Oregon HB2005 Litigation - Unserialized/Undetectable Ban

[Yarome]

the judge dismissed on "common use" the problem is the argument should have been on serialization
I.E. until 68 no need "common use"
After 68 still "common use" for no ser number for PMF
sorry but the TRO was worded or fought wrong to begin with...

You can't argue on serialization alone under historical text and tradition. The 2A must first be implicated to proceed to the analysis requirement.

She didn't dismiss so much on "common use" as she did on the grounds that the subject firearms are not covered under the 2A. Basically, she introduced a 2nd tier analysis of "bearable arms" that does not exist under Heller, Bruen or the constitution.

It's been a common tactic of late among the activist judges. IE., So called "assault weapons" are not bearable arms under the 2A because they are LIKE "weapons of war". No common use test or historical analog is required since the 2A is not implicated.

*Of course... I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I forget where in the law it defines what constitutes a "civilian" firearm and which is a "weapon of war"... nor... where civilians are restricted from possessing firearms other than those designated and codified for civilian use. The ruling didn't cite which justices keester they pulled that one out of.

 

[Saladfarmer]

You can't argue on serialization alone under historical text and tradition. The 2A must first be implicated to proceed to the analysis requirement.

She didn't dismiss so much on "common use" as she did on the grounds that the subject firearms are not covered under the 2A. Basically, she introduced a 2nd tier analysis of "bearable arms" that does not exist under Heller, Bruen or the constitution.

It's been a common tactic of late among the activist judges. IE., So called "assault weapons" are not bearable arms under the 2A because they are LIKE "weapons of war". No common use test or historical analog is required since the 2A is not implicated.

*Of course... I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I forget where in the law it defines what constitutes a "civilian" firearm and which is a "weapon of war"... nor... where civilians are restricted from possessing firearms other than those designated and codified for civilian use. The ruling didn't cite which justices keester they pulled that one out of.

Yeah, firearms were specifically for war and self defense at the inception of the 2nd amendment. so there's that then.

 

[saxon]

You can't argue on serialization alone under historical text and tradition. The 2A must first be implicated to proceed to the analysis requirement.

She didn't dismiss so much on "common use" as she did on the grounds that the subject firearms are not covered under the 2A. Basically, she introduced a 2nd tier analysis of "bearable arms" that does not exist under Heller, Bruen or the constitution.

It's been a common tactic of late among the activist judges. IE., So called "assault weapons" are not bearable arms under the 2A because they are LIKE "weapons of war". No common use test or historical analog is required since the 2A is not implicated.

*Of course... I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I forget where in the law it defines what constitutes a "civilian" firearm and which is a "weapon of war"... nor... where civilians are restricted from possessing firearms other than those designated and codified for civilian use. The ruling didn't cite which justices keester they pulled that one out of.

not saying serialization alone in fact as i said
it should have been on serialization on commonly used guns
I.E. until 68 no need "common use"
After 68 still "common use" for no ser number for PMF"

if this had been a main point she would not have been able to fluff it off based on "80% not as in common"
or " Ghost guns not in common "

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yes. He is wrong. Standard practice is that if something is not specifically required or stated as illegal within a law then it is considered not applicable and legal. Laws are never written to include everything that "isn't" required or deemed "legal" activity.

Alphabet regulations regarding serialization of PMF's have been in place for some time. FFL's have clear direction they are to be treated and recorded as a gunsmithing service and an BGC is not required to return a firearm to it's rightful owner. If another individual (other than the owner who submitted it for service) goes to pick it up, even if they are authorized to do so by the owner, then they "would" be required to submit a 4473 and pass a BGC.

Ah, Ha!
From the horses own mouth!

View: https://youtu.be/PQCRflxetBk?si=J-gbL3pd0NuujFRB


Note: IF you submit a firearm to an FFL or other party for engraving and said firearm must be entered into the bound book ( Like if said business was back logged and needed to hold your property over nite) , BAM, you gotta do a 4473 and do a BGC to get your gun back!

