Oregon Morrow County Sheriff’s Statement Re: IP43

[Hayshaker]

Re judges~~ warrants. It only takes a liberal anti gun judge to issue a warrant. Most would be happy to accommodate the OSP. Look @ how the issue in Bend turned out.

 

[ob1]

And if that task force shows up at your door, they are going to need a search warrant, and on what grounds would a judge issue that order? Because some FFL had a Form 4473 that says you bought one 5 years ago that could have been sold or destroyed before or during those 120 days? Probably not good enough for a warrant.

I noticed that you didn't add the SB 941 effect into the mix here.
Yes, there is no way to document possession pre-5/11/15. After that, any new transfer is already in the data base, and will stay there by virtue of Kate's order to retain OSP BC information. The 4473 only documents purchase and stops there, making it somewhat irrelevant.
You can bet that the candles at OSP HQ are already burning to work out a software feature to highlight banned weapons that have no turn-in documented. This would be followed by a demand to show proof of disposition letter and then a show cause bench warrant. Failure to appear before the warrant issuing judge would automatically give you the warrant{s} discussed above. Now we are back to the gun getter squad, armed with warrants to be executed at their leisure, media scheduling not withstanding. As the body count rises, the pool of targets will rise as informants are created, willing to roll on their buddies to save their own arses.

 

[Migo]

I noticed that you didn't add the SB 941 effect into the mix here.
Yes, there is no way to document possession pre-5/11/15. After that, any new transfer is already in the data base, and will stay there by virtue of Kate's order to retain OSP BC information. The 4473 only documents purchase and stops there, making it somewhat irrelevant.
You can bet that the candles at OSP HQ are already burning to work out a software feature to highlight banned weapons that have no turn-in documented. This would be followed by a demand to show proof of disposition letter and then a show cause bench warrant. Failure to appear before the warrant issuing judge would automatically give you the warrant{s} discussed above. Now we are back to the gun getter squad, armed with warrants to be executed at their leisure, media scheduling not withstanding. As the body count rises, the pool of targets will rise as informants are created, willing to roll on their buddies to save their own arses.

IP 43 allows you to remove the weapon from the state, transfer it, turn it in, render it inoperable, or register it (which few will do). An OSP BC is not involved for an out of state transfer. All an Oregonian has to do is take the weapon to an out of state FFL for transfer to a friend or family. The family or friend would undergo the BC at their state. How would you prove you destroyed the weapon and got rid of the parts? The point is not that Oregon gun owners will do this, but that they could, so OPS records are inaccurate.

Could they use OSP records as a starting point? Maybe. But the estimated number of Oregonians with a gun that would be banned under IP 43 is anywhere from 25% to 50%. They can demand proof of disposition, but you don't have to reply because of the 5th Amendment. That's a lot of doors to knock on. I heard someone who works for the government state that there are a lot of OSP officers ready to take retirement if it comes to that. Nobody wants to knock on doors asking for guns. Also, a liberal judge signing random search warrants for a 1/3 of Oregonians is going to get a lot of negative press for flagrantly violating the 4th Amendment.

IP 43 already happened in NY and CT. Nobody there is going door to door looking for guns. Letters were sent out. Most ignored them.

But the best way to avoid this is to vote! Even if everyone in Portland and Eugene voted for IP 43 (and they won't), it can't pass if everyone in rural counties votes against it. And if Knute Buehler wins, and IP 43 passes, he's already publicly stated he wouldn't enforce IP 43 if it passed and the OSP reports to the governor.

And by the way, deadline for collecting over 100,000 IP 43 signatures is 49 days from now and they can't even collect signatures yet partially because over 1000 people registered complaints about the ballot title.

 

[ob1]

@Migo
To start with I never suggested mass door to door confiscations. I don't know why that keeps getting regurgitated, but it's not coming from me.
I'll say this once again, it would be done by investigators working from existing records to create individual profiles which would then be cultivated into cases. The cases would then be brought before a Judge by the process I described above. The same way it is done on drug raids. The point of this would be as a scare tactic to create very public examples with the hot and eager help of the Oregon news media.
The information stored from the OSP BGC's are forever unless Kate's order is reversed by a successor, which I doubt will happen anytime soon.

All an Oregonian has to do is take the weapon to an out of state FFL for transfer to a friend or family. The family or friend would undergo the BC at their state.

So are you then suggesting the person under suspicion would be using this as a positive defense to prove disposition ? Anyone trying to use this as a way out with a post SB 941 weapon had better have documentation to prove it.
As for a transfer to an out of state friend or family member, where that may be legal without an FFL transfer, the receiving person would need to go on record that they obtained the weapon from the Oregon transferor. For an out of state FFL sale, there would at least be the FFL's transfer record and possibly an out of state BGC to back that up. If that doesn't show up in an Oregon state query, he has no proof of disposition and we are right back to where we started.

IP 43 allows you to remove the weapon from the state, transfer it, turn it in, render it inoperable

As for rendering a weapon inoperable or destroyed, I assume that should IP43 become law, the State will provide a procedure to have a a weapon taken to a gunsmith or other contractor to inactivate or destroy it. This would include a certification process to provide the owner with proof of disposition. No certificate, no proof.

