Oregon Is the new law banning 80 percent illegal?

[CamoDeafie]

Technically all laws that violate the US Constitution, "repugnant to the Constitution" as defined by Marbury v. Madison 1803, ... are "null and voided".

Meaning, based on Bruen and Heller, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 86 Hughes Amendment, and so forth, including the ghost gun things... all should be considered null and void.. but Government don't care.

 

[Koda]

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

Yes, ive heard of it. The law says after their commission not something they claim you did 2 years ago.

 

[Yarome]

Yes, ive heard of it. The law says after their commission not something they claim you did 2 years ago.

I don't understand what you're trying to say by that. No one said anything about charging you for something you allegedly did over 2 years ago.

The "commission of a crime" occurs at the time the law is first violated. That starts the clock. After that... there is a statute of limitations in which they must charge and prosecute you for said "crime". Their "window of opportunity" to catch you, charge you and prosecute you. Once that window closes you can't be prosecuted for it.

There are of course exceptions based on the type of crime committed, but P2P without a BGC or simply being in possession of an unsterilized firearm aren't one of them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

There are of course exceptions based on the type of crime committed, but P2P without a BGC or simply being in possession of an unsterilized firearm aren't one of them.

Do you think the govt, and their lawyers care about statutes of limitations regarding firearms?

 

[Koda]

There are of course exceptions based on the type of crime committed, but P2P without a BGC or simply being in possession of an unsterilized firearm aren't one of them.

My guess is your confusing the difference between being charged with a crime and being accused of a crime.

Say 3 years from now if your caught with your ghost gun you will be charged with the crime that day. Not accused and charged with possessing it prior.

 

[Yarome]

My guess is your confusing the difference between being charged with a crime and being accused of a crime.

Say 3 years from now if your caught with your ghost gun you will be charged with the crime that day. Not accused and charged with possessing it prior.

When you are arrested, it is because there is reasonable cause to "accuse" you of having committed a crime. You may or may not be actually "charged" with a crime, but neither/or has anything to do with the date of commission. IE., You may be arrested because on "such and such a date" it is believed you committed the crime of "X".

I think you're confusing "arrested/charged" with and the actual commission date. As if you haven't committed a crime if you haven't been caught and arrested for it yet(?) If that were true then the entire statute of limitations laws cease to exist since.... it could be learned 15 years after the fact that you shoplifted a $700 purse when you were 18 and subsequently be arrested for it. In that scenario you are then saying the state now has a full 2 years to prosecute you once your crime is discovered and you have been arrested/charged(?)

That's not how it works. In this case, you are guilty of a crime as soon as Sept 1st passes and you are still in possession of an unserialized firearm. That is your "commission date". LE then has 2 years to discover your crime, arrest you and prosecute you. Even if you are arrested and charged... and for whatever reason the DA's office doesn't get around to prosecuting you within 2 years... the charges are dismissed.

In your 3 year example you very well "may" be arrested.. then let the DA's office sort it out. That happens all the time, however... if you are able to show that you have been in possession of it for more than 2 years, the DA's office wouldn't be able to bring charges against you or prosecute you for it.

The most likely outcome (even if you "are" within the 2 years) is they will threaten you with charges and offer to drop them without recourse if you surrender your firearm for destruction. That threat and offer, obviously, has more teeth within the 2 years than it does beyond it, but either way... you'll loose your firearm since most any LE office is not going to cooperate with allowing you to have it released from their lockup and return it to you so you can get it serialized.

Many laws on the books, like M114, have provisions for surrendering the offending items and avoiding formal charges. I'm not sure what it says in the ghost gun law, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's already written in... but even if it isn't... it's going to be a common "remedy" and likely put on the table.

That's assuming you're an otherwise law abiding citizen, the primary charge is only for the possession... and not on top of other more serious charges.

Keeping things in perspective... if your firearm is coming under lE scrutiny to that degree... it's highly likely there is something much bigger going on for you to worry about. Is loosing a firearm an acceptable and worthwhile risk after having just used it to save your life?)

