Oregon HB2005 definitions

[JGSFAB]

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.

I'd like to see somebody with a router carve out a 3in deep magwell
"In a reasonable amount of time" even more comedy.

It's not like I'm buying a 0-79% receiver, it's raw material that I'm machining to well below any "Can Readily be completed" by common people and tools.
It's with 100% certainty because the receiver is my unique design and requires many other custom parts to even attempt to fire.

I will say this - FFLs were serializing unfinished 80% lowers and those are not arms per the feds.

Unfortunately it's a dark grey area... more venting than anything productive.

 

[Yarome]

II will say this - FFLs were serializing unfinished 80% lowers and those are not arms per the feds.

Well. They were serializing them because the alphabet did exactly that. Made the frames and receivers rule that classified unfinished as "firearms"... hence... allowing and requiring them to be serialized. Since vacated by the 5th circuit, but it's not quite dead yet. SCOTUS granted cert to hear the case for a final determination.

Prior to that, frame and receiver PMF's were only serialized after completion. "Not a firearm" was "not a firearm".... until it was.

 

[JGSFAB]

Crims who want to make GGs as "disposable guns" are gonna do it.
They're not get it serialized.

In Section (4) it reads (2) [possession def.]
Unless...
"(e) A gunsmith taking possession of a firearm for the purpose of imprinting the firearm
with a serial number in accordance with federal law"

So if I'm there surrendering my receiver for serialization there should be zero penalty.
If I fail the BGC it must be disposed of.
It's the same as buying an arm, BGC fail no pass go.
Do they jail people that find and report stolen arms(even serial numbers removed)? It's up to the officer but I'd say it's very rare.

(Spit balling at best).

 

[Yarome]

So if I'm there surrendering my receiver for serialization there should be zero penalty.
If I fail the BGC it must be disposed of.

Uh... if you put your lower in for a SN... there is no BGC when they return it to you. I'm aware that misinformation has been floating around the internet... even coming from some that really should absolutely know better... but it simply isn't true.

Even if their was, and you failed, then they don't "have" to destroy it. It would be a perfectly legal lower they can resell to someone else.

 

[JGSFAB]

Well. They were serializing them because the alphabet did exactly that. Made the frames and receivers rule that classified unfinished as "firearms"... hence... allowing and requiring them to be serialized. Since vacated by the 5th circuit, but it's not quite dead yet. SCOTUS granted cert to hear the case for a final determination.

Prior to that, frame and receiver PMF's were only serialized after completion. "Not a firearm" was "not a firearm".... until it was.

With that logic they should mark a 0 percent no problem. Anything that was purchased to become an arm.

 

[JGSFAB]

Uh... if you put your lower in for a SN... there is no BGC when they return it to you. I'm aware that misinformation has been floating around the internet... even coming from some that really should absolutely know better... but it simply isn't true.

Even if their was, and you failed, then they don't "have" to destroy it. It would be a perfectly legal lower they can resell to someone else.

They have to log it into their books to make a legit serial number and apply it.

 

[JGSFAB]

Uh... if you put your lower in for a SN... there is no BGC when they return it to you.

That is exactly what we are doing - asking for a legit serial number containing their FFL# logged into their books. Anything logged into their books has to be transferred back.

 

[arakboss]

Parent(s) should go straight to jail.

Teen arrested after Detroit raid uncovers illegal 3D-printed gun operation

A raid at the house in Detroit may have stopped several so-called ghost guns from hitting the streets after uncovering an illegal 3D-printed gun operation.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Yarome]

They have to log it into their books to make a legit serial number and apply it.

Correct. However... when returning it and entering the disposition of the firearm in their log it is not a transfer and does not require a BGC. The false assumption is that there is only ONE kind of disposition entry allowed, which is not true. IE., returned to owner, lost, stolen, confiscated as evidence, transferred to another FFL, etc etc...

Feeble regs and the law clearly state that gunsmithing services do not constitute a "transfer", unless... the firearm is being release to a person other than the person that originally brought it in.

This issue has been covered extensively in both of the main HB2005 threads.

 

[Yarome]

That is exactly what we are doing - asking for a legit serial number containing their FFL# logged into their books. Anything logged into their books has to be transferred back.

See above... and to repeat... returning a firearm to the original owner is not a "transfer". It has not changed ownership. A gunsmithing service was performed and new SN issuance logged. That's all.

No different than taking your firearm in for a trigger job, a cleaning, having a scope mounted, etc, etc. If it takes more than a day... they have to log that too. When you go pick it up, they log that it was returned to the owner. No BGC is required.

ETA: From the horses mouth addressing this very question.

