Oregon Interesting new case law from the 114 devision

[arakboss]

I'm assuming you read the OR definition? Does it mention any "part" of a firearm as part of the definition?

DEFINITIONS: Firearm: A weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile. by the action of powder. See ORS 166.210(3).

Handgun: Any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.

Nope. It does a pretty good job with "cartridge" though. So, how can the state argue a magazine (or any other part)is not necessary for a firearm to function? The definition does not neither include nor exclude "magazine".

Trying to keep this relevant to OR law, though I am not licensed to practice law in OR, so any relevant case law is who knows what. Maybe ask an OR attorney?

"...designed..." If it had a magazine by design, than it is a necessary component, by design.

FYI, ORS 166 210(3) is just the same definition. It covers anything from a matchlock to a machine gun.

The Oregon definition could cover a wide variety of objects as firearms. What it doesn't do is define magazines as a necessary component of a firearm.

I have spent a lot of thought capital on methods of making single shot firearms. I can safely say I don't own one (excluding revolvers) that I couldn't easily make fire a single cartridge without a magazine.

There is a reason why they spent court time discussing repeating firearms. I agree a magazine is necessary to repeatedly fire a firearm without hand feeding the cartridges.

 

[arakboss]

I have made a weapon with two pieces pipe and a few fittings. The weapon will fire a shotshell but does not have a magazine. Is it a firearm by Oregon's definition, yes it is.

I have fired numerous cartridges from an AR15 upper receiver (no lower) using a carriage bolt to activate the firing pin. No magazine was necessary or used. Was it a firearm under Oregon law, yes it was.

I own many break open firearms that don't use magazines. Are they firearms under Oregon law, yes they are.

Will a firearm designed to use a magazine, operate as designed without a magazine? No

Will a firearm designed to use a magazine, fire cartridges hand fed into the chamber? In the most cases yes.

 

[arakboss]

I would love for this to be true. Then I could take home my Remington 41 without a background check. I think most of us know that isn't going to happen

View: https://youtu.be/y3JGl7Pu2Gk?feature=shared

 

[arakboss]

Firearm:






Not a firearm:





Only in your dreams.

 

[arakboss]

Despite his ruling that firearms without magazines are not firearms (but just a collection of parts), a person would still be required under State law to do a BG check for this:

 

[arakboss]

The State is being more generous with their opinion than I am. They evidently believe many firearms do require a compliant capacity magazine to operate.

From the appeal:

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are you trying to find ways for the State to win their appeals?

 

[arakboss]

Are you trying to find ways for the State to win their appeals?

We are going to be the last people the State will rely on to make their case. I am simply disagreeing with the Judge's opinion that a magazine is necessary to fire a cartridge in most firearms. I also disagree that a firearm without a magazine is not a firearm.

 

[arakboss]

You guys, the Judge and the State might be right, that their are many firearms out there that won't fire a cartridge without a magazine. It makes since that my lone opinion isn't the correct one. For that reason, I am going to search for these firearms and potentially add them to my collection. My opinion is likely biased since most all of the firearms I own, will fire a cartridge without a magazine.

Edit: If I can find firearms that won't fire a cartridge without a magazine and therefore are not a firearm when the mag is out, that will be worth being wrong.

 

[bradsteen]

Edit: If I can find firearms that won't fire a cartridge without a magazine and therefore are not a firearm when the mag is out, that will be worth being wrong.

Not sure I understand the benefit of seeking out firearms that have a mag drop safety... If it gets to the point where you're having to demonstrate to a government official that your mag-fed firearm needs the magazine in order to function, I suspect we will all have much bigger problems on our hands.

But if you insist on going down that road, Bersa Thunder pistols have that kind of safety and are relatively inexpensive, so that would be a good place to start.

 

[bcp]

pistols magazine disconnect list at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Bruce

 

[arakboss]

Not sure I understand the benefit of seeking out firearms that have a mag drop safety... If it gets to the point where you're having to demonstrate to a government official that your mag-fed firearm needs the magazine in order to function, I suspect we will all have much bigger problems on our hands.

But if you insist on going down that road, Bersa Thunder pistols have that kind of safety and are relatively inexpensive, so that would be a good place to start.

I have a couple of those, I will have to dig them out. If they are any thing like my hipoints the mag safety will be easily defeated.

 

[RVTECH]

If it gets to the point where you're having to demonstrate to a government official that your mag-fed firearm needs the magazine in order to function, I suspect we will all have much bigger problems on our hands.

Yes such as a potential requirement for mags requiring a BGC to purchase, specifically aftermarket IE not included with the gun.

IOW attempt to create the illusion without a mag the item is NOT a gun and therefore requires a mag to function and therefore (it their way of thinking) re-designate mags as an essential part of the gun (such as a receiver or lower) and regulate them.

This is just MY interpretation of this. Antis have long been 'targeting' accessories and add-ons to guns and now one of their more knowledgeable members may have stumbled on this as a new 'approach'.

My point being it's useless for US (As gun owners) to argue this. We know what guns do and will not do with or without mags in them, but a lot of people do NOT and the antis will do their best to convince them they are a necessary component to the function of the firearm, and ultimately work toward some sort of gun-like regulations on them as well.