Again, I'm not encouraging it. It's a personal choice, but I can certainly understand the reasoning of folks that choose to resist compliance of unconstitutional laws. The "safe bet' is always unwavering compliance to whatever inalienable rights your betters choose to take from you.

 

[raptedtite]

More on this stupidity.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOX3aC0p3zw

 

[Provincial]

Here is a question. I know of people that have built firearms from kits and serialized them with their own serial number. For instance: 2A1776. Since they are not a licensed manufacturer, and as such were not required to use a prescribed method of generating the serial number, does this law make that serial number non-compliant. It would seem that this would be an ex post facto law, making the act of marking the "undesirable" serial number illegal at a later date.

 

[arakboss]

Here is a question. I know of people that have built firearms from kits and serialized them with their own serial number. For instance: 2A1776. Since they are not a licensed manufacturer, and as such were not required to use a prescribed method of generating the serial number, does this law make that serial number non-compliant. It would seem that this would be an ex post facto law, making the act of marking the "undesirable" serial number illegal at a later date.

I would think if it was serialized before the law was enacted, it should be good to go except that the law requires that serialization was:


(b) A person may not knowingly possess a firearm unless the firearm has been imprinted
with a serial number by a federally licensed firearm manufacturer, importer or dealer, or a
gunsmith with a federal firearms license, in accordance with federal law.

 

[Yarome]

Here is a question. I know of people that have built firearms from kits and serialized them with their own serial number. For instance: 2A1776. Since they are not a licensed manufacturer, and as such were not required to use a prescribed method of generating the serial number, does this law make that serial number non-compliant. It would seem that this would be an ex post facto law, making the act of marking the "undesirable" serial number illegal at a later date.

Correct. Self applied markings are not compliant. They would have to be serialized under the alphabet guidelines by an FFL. If the old markings can't be scrubbed sufficiently and leave enough depth of material for the new markings... that might also mean having the SN plate permanently overlaid or replaced.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't think that the statute of limitations will apply since continued possession is still a crime.

E.G., if I stole something 20 years ago, yes, the gov has 6 years (in Oregon it is 6 years on theft) to discover that I stole it and charge me with that theft. After that they can't charge me with the theft, even if I confess to stealing the item 20 years ago.

However, continued possession of the stolen item I stole would enable the gov to charge me with possession of a stolen item.

The Oregon law (HB2005) on serial numbers includes possession of a firearm that has not been serialized. So, if you still posses that un-serialized firearm at the time you are arrested for it, or charged with the crime, then that date is when the crime is committed.

 

[Yarome]

I don't think that the statute of limitations will apply since continued possession is still a crime.

E.G., if I stole something 20 years ago, yes, the gov has 6 years (in Oregon it is 6 years on theft) to discover that I stole it and charge me with that theft. After that they can't charge me with the theft, even if I confess to stealing the item 20 years ago.

However, continued possession of the stolen item I stole would enable the gov to charge me with possession of a stolen item.

The Oregon law (HB2005) on serial numbers includes possession of a firearm that has not been serialized. So, if you still posses that un-serialized firearm at the time you are arrested for it, or charged with the crime, then that date is when the crime is committed.

It depends on the severity of the crime. Felonies are treated much differently than misdemeanors with different lengths of time allowed, and some with SOL and some without at both levels. But in most all cases the clock starts on the date on which the "original" offense occurred. If the authorities were aware of when that was or not.. and the automatic "assumption" is on the side of the gooberment that discovered offenses are within the SOL. Therefore, there would be a reasonable burden of proof to show otherwise.

In this case... we're talking a misdemeanor. My understanding is that there is a "standard set" of regulations for misdemeanors and any exceptions must be codified. I get it that all these new laws get people all worked up and scared, but... we're still talking a misdemeanor and there are really two realities to consider. 1. For someone with a clean record, DA's aren't going to waste time prosecuting a simple misdemeanor. Likely a slap on the wrist and plea it with a surrendering of the firearm. 2. If the DA is pushing it, it's likely in conjunction with much greater crimes you should be more concerned about than the simple misdemeanor.

