Oregon HB2005 Litigation - Unserialized/Undetectable Ban

[nammac]

I have a serialized 1848 Colt. They were a thing. They werent mandatory but almost all US and most foreign manufacturers used them at least by the 1920's.

Now tell me how Im wrong.

Although it's true that manufacturers were serializing firearms long ago, I think the point Yarome was driving home, was that there wasn't a US Federal Government requirement for serialization prior to the GCA of 1968.

That's legislation that should have never been passed.

 

[wired]

Although it's true that manufacturers were serializing firearms long ago, I think the point Yarome was driving home, was that there wasn't a US Federal Government requirement for serialization prior to the GCA of 1968.

That's legislation that should have never been passed.

It was still a thing

 

[PiratePast40]

It was still a thing

It was for inventory and parts control and you know it. Quit being such a suck up.

 

[wired]

It was for inventory and parts control and you know it. Quit being such a suck up.

Just being honest . Try it.

 

[Yarome]

It was still a thing

Hardly the same animal, no matter how you try and force the narrative.

MFG's serializing firearms for production/accounting/quality control purposes and the convenience of the military in assigning and holding a soldier accountable for the specific firearm they were issued is not even in the same realm as gooberment mandated serialization and private citizen ownership registration.

There is no historically analogous law/requirement for such... which is the only issue that has anything to do with this discussion.

Nice try though!

 

[nammac]

It was still a thing

Was still a thing, was dependent upon manufacturer and not a government requirement.

 

[wired]

Was still a thing, was dependent upon manufacturer and not a government requirement.

So serial numbering existed. At least YOU can admit that

 

[Yarome]

So serial numbering existed. At least YOU can admit that

People also routinely scratched their initials and other markings into their firearms for identification and proof of ownership purposes. So?

The fact that identifying marks on some firearms existed somehow sets a historical precedent for gooberment mandated serialization and regulation?

This seems to smack a little like simple desperation to have an "I'm right" moment. You're right! You win! Reward yourself with a cold one!

 

[wired]

People also routinely scratched their initials and other markings into their firearms for identification and proof of ownership purposes. So?

The fact that identifying marks on some firearms existed somehow sets a historical precedent for gooberment mandated serialization and regulation?

This seems to smack a little like simple desperation to have an "I'm right" moment. You're right! You win! Reward yourself with a cold one!

57 years old handled at least 10000 firearms as a dealer and 07 FFL. Never once seen an unserialized modern firearm

 

[DB is Here]

Some just need the last word.























Word.

 

[Yarome]

57 years old handled at least 10000 firearms as a dealer and 07 FFL. Never once seen an unserialized modern firearm

So what you're saying is HB2005 should be put down as frivolous nonsense since unserialized modern firearms don't exist. Gotcha!

"Ghost guns" don't exist (as far as the gooberment has any "need to know"). I agree!

 

[Saladfarmer]

SO my question is , why didn't they go to Raschio or someone in the state court first? There has to be a plaintiff out in the less libtarded sections of the state. I would think they would learn by now that going to the federal courts for our district is pretty much a lawsuit deathwish.
Jus sayin

 

[wired]

So what you're saying is HB2005 should be put down as frivolous nonsense since unserialized modern firearms don't exist. Gotcha!

"Ghost guns" don't exist (as far as the gooberment has any "need to know"). I agree!

No. Just that they dont run through dealer circles. Cant log them in and out. You can but its a PITA and no one wants to do it.

 

[Yarome]

No. Just that they dont run through dealer circles. Cant log them in and out. You can but its a PITA and no one wants to do it.

Much like the previous point (serial numbers existed)... besides "you", "some" or even "most" not equating to "no one"... what does an FFL's willingness to deal with a PMF or not have anything to do with HB2005(?)

 

[PiratePast40]

SO my question is , why didn't they go to Raschio or someone in the state court first? There has to be a plaintiff out in the less libtarded sections of the state. I would think they would learn by now that going to the federal courts for our district is pretty much a lawsuit deathwish.
Jus sayin

From it's beginning, HB2005 was written to mirror federal law, The best place to defeat it, or at least the serial number part, is federal court since federal judges have already ruled that the possession of a firearm without a serial number is not illegal. The other issue, concerning 80% frames and lowers has also been defeated in federal court, so it makes sense to attack it there since there is precedence established.

 

[PiratePast40]

wrong thread

 

[Yarome]

Filed on the 14th...

If anyone wants to read the states/defendants response filing

 

[Yarome]

No shock at all.... the judge denied the injunction, but there may still be time for an emergency appeal.

Her essential argument that there is insufficient evidence to prove they are in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes... to the contrary... there is more evidence they are most commonly used by criminals for illegal purposes. BS! Another case of a small percentage of those that misuse firearms representing that all owners are criminals?

The difficulty being... by their nature... it's near impossible to put a number on how many PMF's exist in lawful hands for lawful purposes. You would think though that MFG estimates of how many have been sold in the U.S. may give some good indication though. "Millions" would seem pretty "common use" to me.

Order

 

[PiratePast40]

OFF Alert

BUILD A FIREARM, GO TO JAIL

08.20.2024

Today, Judge Adrienne Nelson, denied our request for a restraining order to delay the implementation of HB 2005, the bill banning the ownership of privately made firearms.

A brief review of her decision will display a determined effort to avoid both common sense and an understanding of plain English. But it will also display the dangers of our side playing their game and accepting limitations the founders never imagined.

The Second Amendment is not complicated, does not prevent Americans from owning firearms appropriate for combat or ban any item that is misused by criminals. But once again, both sides of Oregon's legislative aisle have worked together to punish the people they were elected to serve.

HB 2005 will turn thousands of law abiding Oregonians into criminals and perpetuate the bigoted myth that innovative and talented people have criminal intent because they like to make things themselves. The incessant urge of Oregon lawmakers to subjugate the people is truly insatiable and Oregon's judges' blatant and arrogant disregard for the clear dictates of the Supreme Court is chilling.

It will come as no surprise that Judge Nelson was a Kate Brown appointee elevated to the Federal Court by the soon-to-be-removed Joe Biden.

So what does this mean for people who own personally manufactured firearms? It's impossible to say.

While the politicians and their rubber stamp parrots in the media insist that this simply requires that you have a serial number added to a firearm or unfinished part you own, the reality is that it's not that simple. It is completely unclear how anyone would go about doing this. The serial number cannot be affixed by the person who constructed the firearm. Only "a federally licensed firearm manufacturer, importer or dealer, or a gunsmith with a federal firearms license, in accordance with federal law".

While the law is so poorly written that no one really knows how to comply with it, the bigger problem is that people who do choose to obey one more outrageous and unconstitutional attack on their rights, (like bumpstock bans and pistol brace bans) really have no way to comply.

Although the bill allows an authorized person to take these newly illegal items into their possession to apply a number, it's still illegal for the owner to have it in the first place. And if a person were to make one now, it would be illegal for them to create it even if they intended to have a number applied to it.

The criminal penalties take effect Sept 1. We do not have any information on who is willing to apply serial numbers to firearms they did not make. We do not have any opinions we trust on what people can do to avoid legal jeopardy. We do know that all of this could have been avoided if the members of the Republican House Caucus under the failed "leadership" of Vikki Iverson had simply done their jobs and said "no."

Next steps are being discussed. We will keep you posted.

 

[Ura-Ki]

View: https://youtu.be/xYg3YxQ9xM8?si=L7KsILBVk8tUl2Ry