Yeah but. If as a result of this, the guy can never hereafter get a gun due to those youthful impulses, how is it fair and right? Isn't that what the expungement process was supposed to be about??
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Oregon New federal prohibitors (oregon)
- Thread Starter Eddy_8556
- Start date
Exactly. Which is why I've been asking for more info, but nothing solid has been forthcoming as to what change occurred, at what level (state vs feeb) and/or what the provision/law/statues/policy actually says.
I was aware of the enhanced for 18-21 in the so called 'SCA", but... for those over 21 I don't think it has any impact, does it(?)
If it's just some new OSP policy then the practice would be illegal and in violation of court orders, one would think. I can certainly see how it could happen though if they think they can get away with it, but in that case, the state is opening itself up to some spendy lawsuits.
All just speculation without details.
- Messages
- 21,730
- Reactions
- 50,551
I too have been wondering what the hell they are doing different now but other than wild speculation no one seems to know. Assuming the OP is telling the whole story he had a valid permit in several states and all of a sudden one state is telling him no. Be interesting to know if the permit that allows him to carry in other states is still valid. Meanwhile of course the state is all but ignoring the criminal scum who have all the guns they want.
- Messages
- 273
- Reactions
- 193
I was affected too with having a sealed juvenile record. Now I have to petition to restore my rights and vacate my conviction somehow or else it's gonna pop up on every 4403 I file
Maybe someone more savvy than I could check for any recent revisions to Chapter 575 division 7? (575-007-0210) I can't find any.
That's the administrative rule pertaining to BGC's, which still states:
(5) Expunged Juvenile Record. Under no circumstances shall a subject individual be denied under these rules because of the existence or contents of a juvenile record that has been expunged pursuant to ORS 419A.260 through 419A.262.
(6) Expunged Adult Record. Under no circumstances shall a subject individual be denied under these rules because of the existence or contents of an adult record that has been expunged or set aside pursuant to ORS 137.225.
And it is a class A violation under that law for anyone/any agency to divulge the contents of a sealed record to another.
OR SOS: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=2422
SB0575 enrolled (2021): https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=2422
I get it that it's likely going to take legal action for those affected, but if we take it at face value that the individuals facts are straight... and there has been no revision or new law at the state or feeb level... then it certainly might indicate this is simply a backdoor executive policy making up new law in direct violation of actual law. IOW, a lawsuit waiting to happen(?)
That's the administrative rule pertaining to BGC's, which still states:
(5) Expunged Juvenile Record. Under no circumstances shall a subject individual be denied under these rules because of the existence or contents of a juvenile record that has been expunged pursuant to ORS 419A.260 through 419A.262.
(6) Expunged Adult Record. Under no circumstances shall a subject individual be denied under these rules because of the existence or contents of an adult record that has been expunged or set aside pursuant to ORS 137.225.
And it is a class A violation under that law for anyone/any agency to divulge the contents of a sealed record to another.
OR SOS: https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=2422
SB0575 enrolled (2021): https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=2422
I get it that it's likely going to take legal action for those affected, but if we take it at face value that the individuals facts are straight... and there has been no revision or new law at the state or feeb level... then it certainly might indicate this is simply a backdoor executive policy making up new law in direct violation of actual law. IOW, a lawsuit waiting to happen(?)
Last Edited:
This is why I was wondering, just what was the FBI's mandate when BGC through NICS was first started. Now that Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) allows deeper digging for 18-21, why cannot or will not that extend to adults?
Re. sealed and expunged records, we discussed this in another thread started by tdemore1743x:
www.northwestfirearms.com
Which concerns a Washington resident.
In that thread, I posted this:
"There was an article in the Seattle Times on April 10 that explained the scope of the "enhanced background checks" done by the Wash. State Patrol that started late last year. Here is what the WSP checks:
NICS
State administrative office of the courts
State Health Care Authority (looking for involuntary mental health commitments)
State law enforcement database (looking for warrants and protection orders)
Northwest regional database (looking for recent arrests in nearby states)
Under the old system, only NICS was checked for long guns. For handguns (and later semi auto rifles), they checked NICS and sent to the local police department of the resident's address for a background check. Which now appears to have been less strenuous in at least some cases than what is being done by the WSP now."