As one example along the stolen property lines. I know one "trick" that not uncommonly get's people off the hook with a lower value misdemeanor stolen property charge. If there is no proof that they committed the theft and claim they were simply in receipt of stolen property, and can present reasonable evidence of when they came into possession of it (like a sworn affidavit and/or witness to vouch for their testimony), they get a "get out of jail free" card if the SOL on the misdemeanor has expired. In possession of stolen property is codified differently than the standard misdemeanor handling of a being in receipt of stolen property charge.

If the stolen property charge was charged as a felony then we're talking a different set of rules.

Although they may have and I'm just unaware, but to my knowledge, there haven't been any changes made to the misdemeanor codes to accommodate non standard handling of 941 or 2005 charges.

That certainly doesn't mean they "can't" arrest you for it and seize your firearm (which you won't ever see again), but if the SOL has expired it's not likely you would be charged unless the DA has a bone to pick, it's coupled with greater crime, and/or your lawyer is for crap. Even if they do then a motion to dismiss for violation of your right to speedy trial or failure to prosecute can be filed. (A common "go to" in cases like the example above.)

I'm not saying non-compliance is the "better" option. I'm not saying they can't touch you and there is zero chance of there ever being a price to pay down the road. I'm simply saying that the new law, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't have a whole lot of teeth and can understand why many may see non-compliance as an acceptable risk.

For some... just because there is more than a zero percent chance of their PMF maybe coming under LE scrutiny isn't enough for them to sell out their freedom. I mean... most people realize there is a less than zero percent chance of being hit by lightening, but you don't see many people walking around with grounded lightening rods.

Sure enough, someone will argue, "but if you get hit by lightening I bet you wished you were carrying a grounded lightening rod, hu!"... and they wouldn't be wrong.


Until someone is actually arrested and prosecuted for a possession charge though, it's really all just academic. The other big wrinkle for the State will be the disposition of the alphabet F&R rule. The State is relying on and citing the feebles definitions and statutes, but... if it's ultimately thrown out... it's like to undermine HB2005.

 

[sobo]

They did it to us in WA already a yr ago

Not exactly. If you finished your 80% lower prior to July 1, 2019, it is grandfathered in, by exclusion of the bill not stating it isn't, and no serializing is required... for now...

See ESHB 1705

The relevant section:

 

[P7M13]

I feel safer now.

 

[Esholalex]

Soooo there no requirement as to what the serial number needs to be. A pvt citizen could put their own unique serial number on their pmf. (Or did they change that) maybe everyone should stamp their guns with FU2024 as their serial number. Or just "1" . Would that be in violation? (Asking for a friend)

 

[Yarome]

Soooo there no requirement as to what the serial number needs to be. A pvt citizen could put their own unique serial number on their pmf. (Or did they change that) maybe everyone should stamp their guns with FU2024 as their serial number. Or just "1" . Would that be in violation? (Asking for a friend)

There are in fact alphabet guidelines that must be adhered to. An FFL is required and any self applied "serial number' would not be in compliance.

 

[aholley777]

It's all unconstitutional, they dragged everyone down into the farm. Sucks to see the 2A group bend over.

 

[Yarome]

Sucks to see the 2A group bend over.

How do you figure that? Clarifying what the current law is, so people can make an informed decision, is in no way any indication of how many people are actually going to choose to comply.. or not.

September is still a ways away.

 

[Stomper]

How do you figure that? Clarifying what the current law is, so people can make an informed decision, is in no way any indication of how many people are actually going to choose to comply.. or not.

September is still a ways away.

 

[old greg]

Whats my options for getting rid of an unfinished 80% lower before the law goes into effect? I dont see myself ever finishing it, and as much as id rather not bandsaw it, id much rather not potentially go to jail over it either.