal detector calibrated to detect the security exemplar;
(c) That includes a major component that, if subjected to inspection by the types of X-raymachines commonly used at airports, would not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
(18)(a) "Unfinished frame or receiver" means a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar item that:
(A) Is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver;
or(B) Is marketed or sold to the public to be completed, assembled or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.
(b) "Unfinished frame or receiver" does not include a component designed and intended for use in an antique firearm.

I think this statement warrants discussion.

If there are NO jigs or tools, many hours of machining (Milling, drilling, threading, etc, etc), Oregon's "may be Readily be completed" definition is not valid.
A block with no defining features I don't see why it can't be serialized and manufacturing completed.

Read More

 

[JGSFAB]

I feel like either of these levels of mfg should be able it be serialized then completed.
The 1st op is farrrrr from "Readily be completed" and Op2 still is missing huge features.
They are "machined bodies" tho.

 

[arakboss]

I feel like either of these levels of mfg should be able it be serialized then completed.
The 1st op is farrrrr from "Readily be completed" and Op2 still is missing huge features.
They are "machined bodies" tho.

View attachment 1946756 View attachment 1946757

Agreed. And if they wanted to convict a person based on A&D records, they would need evidence of what it looked like when it was serialized.

Edit: and keep in mind the first offense is a Class B Violation, which is punishable with an up to $1000 fine. Are they really going to go after people for serializing something that may or may not be a unfinished frame or receiver?

 

[JGSFAB]

All I want to do is bring a paper weight into the local FFL to serialize.
Also it's pretty low down gun grabber bs to not leave good law abiding citizens a way to legalize a PMF. Even Commieformia has a way to legalize a PMF FFS.

 

[Yarome]

All I want to do is bring a paper weight into the local FFL to serialize.

Unfortunately, HB2005 kills all PMF builds of any kind.

Technically, a flat block of metal or plastic without any shape or form could be serialized and then milled, but there is no provision in the alphabet reg's for an FFL to be able to do that. They can only serialize "firearms" and are required to record the caliber (if known) and defined type.

A block of metal or plastic cannot be distinguished to fall anywhere within the allowed types. IE., Frame or receiver. You can disagree and try to argue the level of completion vs. the amount of work required to complete it, but 80% is just an arbitrary classification. What they go by is... if it in any way resembles anything that indicates the single purpose and possibility of becoming a frame or receiver... it's an "80%", "unfinished frame or receiver" and illegal to posses.

 

[TTSX]

Aren't these the kind of questions that should have been brought up/brought to court BEFORE implementation?

 

[JGSFAB]

Unfortunately, HB2005 kills all PMF builds of any kind.

Technically, a flat block of metal or plastic without any shape or form could be serialized and then milled, but there is no provision in the alphabet reg's for an FFL to be able to do that. They can only serialize "firearms" and are required to record the caliber (if known) and defined type.

A block of metal or plastic cannot be distinguished to fall anywhere within the allowed types. IE., Frame or receiver. You can disagree and try to argue the level of completion vs. the amount of work required to complete it, but 80% is just an arbitrary classification. What they go by is... if it in any way resembles anything that indicates the single purpose and possibility of becoming a frame or receiver... it's an "80%", "unfinished frame or receiver" and illegal to posses.

I don't really want to go to court to argue it either.
They can serialize SBRs, AWOLs, etc. Form 1 you are REQUIRED to have your approval and serial number before construction.
Its a silly way to have build an otherwise legal rifle.

 

[TTSX]

I don't really want to go to court to argue it either.
They can serialize SBRs, AWOLs, etc. Form 1 you are REQUIRED to have your approval and serial number before construction.
Its a silly way to have build an otherwise legal rifle.

Well there ya go. Pay the $200 fee, build you an SBR then don't put a SB on it. Now it's just an expensive R.

 

[JGSFAB]

Well there ya go. Pay the $200 fee, build you an SBR then don't put a SB on it. Now it's just an expensive R.

I'd have a SBR upper just for funn-zies because WTFN

 

[Yarome]

They can serialize SBRs, AWOLs, etc. Form 1 you are REQUIRED to have your approval and serial number before construction.
Its a silly way to have build an otherwise legal rifle.

Kinda sorta. You can't build an SBR, AWOL, etc without first having a serial number on your lower. A Form 1 doesn't assign one. It's just a permission slip from the gooberment for you to exercise your inalienable rights.

To make one from an 80% would still be illegal in OR because you would at some point have to be in possession of an unserialized firearm... then serialize it... then do your form 1 and get permission before actually building it.

