Oregon Measure 114 January 3rd 2023

[Danall]

Another local shop found out they had sold to a felon and when they did they alerted osp and they got the gun back. They are still in business.

Sounds pretty fishy to me. So somehow this "local shop" (name please), has a much better and reliable data base to find felons than does the OSP and the FBI's FICS system. Maybe the State or Feds need to hire this guy? That way the OSP can find the felons. Sounds like "bar" talk to me.

 

[PiratePast40]

Editors choose the headlines, not the reporters. They also change the article (either by arm-twisting the reporter, or ordering staff to change the wording without the reporter being involved) to fit the narrative that the management desires.

Maxine has a history of writing interviews to her liking.

 

[br1sket]

Okay, cool story, call my local gun shop and tell them that..... they still aren't releasing even though they legally could...

My advise is shop somewhere else from now on. I know of at least 3 FFLs in my area that do the legally allowed 3 day release. I personally won't be doing business with any store that didnt do 3 day releases from this point forward.

 

[Provincial]

Maxine has a history of writing interviews to her liking.

True, but she doesn't get to choose the headlines.

 

[MatthewDB]

With all due respect, the onus is on the government, not the FFL. They are the ones using their own incompetence as a loophole to get around the three day rule. The law is clear that the ATF has the responsibility of getting the guns back, not the FFL.

If we go back to the Dillon Root issue in Charleston, the failure to report was on the government. Even if they had determined that he should not have had the gun, the murders were not committed until two months after the purchase. Think about that. The government had TWO MONTHS to complete an investigation and never got the job done.

This whole loophole nonsense is 100% the governments failure to do it's job. They are the ones using the three day limit as a loophole for sloppy and incompetent work.

The darn system won't let me like this more than once!

That's what is beautiful about the 3 day rule compromise. If the Oregon State Police know they have 3 days, they might just start doing their job again. Until recently, they knew they could just slow walk everything.

 

[BPS2271]

The darn system won't let me like this more than once!

That's what is beautiful about the 3 day rule compromise. If the Oregon State Police know they have 3 days, they might just start doing their job again. Until recently, they knew they could just slow walk everything.

The 3 day rule is not new. They have known this for a long time, same as everyone else. Why would this change what OSP does or does not do?

 

[MatthewDB]

The 3 day rule is not new. They have known this for a long time, same as everyone else. Why would this change what OSP does or does not do?

What's new is that there are quite a few FFL's who will transfer under the 3 day rule now. Until the 114 fiasco the ATF and OSP scared many FFL's away from it.

 

[solv3nt]

The 3 day rule is not new. They have known this for a long time, same as everyone else. Why would this change what OSP does or does not do?

Rumor is that the OSP had been telling FFLs that they are liable for releasing guns under the 3-day rule.

 

[BPS2271]

What's new is that there are quite a few FFL's who will transfer under the 3 day rule now. Until the 114 fiasco the ATF and OSP scared many FFL's away from it.

And we think they won't do that now?

 

[solv3nt]

And we think they won't do that now?

FFLs have been releasing under the 3-day rule; the FFLs either quit caring or the threats have diminished.

 

[MatthewDB]

Rumor is that the OSP had been telling FFLs that they are liable for releasing guns under the 3-day rule.

I've heard the same thing. I have no reason to doubt it.

And we think they won't do that now?

There is a difference between attempting to scare the FFLs and succeeding in scaring the FFLs. When the FFLs thought they had a future to look forwards to, they were scared away from making the transfers. Staring into the face of the 114 rules, the effectiveness of the attempts are lessened. We can see that in the number of FFLs who are doing 3 day transfers when they didn't before.

 

[tkdguy]

LET'S KEEP IN MIND THE PERSONALITY TYPE OF THE ANTI PLAYERS THAT HAVE MISLED THE PUBLIC AND OR STAY EMPLOYED IN POSITIONS WHERE THEY IMPOSE INTENDED HARDSHIP ON FFL'S OR CITIZENS AND OR DO NOT TRUTHFULLY REPRESENT THE LAW.

 

[BPS2271]

FFLs have been releasing under the 3-day rule; the FFLs either quit caring or the threats have diminished.

Okay.

 

[Yarome]

I've heard the same thing. I have no reason to doubt it.

You really should... and research the law vs. believing everything that shats down the rumor mill pipe. It's completely untrue. FFL's have zero liability for releasing under the 3 day law, unless they have reason to believe the purchaser may be a prohibited person. IE., A tweeker walks in with a face full of prison tats... ain't likely gonna get a 3 day release.

In the example above about "some shop" releasing to 2 felons and no longer in business because of it is categorically false. Not that it didn't occur or that the shop is no longer in business, but any "liability" from those 2 releases certainly wasn't the cause of them going out of business.

In the event a BGC comes back a decline, the FFL is legally required to report it to LE and provide all identifying information to the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides. That's the end of any obligation/liability the FFL has.