Bottom line here Fellers, don't be too quick to throw Mr. Bill Kirk under the bus thinking he is click baiting or sensationalizing for clicks, Remember, The Dude runs a legit law firm, and a successful one too, so it wouldn't do for him to post untruth's on social media would it, said Dude wouldn't be in business very long would he?

 

[Koda]

Note: IF you submit a firearm to an FFL or other party for engraving and said firearm must be entered into the bound book ( Like if said business was back logged and needed to hold your property over nite) , BAM, you gotta do a 4473 and do a BGC to get your gun back!

Is that a federal law or part of SB2005?
It would be helpful to know what this federal law is?

Cue it up to 2:55 mark to save everyone the time to get to the point.

 

[Yarome]

Ah, Ha!
From the horses own mouth!

View: https://youtu.be/PQCRflxetBk?si=J-gbL3pd0NuujFRB


Note: IF you submit a firearm to an FFL or other party for engraving and said firearm must be entered into the bound book ( Like if said business was back logged and needed to hold your property over nite) , BAM, you gotta do a 4473 and do a BGC to get your gun back!

Bottom line here Fellers, don't be too quick to throw Mr. Bill Kirk under the bus thinking he is click baiting or sensationalizing for clicks, Remember, The Dude runs a legit law firm, and a successful one too, so it wouldn't do for him to post untruth's on social media would it, said Dude wouldn't be in business very long would he?

Sorry, but Nope! I didn't watch, but if that's what he's staying then he's still wrong. There are provisions in the law that do not require a BGC to return a firearm submitted for service to the original owner. Only if it is being transferred to another individual at the time of pickup.

It doesn't get much plainer. From alphabet -dot- gov
"Does a licensed gunsmith have to conduct a NICS background check before returning repaired or customized firearms?

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)]"

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

What he is probably thinking is that a gunsmith must record the firearm in their A&D as an acquisition if they have it more than 1 day. Returning it to the original owner though is not a "transfer"... and they simply make an entry into the disposition section of the record when it is returned... including the full name and address of the person they returned it to. Not every disposition record has to be a "transfer". Returned to owner, stolen, destroyed, released to LE as evidence, etc.....

Maybe that's why they call an A&D Acquisition & Disposition log instead of an A&T(ransfer) log(?)

Here is a good layman's guide for FFL's from NSSF:

Compliance: Record Keeping for Repair Firearms

Every retailer must keep complete and accurate A&D records for all firearms taken in for repair, whether for cleaning or return to the manufacturer.

www.nssf.org

It's good if he backtracked a little, but he really should do a bit more due diligence.


ETA: However. That does not mean that there aren't ignorant FFL's, or those that know better, but still have a store polity that requires one. Even though there is not law that requires it.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Sorry, but Nope! I didn't watch, but if that's what he's staying then he's still wrong. There are provisions in the law that do not require a BGC to return a firearm submitted for service to the original owner. Only if it is being transferred to another individual at the time of pickup.

It doesn't get much plainer. From alphabet -dot- gov
"Does a licensed gunsmith have to conduct a NICS background check before returning repaired or customized firearms?

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)]"

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

What he is probably thinking is that a gunsmith must record the firearm in their A&D as an acquisition if they have it more than 1 day. Returning it to the original owner though is not a "transfer"... and they simply make an entry into the disposition section of the record when it is returned... including the full name and address of the person they returned it to. Not every disposition record has to be a "transfer". Returned to owner, stolen, destroyed, released to LE as evidence, etc.....

Here is a good laymans guide for FFL's from NSSF:

Compliance: Record Keeping for Repair Firearms

Every retailer must keep complete and accurate A&D records for all firearms taken in for repair, whether for cleaning or return to the manufacturer.

www.nssf.org

It's good if he backtracked a little, but he really should do a bit more due diligence.

Did you not read what I posted, I pointed out, as did Bill, that an overnight stay absolutely requires a 4473, it's FED LAW! And I also posted that it will be highly likely that once this goes live Sept 1st, anyone doing SN # engravings will likely be backlogged as folks seek compliance!

What part of any of that is WRONG, Or do you not see the FED Requirement here? Just because the state didn't go to the trouble to include specific language already accepted as fed law, didn't mean it's harmless, or not applicable here to this law!

