Oregon Is the new law banning 80 percent illegal?

[ronin223]

So if you have a 80 lower you have to take it to an FFL to get a background check and for them to put their info and serial number on the 80 percent frame.

But isn't that illegal since most FFL do not have the correct FFL to manufacturer firearms.

Read More

 

[gunsmithkinks]

They did it to us in WA already a yr ago

 

[Tinman357]

Since when do many of the "elected elite" care what is constitutional or legal? Pass the laws that their donors want and let those affected by it fight it out in the courts at their own expense, while the state has unlimited taxpayer funds to defend.

It's a great system we have here in WA, ain't it?

 

[Yarome]

So if you have a 80 lower you have to take it to an FFL to get a background check and for them to put their info and serial number on the 80 percent frame.

But isn't that illegal since most FFL do not have the correct FFL to manufacturer firearms.

This was covered in another thread, but a BGC is not required to have them serialized. It doesn't even require ID. It's simply recorded in their books as a "gunsmithing service" and falls under the same BGC exemption like any other gunsmithing service so long as it is returned to the original owner.

MFG's/importers are required to affix serial numbers, but it is a misconception that "only" someone with a MFG/importer license can affix a serial to a firearm. Any FFL can, so long as they have the equipment to do so.

As to the legality of the requirement... of course... it's unconstitutional. Anything that has a chilling affect on our 2A rights is. The engraving fees may not seem like much to many, and per firearm it's really not, but for some with multiples it's going to get real spendy, real quick. Considering the defacto "registration" element... it's even more so.

 

[GrayGoose]

Since when do many of the "elected elite" care what is constitutional or legal?

On that note, since they don't comply with the Constitution, then why should anyone comply with their BS?

 

[RVTECH]

then why should anyone comply with their BS?

Well, because those who don't 'comply' with the Constitution won't be charged with anything, but anyone not complying with the serializing requirement will be.

 

[Yarome]

Well, because those who don't 'comply' with the Constitution won't be charged with anything, but anyone not complying with the serializing requirement will be.

At least until the 2yr statute of limitations, post deadline date, expires... they "could" try.

 

[RVTECH]

At least until the 2yr statute of limitations, post deadline date, expires... they "could" try.

I often wonder how someone could be 'caught' for something like this, or any of the other trivial gun laws that would require some time and effort to prove.

I mean, lets say hypothetically if AR 15s were in fact 'banned' somewhere, meaning they could NOT be seen in public (or anywhere) and someone bent on 'not complying' took it out shooting and was witnessed by LEO, well then it's obvious what would happen, but lets say someone was out shooting a gun with a suppressor on it, are people being asked to see their 'paperwork', or whatever one must carry to prove it's legal?

 

[NeoBlackdog]

Of course it's illegal, but they just don't care.

 

[Yarome]

I often wonder how someone could be 'caught' for something like this, or any of the other trivial gun laws that would require some time and effort to prove.

I mean, lets say hypothetically if AR 15s were in fact 'banned' somewhere, meaning they could NOT be seen in public (or anywhere) and someone bent on 'not complying' took it out shooting and was witnessed by LEO, well then it's obvious what would happen, but lets say someone was out shooting a gun with a suppressor on it, are people being asked to see their 'paperwork', or whatever one must carry to prove it's legal?

It's not like I have an "inside" into all LE actions, but I'm not aware of anyone being asked to provide paperwork simply as a matter of course. I mean... not outside of a firearm being used in a way that didn't first draw LE attention.

Honestly.... I don't see how they could without cause to meet the "reasonable articulable suspicion" requirement.

A lot of these "nuisance laws" seem to be more just political virtue signaling and really don't have a lot of teeth in a practical sense. The main impact being simply among those that are willfully compliant.

 

[RVTECH]

A lot of these "nuisance laws" seem to be more just political virtue signaling and really don't have a lot of teeth in a practical sense. The main impact being simply among those that are willfully compliant.

Kind of the way I see it as well.

Kind of like the CA gun roster. I'll bet a lot of guns on the so called 'roster' are probably owned - and routinely shot by the owners.

And SB 941. I wonder how many illegal sales of guns have (and still are) taking place since its inception.

 

[GrayGoose]

And SB 941. I wonder how many illegal sales of guns have (and still are) taking place since its inception.

They identify as "undocumented sales".

 

[TTSX]

It's also illegal to sell raw milk for the most part. People gonna do what people gonna do

 

[Camelfilter]

I often wonder how someone could be 'caught' for something like this, or any of the other trivial gun laws that would require some time and effort to prove.

I mean, lets say hypothetically if AR 15s were in fact 'banned' somewhere, meaning they could NOT be seen in public (or anywhere) and someone bent on 'not complying' took it out shooting and was witnessed by LEO, well then it's obvious what would happen, but lets say someone was out shooting a gun with a suppressor on it, are people being asked to see their 'paperwork', or whatever one must carry to prove it's legal?

I had been under the impression that only federal LEO, ATF in particular, could "check your papers"- ie stamps.

Provision being you were not in the act of doing any crime…

 

[Saladfarmer]

At least until the 2yr statute of limitations, post deadline date, expires... they "could" try.

What does this mean?. Is there a statute of limitations on the spooky pew rule?
Or serialization ?
or law makers complying with the constitution?

 

[Koda]

What does this mean?. Is there a statute of limitations on the spooky pew rule?
Or serialization ?
or law makers complying with the constitution?

What I thought it was a statute of limitation on selling a gun without a BGC. The spooky pew rule has no statue of limitation once Sept hits, posession is a crime and nothings grandfathered.

 

[Yarome]

What does this mean?. Is there a statute of limitations on the spooky pew rule?
Or serialization ?

What I thought it was a statute of limitation on selling a gun without a BGC. The spooky pew rule has no statue of limitation once Sept hits, posession is a crime and nothings grandfathered.

Both.

They both have a 2yr statue of limitations for prosecution... after the date of the commission of the "crime". For a P2P without a BGC it's 2yrs from the date of the transaction. For serialization... by being in possession of an unsterilized firearm as of 12:01am Sept 2nd, 2024. They have 2 yrs to charge and prosecute you for it.

To be clear... in OR they generally have to charge you within 6 months of your "crime" and actually prosecute you within 2 years. I think they are somewhat flexible on the 6 month thing, but legally can not prosecute you after the 2yr mark.

If you acquired a non serialized after the Sept 1st date, obviously, your clock would actually start on the date you actually came into possession.

It's true that there is no grandfather clause. Meaning.... "everyone" in possession post Sept 1st is a criminal, but that doesn't affect the statute of limitations on your "crime".

I'm not suggesting or encouraging anyone to willfully break the "law"... as handed down to us by our overlords.... just stating the facts.

 

[FATAL125]

Is the new law banning 80 percent illegal?

All gun laws are illegal...

 

[Koda]

To be clear... in OR they generally have to charge you within 6 months of your "crime" and actually prosecute you within 2 years. I think they are somewhat flexible on the 6 month thing, but legally can not prosecute you after the 2yr mark.

First ive heard of this and not certain its the case.

 

[Yarome]

First ive heard of this and not certain its the case.

You're more than welcome to review the law itself. OR title 14 chapter 131 (limitations 131.125)



You've never heard of "statue of limitations" before?