Does a licensed gunsmith have to conduct a NICS background check before returning repaired or customized firearms? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

No, if the firearm is being returned to the person from whom it was received. However, if the firearm is delivered to someone other than the person from whom it was received, a NICS background check is required. [18 U.S.C. 922(t); 478.124(a)]

www.atf.gov

NSSF guide for FFL's record keeping:


Clipped from here

 

[JGSFAB]

Correct. However... when returning it and entering the disposition of the firearm in their log it is not a transfer and does not require a BGC. The false assumption is that there is only ONE kind of disposition entry allowed, which is not true. IE., returned to owner, lost, stolen, confiscated as evidence, transferred to another FFL, etc etc...

Feeble regs and the law clearly state that gunsmithing services do not constitute a "transfer", unless... the firearm is being release to a person other than the person that originally brought it in.

This issue has been covered extensively in both of the main HB2005 threads.

Oregon doesn't care about feeble law unless it backs their agenda... this whole deal is about OREGON's demands and well a Felony is a Felony. * Edit * For the FFL the route of safety is to log it in. In their books they MUST put the Serial number and who it went to AFAIK so a BGC to verify you are able to receive a transferable firearm makes sense to me (as the least grey route).

 

[Yarome]

Oregon doesn't care about feeble law unless it backs their agenda... this whole deal is about OREGON's demands and well a Felony is a Felony. For the FFL the route of safety is to log it in.

You're welcome to believe what you like, but that's not how the ball bounces. FFL's are bound by feeble law. Oregon cannot require the feebs to do a BGC that is not required by feeble law. It's not within OR's jurisdiction and the feds are prohibited from doing so. Oregon also does not dictate any fed regulations for FederalFL's. The feds do.

I won't beat a dead horse any further though....

 

[JGSFAB]

I won't beat a dead horse any further though....

Come on its the internet, we beat things to atoms! Nobody like a quitter.
For the Oregon FFL, they are 100% right to be fearful of Oregon law and Oregon's infinite grey area rapidly expanding in their direction.
If Oregon nails an FFL with a F , their FFL license is toilet paper.

 

[Yarome]

If Oregon nails an FFL with a F , their FFL license is toilet paper.

What can I say? If you don't believe me, the Alphabet answering that very question, the NSSF guide to FFL's on the matter (I conveniently supplied links for both in post #30), and in the other threads actual FFL's responding to that question nor individuals recounting their serialization experiences that didn't require one... or the fact that no where in HB2005 does it attempt to impose a BGC where none is required...

I simply can't help you and it's pointless to continue. I'm out....

 

[JGSFAB]

or the fact that no where in HB2005 does it attempt to impose a BGC where none is required...

"U.S.C. 923.(13)(a) If requested by a transferor who is not a gun dealer, a gun dealer may request a criminal background check pursuant to ORS 166.435 or 166.438 and may charge a reasonable fee for providing the service.(b) A gun dealer that requests a criminal background check under this subsection is immune from civil liability for any use of the firearm or unfinished frame or receiver by the recipient or transferee, provided that the gun dealer requests the criminal background check as described in this section and also provided that the dealer verifies that the recipient has a valid permit-to-purchase the firearm or unfinished frame or receiver and the dealer has received a unique approval number from the department indicating successful completion of the background check.(14) Knowingly selling or delivering a firearm or unfinished frame or receiver to a purchaser or transferee who does not have a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm in violation of subsection (2)(d)of this section, or prior to receiving a unique approval number from the department based on the criminal background check in violation of subsection (3)(c) of this section, is a Class A misdemeanor."

"The is Oregon, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply in my court room..." - Foreshadowing

FWIW I whole heartedly agree about the fed requirements , not denying those regs in the slightest. Just saying Oregon is implying there will be punishment. They're almost listing "Permit to Purchase" that doesn't exist...

 

[Yarome]

"U.S.C. 923.(13)(a) If requested by a transferor who is not a gun dealer, a gun dealer may request a criminal background check pursuant to ORS 166.435 or 166.438 and may charge a reasonable fee for providing the service.(b) A gun dealer that requests a criminal background check under this subsection is immune from civil liability for any use of the firearm or unfinished frame or receiver by the recipient or transferee, provided that the gun dealer requests the criminal background check as described in this section and also provided that the dealer verifies that the recipient has a valid permit-to-purchase the firearm or unfinished frame or receiver and the dealer has received a unique approval number from the department indicating successful completion of the background check.(14) Knowingly selling or delivering a firearm or unfinished frame or receiver to a purchaser or transferee who does not have a valid permit-to-purchase a firearm in violation of subsection (2)(d)of this section, or prior to receiving a unique approval number from the department based on the criminal background check in violation of subsection (3)(c) of this section, is a Class A misdemeanor."

"The is Oregon, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply in my court room..." - Foreshadowing

FWIW I whole heartedly agree about the fed requirements , not denying those regs in the slightest. Just saying Oregon is implying there will be punishment. They're almost listing "Permit to Purchase" that doesn't exist...