Maintaining good relations with LE and the feds is certainly good for business. That's why most FFL's typically haven't released in the past. To avoid undue scrutiny or backdoor threats against their FFL license. When BGC's are moving through the system at a reasonable pace, it's really not an issue.

With OSP slow walking them, intentionally, and the state threatening to shut them down at any moment there is certainly a greater amount of pressure to resist, fight back against unjust laws and support the 2A. Releasing also certainly isn't a last ditch, "we're going out of business anyway so who cares" scenario either. Or rather... not for the majority since I'm sure there are FFL's that were barely scraping by and on the verge of collapse anyway. They might hold that view as a last effort to go out with as much cash as possible.

In all of this, there is also a moral issue. Just like all of your average gun owners.... US.... the FFL's don't want to see firearms going into the hands of prohibited persons. Most purchasers are typically willing to show a little patience in the more rare event a BGC has a bit of a delay, but multiple weeks, into a month or more... and that's more the "norm"... and intentional? That too much, our patience has limits and following the law is more prudent during times like this.

 

[solv3nt]

You really should... and research the law vs. believing everything that shats down the rumor mill pipe. It's completely untrue. FFL's have zero liability for releasing under the 3 day law, unless they have reason to believe the purchaser may be a prohibited person. IE., A tweeker walks in with a face full of prison tats... ain't likely gonna get a 3 day release.

In the example above about "some shop" releasing to 2 felons and no longer in business because of it is categorically false. Not that it didn't occur or that the shop is no longer in business, but any "liability" from those 2 releases certainly wasn't the cause of them going out of business.

In the event a BGC comes back a decline, the FFL is legally required to report it to LE and provide all identifying information to the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides. That's the end of any obligation/liability the FFL has.

Maintaining good relations with LE and the feds is certainly good for business. That's why most FFL's typically haven't released in the past. To avoid undue scrutiny or backdoor threats against their FFL license. When BGC's are moving through the system at a reasonable pace, it's really not an issue.

With OSP slow walking them, intentionally, and the state threatening to shut them down at any moment there is certainly a greater amount of pressure to resist, fight back against unjust laws and support the 2A. Releasing also certainly isn't a last ditch, "we're going out of business anyway so who cares" scenario either. Or rather... not for the majority since I'm sure there are FFL's that were barely scraping by and on the verge of collapse anyway. They might hold that view as a last effort to go out with as much cash as possible.

In all of this, there is also a moral issue. Just like all of your average gun owners.... US.... the FFL's don't want to see firearms going into the hands of prohibited persons. Most purchasers are typically willing to show a little patience in the more rare event a BGC has a bit of a delay, but multiple weeks, into a month or more... and that's more the "norm"... and intentional? That too much, our patience has limits and following the law is more prudent during times like this.

I don't think that's what he's not doubting. He's indicating that he has heard the same rumor that OSP has been threatening FFLs if they release under the three day rule, not that he's unsure if the liability. I don't believe anytime on the forum believes the FFL has any liability.

 

[Yarome]

I don't think that's what he's not doubting. He's indicating that he has heard the same rumor that OSP has been threatening FFLs if they release under the three day rule, not that he's unsure if the liability. I don't believe anytime on the forum believes the FFL has any liability.

I stand corrected. From the previous posts it seemed as if he was in doubt of the liability issue. My bad.

And I have no doubt either that OSP would try and make FFL's believe they are indeed liable. It certainly can't be their fault or their responsibility. That would be re-dick-a-louse!

 

[MatthewDB]

I'm agreeing with the two previous posts. I know the FFL doesn't have liablility, but both the ATF and OSP don't like the 3 day rule so both are trying to scare the FFLs in any means they can. Generally the threat is more along the lines of having their license revoked vs. any criminal or civil liability for letting the gun walk.

 

[Robert Hood]

Exactly the reason I consulted an Attorney. I am not that good at interpreting law, so I ask someone that is.

 

[cameron25]

"I don't think that's what he's not doubting. He's indicating that he has heard the same rumor that OSP has been threatening FFLs if they release under the three day rule, not that he's unsure if the liability. I don't believe anytime on the forum believes the FFL has any liability."


Yeah this sounds just like a rumor to me. I mentioned I released one to my dad under the 3 day rule to the officer last time I called in and he literally said "gotcha." I will ask them about this supposed liability next time I call one in and report back lol..

 

[solv3nt]

I'm agreeing with the two previous posts. I know the FFL doesn't have liablility, but both the ATF and OSP don't like the 3 day rule so both are trying to scare the FFLs in any means they can. Generally the threat is more along the lines of having their license revoked vs. any criminal or civil liability for letting the gun walk.

Please forgive @Yarome, the forum has experienced significant growth in the last few years, and there has been an influx of inaccurate/misleading information posted by almost exclusively new members.