 

[Koda]

Did you not read what I posted, I pointed out, as did Bill, that an overnight stay absolutely requires a 4473, it's FED LAW!

Which federal law?

 

[Yarome]

Did you not read what I posted, I pointed out, as did Bill, that an overnight stay absolutely requires a 4473, it's FED LAW! And I also posted that it will be highly likely that once this goes live Sept 1st, anyone doing SN # engravings will likely be backlogged as folks seek compliance!

What part of any of that is WRONG, Or do you not see the FED Requirement here? Just because the state didn't go to the trouble to include specific language already accepted as fed law, didn't mean it's harmless, or not applicable here to this law!

I did read what you said, but like I said.... that's not correct. Did you read the alphabet FAQ? The NSSF guidelines for FFL's? Bother to look up and read the feeb title 18 U.S.C. statutes cited?

More than 1 day in their possession they must record it. That is feeb law. Correct. However, the disposition entry for that firearm when it is returned to the original owner is not a "transfer". Only transfers require a 4473 BGC.

 

[JGSFAB]

Well we are a week in , I wonder when we are going to see any enforcement?
Where's the wave of euphoria?

 

[Yarome]

Well we are a week in , I wonder when we are going to see any enforcement?
Where's the wave of euphoria?

I'm sure we'll be seeing double digit drops in firearm related crimes by the end of month reports. Patience....

 

[Saladfarmer]

Did you not read what I posted, I pointed out, as did Bill, that an overnight stay absolutely requires a 4473, it's FED LAW! And I also posted that it will be highly likely that once this goes live Sept 1st, anyone doing SN # engravings will likely be backlogged as folks seek compliance!

What part of any of that is WRONG, Or do you not see the FED Requirement here? Just because the state didn't go to the trouble to include specific language already accepted as fed law, didn't mean it's harmless, or not applicable here to this law!

So ,. here's the thing. the AFT (feds) don't give a rip about this "law". When the one of the FFL's I know point blank asked his IOI and separately the enforcement folks about this infringement called hb2005 they immediately and without bias said, that's a state issue, 2005 enforcement is completely up to the State police, we have nothing to do with enforcing 2005. So as far as the Fed is concerned, PMF's are still legal to own and manufacture. despite state law, which will get you a felony for possession of. But you can still get your PMF serialized if you have the proper piece of metal in the plastic frame or it's made out of metal already. There is no law saying you can't get a PMF serialized after the Sept 1st doomsday sky is falling deadline that happened a week ago.

Oh. And no, there has been no backlog for those doing serial engravings.

 

[Yarome]

Somewhat adjacent to HB2005, and if you have the patience to get through his video, there is some good info being presented via the Vanderstock case set for oral argument before SCOTUS in October. He's covering some of the arguments and statistics presented by the DOJ.

Essentially, how statistically innocuous so called "ghost guns" actually are. Germaine to HB2005 for those within our own ranks that seem to be of the impression that PMF's are only built by prohibited persons to circumvent the law.

By the DOJ stats there exists something like 2mil PMF's owned by 1mil individuals. From 2016-2021 there were 4288 felons found to be in possession of a PMF and there were 692 murders/attempted murders during the same 6 year period where a PMF was used.... out of 120,000.

Even though we know that 2mil and 1mil figures to be quite low, possession by felons alone comes down to less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Likewise, the percentage of murders/attempted murders with a PMF constitute less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Any murder is heinous, but those numbers don't seem to really represent the "pandemic level threat to public safety" they are claiming PMF's to be.

Link starts at 3m3s. Stats section at 10m12s.

View: https://youtu.be/FmgJDaZ-fPU?feature=shared&t=183

 

[CamoDeafie]

Any murder is heinous, but those numbers don't seem to really represent the "pandemic level threat to public safety" they are claiming PMF's to be.

They do not care about numbers, only about controlling and knowing who has what

edit. When they speak of "public safety", its not the safety of the voters, or the people. Its the "safety" of their own positions, of themselves. An analogy can be easily made, who "owns" the "public" lands? Not the people, not the taxpayers who fund them. The Government.