 

[Migo]

The information stored from the OSP BGC's are forever unless Kate's order is reversed by a successor, which I doubt will happen anytime soon.

I think OSP BGCs can only be retained for five years. I don't think the state can use illegal information in court. It seems to me a good lawyer should be able to have illegally kept records thrown out of court.

If that doesn't show up in an Oregon state query

Oregon doesn't have access to out of state FFL records, especially if they are on paper. Oregon can't order someone from out of state to do anything. I think only the ATF can request FFL records and I don't see the ATF under Trump getting involved in state matters. The ATF allowed telescoping and/or folding pistol stabilizing braces that just about turns something like an MPX into an SBR. I don't see that ATF getting involved.

As for rendering a weapon inoperable or destroyed, I assume that should IP43 become law, the State will provide a procedure to have a a weapon taken to a gunsmith or other contractor to inactivate or destroy it. This would include a certification process to provide the owner with proof of disposition. No certificate, no proof.

What happens if you destroy your weapon (or claim to) after IP 43 passes but before the state provides a procedure? State procedures aren't created overnight.

All I'm suggesting is that there are many ways for a significant percentage of Oregon's population who are gun owners to get rid of their weapons. Enough that I don't see the legal machinery getting involved. This happened in New York five years ago (SAFE Act). About 90% of the estimated weapons in New York are unaccounted for. I'm not aware of any former New York gun owner being taken to court purely for suspicion of possession of a banned weapon.

And who would try such cases? I wonder what an elected judge in a gun friendly county would do. And wouldn't the county DA have to file charges first? They have flexibility as to what they can prosecute. A gun friendly Illinois DA recently refused to prosecute a gun crime. I think that will start to happen more often all over. Especially if SAPOs or Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties start to take off. And they will.

Sure. If one lives in Multnomah County, they are probably screwed, but not all Oregon counties are like Multnomah.

Kate, and others on Bloomberg's payroll, don't want to take away people's guns. They want guns to not be sold, inherited, repaired, or used in public. IP 43 would easily get them that.

 

[SUPER X]

I noticed that you didn't add the SB 941 effect into the mix here.
Yes, there is no way to document possession pre-5/11/15. After that, any new transfer is already in the data base, and will stay there by virtue of Kate's order to retain OSP BC information. The 4473 only documents purchase and stops there, making it somewhat irrelevant.
You can bet that the candles at OSP HQ are already burning to work out a software feature to highlight banned weapons that have no turn-in documented. This would be followed by a demand to show proof of disposition letter and then a show cause bench warrant. Failure to appear before the warrant issuing judge would automatically give you the warrant{s} discussed above. Now we are back to the gun getter squad, armed with warrants to be executed at their leisure, media scheduling not withstanding. As the body count rises, the pool of targets will rise as informants are created, willing to roll on their buddies to save their own arses.

How do you know for sure they haven't been keeping records before 5 11 2015 , regardless of the law ?

 

[ob1]

How do you know for sure they haven't been keeping records before 5 11 2015 , regardless of the law ?

Oh they wouldn't do that...would they ?

But seriously, no BGC's for private sales before then. Oh the days of FTF.

 

[E4mafia]

I doubt anyone will come door to door looking for guns. As much as those gun-hating hypocrites want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they still haven't got rid of the 4th Amendment. IP 43 gives everyone 120 days to get rid of their guns. So before the stormtroopers task force arrives at your front gate with a battering ram tank, you will receive a letter, assuming they even suspect you of having guns, which they shouldn't because you had 120 days to get rid of them. And if that task force shows up at your door, they are going to need a search warrant, and on what grounds would a judge issue that order? Because some FFL had a Form 4473 that says you bought one 5 years ago that could have been sold or destroyed before or during those 120 days? Probably not good enough for a warrant.

And if they send a letter asking if you have that gun you bought 5 years ago, I don't think you would have to respond, because of the 5th Amendment, so they probably wouldn't even send such a letter. It would be pointless. Yes, the US Constitution is a VERY good thing as it is today!

The real pain of IP 43 will be in not being able to shoot on public lands, or even at gun clubs, like Tri-County where LEOs practice, for fear of being harassed or arrested by an OSP.

NY and CT have already passed IP 43 like laws. Only 5 to 10 % of citizens complied. No task forces going door to door. Same will happen here unless people get off their __sses and vote!

Not to mention the logistics and economical support that would have to be involved with this and the impact it would have locally going door to door street by street good or bad neighborhood don't matter.

Speaking from doing KLE's and other fun activities involving meeting with locals from the military side of things. If a platoon of at least 42 people or even a company wide effort of at least 100+ cannot fully control a small regional village with solid backing and going building to building doing clearing there is always the nightmare of over looking and people getting annoyed delaying the whole process. This could sometimes take upwards of about several hours to even a couple days just to get a simple yes/no answer.

Plus doesn't the civilian populace greatly outnumber those on the state/federal payroll so it would be way too costly to enforce unless it were a natural disaster or some type of "hollywood" spook plot. To be more effective they'd have to stick to current intended target raids for known violation reasons instead of mass moving boots on ground knocking at each door holding up a paper.