Those ORS statutes designate the transferor as the owner of the firearm and gives exclusion of transfer when temporarily giving your firearm to others. Including someone who's business is firearm gunsmithing or repair. Just like the fed laws do. Technically, the ORS don't even require a gunsmith to be an FFL. Only that they are in the business of gunsmithing, which could mean he doesn't buy, sell or mfg firearms.. just fettles them. (The ORS doesn't say anything about any licensing requirement in the subject context).

All that (including the section that says they can't transfer a firearm to someone that doesn't have a valid permit-to-purchase) is just fluff. Attempting to intimidate, but even in all that language they refer only to the "transferee"... knowing full well that under ORS statues and feeble law... in the situation where you are taking your own property back after gunsmithing services have been rendered... you were and are still the "transferor" not the "transferee".

IOW, none of what they just tried to imply... applies. It's a smoke screen. What do you think happens? You take your firearm in, hand it to the gunsmith and he just became the transferor.... "thank you for the free gun!"? You are still the transferor and still have claim to your personal property. They have no transferor authority to give ownership of your property to a transferee. Only you can do that... as... the owner/transferor.

Essentially they are making a veiled threat to go after an FFL if they don't do a BGC, knowing full well that the FFL has broken no state or federal law by not doing one. Part of that may also be their attempt to increase the burden on firearm owners by not only having to pay to have it serialized, but also pay for an additional and unnecessary BGC + an FFL's transfer fee. Even though... no transfer is taking place.

They're giving the green light for unscrupulous FFL's to stick it to their customers by dangling some extra coin in front of their greedy faces. "You can if you want to... you know"

None of which means one hill of beans. Nor does it place any requirement on FFL's to perform a BGC prior to returning someone's property back to them.

The only way they can actually hold an FFL liable, which is true under both state and feeble law... is if the FFL knowingly, or has a strong reason to suspect that the person is a prohibited person or appears to be a threat to themselves or others.

*I didn't mention it here, but I did in the other threads. It's not required, but that doesn't mean than some FFL's might have a store policy that requires one before they'll hand it back over. They sure aren't going to stay in business very long though if they start doing BGC's for simple gunsmithing services. "That'll be $25 for the trigger swap and $50 for the BGC and transfer fee, please."

As a general rule it's always good policy to ask questions before handing over your personal property to a stranger.

 

[JGSFAB]

Nobody is going to touch any of it now that its after the 1st at least till somebody goes to court and wins against the state.
And its doubtful do to WA banning about everything....

We will have to wait for that magical case that wipes them all (that the states will ignore).

 

[Yarome]

Nobody is going to touch any of it now that its after the 1st at least till somebody goes to court and wins against the state.
And its doubtful do to WA banning about everything....

We will have to wait for that magical case that wipes them all (that the states will ignore).

There is zero additional risk for FFL's to continue to take in serialization jobs. They are exempt and fully legal for them to have an unsterilized in their shop... so long as they serialize it within 7 days of taking it in.

The risk to late comers is minuscule, at best. The only time it matters is if your smoke maker came under LE scrutiny. If that were to occur, what will catch you the greatest penalty? In possession of a delayed, but compliant and fully legal firearm... or an unserialized one? If you've decided to comply, being a bit late shouldn't concern you over the greater risk.

For laws like these over the past few years, compliance seems to hover around 5%... and a big chunk of those are past deadline compliance. There might be, but I haven't heard of a single case where a past deadline complier got jammed up. It's not at all in any states interest to do so. Their goal is creating a registry and registrations aren't going to keep comin in if you scare everyone off going after people for complying... late or not.

PMF's in OR... we'll never have a clue what the compliance rate was. It would still be interesting to know how many complied, though.
Ya can't count things that don't exist.. and everyone knows ghosts aren't real.

 

[JGSFAB]

There is zero additional risk for FFL's to continue to take in serialization jobs. They are exempt and fully legal for them to have an unsterilized in their shop... so long as they serialize it within 7 days of taking it in.

Because I have nothing better to do... and I'm obsessed about a project that now can really never be.
Are they not required to report witnessing a crime? You walk thru the door with a 80 lower for serialization, they witness a crime (unlawful possession).
Seems pretty clear.

 

[Yarome]

Because I have nothing better to do... and I'm obsessed about a project that now can really never be.
Are they not required to report witnessing a crime? You walk thru the door with a 80 lower for serialization, they witness a crime (unlawful possession).
Seems pretty clear.

My understanding is that an FFL's duty to report only pertains to federal laws. They are federally required to follow all state and federal laws, but their duty to report a state level crime is no different than any other citizens. IOW, there is none.

There is no federal prohibition for a person to be in possession of an unserialized frame/receiver.