 

[PiratePast40]

Somewhat adjacent to HB2005, and if you have the patience to get through his video, there is some good info being presented via the Vanderstock case set for oral argument before SCOTUS in October. He's covering some of the arguments and statistics presented by the DOJ.

Essentially, how statistically innocuous so called "ghost guns" actually are. Germaine to HB2005 for those within our own ranks that seem to be of the impression that PMF's are only built by prohibited persons to circumvent the law.

By the DOJ stats there exists something like 2mil PMF's owned by 1mil individuals. From 2016-2021 there were 4288 felons found to be in possession of a PMF and there were 692 murders/attempted murders during the same 6 year period where a PMF was used.... out of 120,000.

Even though we know that 2mil and 1mil figures to be quite low, possession by felons alone comes down to less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Likewise, the percentage of murders/attempted murders with a PMF constitute less than 1/2 of 1 percent. Any murder is heinous, but those numbers don't seem to really represent the "pandemic level threat to public safety" they are claiming PMF's to be.

Link starts at 3m3s. Stats section at 10m12s.

View: https://youtu.be/FmgJDaZ-fPU?feature=shared&t=183

What's absent from his discussion, and I'm assuming, also absent from the plaintiffs discussions, are the statistics of crimes committed by felons possessing guns WITH serial numbers. We know that felon in possession is treated as a nuisance charge and is likely to be dismissed, especially if you break down and cry that you're a drug addict that needs treatment. At least, that's the way it seems to be here in Oregon.

 

[Yarome]

What's absent from his discussion, and I'm assuming, also absent from the plaintiffs discussions, are the statistics of crimes committed by felons possessing guns WITH serial numbers. We know that felon in possession is treated as a nuisance charge and is likely to be dismissed, especially if you break down and cry that you're a drug addict that needs treatment. At least, that's the way it seems to be here in Oregon.

Yeah. The arguments in the case center pretty much around murder/attempted murder only.

Looking back though, I'm not sure if "felons with PMF's" was entirely accurate. The stats they presented were for "ghost guns"... which is likely to include not just PMF's but any "unserialized firearm". (Including MFG'ed firearms with serial numbers removed.) Coulda been a slip of the tongue by Mark(?)

LE records don't often break down unserialized into PMF's and defaced firearms. I'm not 100% on that, but I've seen several LE report breakdowns and they typically don't include a PFM stat. It's usually separate from the official report records... like... they just release a stand alone stat like, "X number of PMF's were recovered during "whatever period", but don't say how many were actually used in the commission of a crime or what type of crime they were associated with. IE., armed robbery, murder/attempted murder, simply in possession when arrested for some other type of crime, etc.

 

[PiratePast40]

My point was more about prohibited persons with guns. The don't mention how many felons were caught with guns as if that total doesn't matter. Felons illegally get their hands on guns and it doesn't matter if they have a serial number or not. Again, we're presented with statictics that don't mean anything when it comes to crime itself. As others have pointed, a firearms serial number has about as much forensic value as a chalk outline on the sidewalk.

 

[Yarome]

My point was more about prohibited persons with guns. The don't mention how many felons were caught with guns as if that total doesn't matter. Felons illegally get their hands on guns and it doesn't matter if they have a serial number or not. Again, we're presented with statictics that don't mean anything when it comes to crime itself.

I got that. I kinda figured that would be covered under, "simply in possession when arrested for some other type of crime, etc."

They aren't likely stopping and searching felons without due cause, but more likely discovered them to be in possession after LE scrutiny related to other crimes. Be it a traffic stop, drug related, DV, under the influence, B&E, etc etc.

 

[TheShanMan]

I've been watching https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mont...1-Tu9dEOtvWjMVFqWB_esuDGNvcRUqtYmAds2ONIEGghs and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69015818/montgomery-v-rosenblum/ for updates. I know the legal process is drawn out but when you're wondering how long your state is going to be permitted to look at you like a criminal, it's like watching paint dry.

 

[CamoDeafie]

when you're wondering how long your state is going to be permitted to look at you like a criminal, it's like watching paint dry.

The States (CA, WA, OR, etc) already looks at gun owners and FFLs like they're all criminals