There's no "loophole" there as far as PMF's/possession of an unfinished and/or unserialized receiver goes.

 

[JGSFAB]

Kinda sorta. You can't build an SBR, AWOL, etc without first having a serial number on your lower. A Form 1 doesn't assign one. It's just a permission slip from the gooberment for you to exercise your inalienable rights.

To make one from an 80% would still be illegal in OR because you would at some point have to be in possession of an unserialized firearm... then serialize it... then do your form 1 and get permission before actually building it.

There's no "loophole" there as far as PMF's/possession of an unfinished and/or unserialized receiver goes.

I thought AOW could be a from scratch manufactured arm? Single shot credit card gun or cane gun for example.

 

[Yarome]

I thought AOW could be a from scratch manufactured arm? Single shot credit card gun or cane gun for example.

Not in OR you can't... any more. Any PMF of any type, size or shape that falls under the definition of a "firearm" now requires an FFL applied SN. Which means... at some point you will have to be in possession of an unserialized before an FFL will put a SN on it.

Feeble law allows it and recognizes a self generated SN to put on your form 1 for something like that. After approval then duly engraved, however, OR doesn't. An FFL has to apply one and no FFL will apply a SN on anything that isn't a "firearm"... which means you're a criminal before you can be "legal".

 

[JGSFAB]

Not in OR you can't... any more. Any PMF of any type, size or shape that falls under the definition of a "firearm" now requires an FFL applied SN. Which means... at some point you will have to be in possession of an unserialized before an FFL will put a SN on it.

Feeble law allows it and recognizes a self generated SN to put on your form 1 for something like that. After approval then duly engraved, however, OR doesn't. An FFL has to apply one and no FFL will apply a SN on anything that isn't a "firearm"... which means you're a criminal before you can be "legal".

Which like you said - effective killed any PMF.

 

[JGSFAB]

So "Can be Readily be completed" carries zero weight? I guess the judge would have to decide whether it applies or no.

 

[Yarome]

So "Can be Readily be completed" carries zero weight? I guess the judge would have to decide whether it applies or no.

It's so ambiguous... intentionally... that "readily" is wide open to any interpretation that fit's the agenda. They use a "definition" something like [paraphrasing], "readily made into a working firearm by an average person, having no formal training or specialized expertise, in a reasonable amount of time, using commonly available tools".

What's "average"? What's "a reasonable amount of time"? What are "commonly available tools"? Any attempt to try and nail them down to a definition an average person could use as a guide to determine if they are coloring within the lines or not comes back as [paraphrasing], "the factors are too expansive and each instance will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

 

[JGSFAB]

A lawfare handgrenade... never know who it's going to go off on.

 

[JGSFAB]

What's "average"? What's "a reasonable amount of time"? What are "commonly available tools"?

When the tool is 50-100x the expense of the above average gun price I'd say it's far from "common"... but in the world of looney lawmakers who knows.

 

[Yarome]

When the tool is 50-100x the expense of the above average gun price I'd say it's far from "common"... but in the world of looney lawmakers who knows.

True. But then again, they aren't considering what "someone" might use for a really killer precision project. They only consider "could it be done" and made to function with common tools. IE., A $30 router and a $15 hand drill.

 

[CamoDeafie]

True. But then again, they aren't considering what "someone" might use for a really killer precision project. They only consider "could it be done" and made to function with common tools. IE., A $30 router and a $15 hand drill.

A "3d printer, desktop CNC, CNC router table"=" common"

 

[Yarome]

A "3d printer, desktop CNC, CNC router table"=" common"

I would argue that. More people might have them these days, but they aren't owned by even a tiny fraction of the folks that own a router and a drill. The cost outlay makes them "less accessible" to the "average Joe" and requires a significantly higher learning curve than basic tools.

IOW, you're not running over to harbor freight, dropping a bunch of cash, going home, and then cranking out a poly80 with a desktop CNC over the next 30min to an hour. Folks also aren't dropping some serious cash on a printer after work and running home to crank out a functional firearm before dinners ready, right(?)

The costs alone makes them prohibitive for the sole purpose of cranking out a frame/receiver, but I would agree that they are "commonly available".. as in... anyone "could" buy one... but I don't think anyone could argue they are as plentiful, offer as wide of a selection or are as widely available for purchase as trying to buy a drill.

I don't believe either though would fall under the "readily made" definition unless you already own the gear and are experienced in it's operation. I don't believe that falls under "the average person" portion of the test either.