Oregon HB2005 Litigation - Unserialized/Undetectable Ban

[JGSFAB]

Im not clear on when in the build process the serial number is required. The HB2005 primarily banned 80% build kits, buying, selling and possession of those without a serial number. But if someone built a 70% and took it to an FFL to get serialized I dont know if thats illegal.

I've been kicking that around over and over.
The real problem is FFLs can't serialize a "0%". ATF actually green lighted serializing an 80% so that's how we were able to comply before September 2024.
Many more from 0% before Sept 2024

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/aNeO1oRRQwQ?si=G_IXSsCbNBb2ryEE

Not wanting a goto jail forever in my safe, the FFL was busy... lots of WTf is this.
I guess the new plan is can't be em, join em.

 

[Koda]

The real problem is FFLs can't serialize a "0%".

Why not?
Well not literally, but anytime in the process...

 

[JGSFAB]

Why not?
Well not literally, but anytime in the process...

No guarantee its gonna be what is proposed.
The serial is supposed to go on when the arm is complete but they made special allowances for 80%. Oregon is going on "intent" ( essentially ) ie you buy it to become an arm, its an unserialized arm.

 

[Koda]

No guarantee its gonna be what is proposed.
The serial is supposed to go on when the arm is complete but they made special allowances for 80%. Oregon is going on "intent" ( essentially ) ie you buy it to become an arm, its an unserialized arm.

Id have to re-read the law... to see if there is anything in there saying its iegal for a person to build, up to, a "70%" gun. If not, they could then take it to an FFL and have them serialize it. Then finish the rest after the serialization.

 

[msgriff]

Why not?
Well not literally, but anytime in the process...

A 0% billet AR lower is typically a block of aluminum. All 6 surfaces get machined before it is completed, so any serial number on that block will in all likelihood be obliterated by the time you are done. In order to prep that block enough for a permanent surface to put the serial number on, you have already started making a PMF, which cannot be done without a serial number. A common interpretation of HB2005 is that once a tool touches a block of metal, with the intent to make a firearm, you have started making a PMF. It's a vicious circle.

 

[JGSFAB]

Id have to re-read the law... to see if there is anything in there saying its iegal for a person to build, up to, a "70%" gun. If not, they could then take it to an FFL and have them serialize it. Then finish the rest after the serialization.

Seems to being read as anything that is intended to become an arm, your mere thoughts Its so grey is pretty much black.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A 0% billet AR lower is typically a block of aluminum. All 6 surfaces get machined before it is completed, so any serial number on that block will in all likelihood be obliterated by the time you are done. In order to prep that block enough for a permanent surface to put the serial number on, you have already started making a PMF, which cannot be done without a serial number. A common interpretation of HB2005 is that once a tool touches a block of metal, with the intent to make a firearm, you have started making a PMF. It's a vicious circle.

You could mill the SN with a tiny, long end mill to a depth far enough that when you take the material off, it's still there after the milling. But that adds time, and setting up, and might need more cleanup, especially if the chosen end mill bit is skinny.

 

[wired]

Why not?
Well not literally, but anytime in the process...

You could mill the SN with a tiny, long end mill to a depth far enough that when you take the material off, it's still there after the milling. But that adds time, and setting up, and might need more cleanup, especially if the chosen end mill bit is skinny.

As with any law if pertinent case law doesn't exist, you're just guessing.

 

[CamoDeafie]

As with any law if pertinent case law doesn't exist, you're just guessing.

It is just guessing, yes. But the fact remains, HB2005 passed, and is law. There was a District Court case against it and it seems to have been dismissed. Not sure if there's been any filing of appeal to the Ninth?

Montgomery v. Rosenblum - FPC Law 2A Challenge to OR's Ban on Self-Built Firearms

Montgomery v. Rosenblum - FPC Law 2A Challenge to OR's Ban on Self-Built Firearms

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[Will_White]

Id have to re-read the law... to see if there is anything in there saying its iegal for a person to build, up to, a "70%" gun. If not, they could then take it to an FFL and have them serialize it. Then finish the rest after the serialization.

If it looks like a frame or reciever but its not finished its an unfinished frame or reciever, and illegal if unserialized. For 3d printed guns there is no 70% stage you go from filament straight to a finished frame/receiver. You can insert a piece of metal with a pause but the ffl can't know what the peice of metal is going on.

 

[Camelfilter]

If it looks like a frame or reciever but its not finished its an unfinished frame or reciever, and illegal if unserialized. For 3d printed guns there is no 70% stage you go from filament straight to a finished gun. You can insert a piece of metal with a pause but the ffl can't know what the peice of metal is going on.

I had thought the developmentally challenged law was that the FFL had to serialize & put it in there "book". I don't believe they could put it in there "book" without knowing what it is.

IE, FFL couldn't simply serialize the metal plates to be inserted into polymers at a later time...

 

[Will_White]

I had thought the developmentally challenged law was that the FFL had to serialize & put it in there "book". I don't believe they could put it in there "book" without knowing what it is.

IE, FFL couldn't simply serialize the metal plates to be inserted into polymers at a later time...

Yes that's what I'm saying.