And:
"
Information on sealed juvenile records in Wash. state:
Note that the juvenile records may be sealed by court order pursuant to RCW 13.50.260. Check with your prosecutor if you do not know whether the records are sealed or unsealed. If they are sealed, RCW 13.50.260(6)(a) states that "[a]ny agency shall reply to any inquiry concerning confidential or sealed records that records are confidential, and no information can be given about the existence or nonexistence of records concerning an individual." Washington state criminal justice agencies can access all sealed juvenile records information and non-Washington criminal justice agencies may also access the sealed records, but only for the purposes of processing, purchasing and licensing firearms, or releasing of firearms from evidence. See RCW 13.50.260(8)(d) and (e).
See the specific exception for firearms matters."
Again, I point out, the above is Wash. state law. But there may be similarities to Oregon statutes.
It now appears that NICS was a lower bar than what has been used since the first of this year.
Washington - Anyone here with a juvenile record?
Welp; I ordered a pistol to my FFL, started the paperwork and was denied on my background check. Unfortunately, this was due to a SEALED juvenile record… I understand sealed isn’t expunged, but I have a valid CPL and have purchased firearms in the past year and a half with no issue whatsoever...
www.northwestfirearms.com
Which concerns a Washington resident.
In that thread, I posted this:
"There was an article in the Seattle Times on April 10 that explained the scope of the "enhanced background checks" done by the Wash. State Patrol that started late last year. Here is what the WSP checks:
NICS
State administrative office of the courts
State Health Care Authority (looking for involuntary mental health commitments)
State law enforcement database (looking for warrants and protection orders)
Northwest regional database (looking for recent arrests in nearby states)
Under the old system, only NICS was checked for long guns. For handguns (and later semi auto rifles), they checked NICS and sent to the local police department of the resident's address for a background check. Which now appears to have been less strenuous in at least some cases than what is being done by the WSP now."
And:
"
Information on sealed juvenile records in Wash. state:
Note that the juvenile records may be sealed by court order pursuant to RCW 13.50.260. Check with your prosecutor if you do not know whether the records are sealed or unsealed. If they are sealed, RCW 13.50.260(6)(a) states that "[a]ny agency shall reply to any inquiry concerning confidential or sealed records that records are confidential, and no information can be given about the existence or nonexistence of records concerning an individual." Washington state criminal justice agencies can access all sealed juvenile records information and non-Washington criminal justice agencies may also access the sealed records, but only for the purposes of processing, purchasing and licensing firearms, or releasing of firearms from evidence. See RCW 13.50.260(8)(d) and (e).
See the specific exception for firearms matters."
Again, I point out, the above is Wash. state law. But there may be similarities to Oregon statutes.
It now appears that NICS was a lower bar than what has been used since the first of this year.
I just did a little Googling re. the history of the NICS system. It turns out that it's been amended several times over the years since it was first mandated in 1993, and implemented in 1998. According to Wikipedia, as originally set up, these three databases were what they searched:
"When the background check is initiated three databases are accessed: the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index." The BSCA permits deeper digging for 18-21. I'm thinking it may be only a matter of time before this extension is applied to adults.
"When the background check is initiated three databases are accessed: the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index." The BSCA permits deeper digging for 18-21. I'm thinking it may be only a matter of time before this extension is applied to adults.
- Messages
- 273
- Reactions
- 193
this is just such a grey area, it's insane. I consulted with several lawyers, court clerks/admins, WSP themselves and I have no straight answer on how to proceed.
And by that, I mean idk if I need to restore my rights or do that and vacate the conviction.
I feel like they'll be able to pull it up no matter what if I don't vacate it, whether it's WSP, NICS or whatever free state I decide to move to.
I mean clearly they don't care about state law, considering WA State automatically expunges juvenile records after 10yrs of staying out of trouble.
And by that, I mean idk if I need to restore my rights or do that and vacate the conviction.
I feel like they'll be able to pull it up no matter what if I don't vacate it, whether it's WSP, NICS or whatever free state I decide to move to.
I mean clearly they don't care about state law, considering WA State automatically expunges juvenile records after 10yrs of staying out of trouble.
- Messages
- 23
- Reactions
- 27
This happened to a buddy of mine and myself (Oregon with sealed/expunged, i.e. lawful gun owners) in the last two weeks, both of us having previously passed BGCs in the previous month or so (and plenty of other times over the years). He was delayed and I was denied. We each called the denial line and left a message as instructed and have yet to receive a call back. We're going to head down to Salem tomorrow to see if we can find any answers.
- Messages
- 23
- Reactions
- 27
That would be the gun grabber anti-loophole: you can lawfully own a gun but they won't approve your background check to buy a gun.
- Messages
- 23
- Reactions
- 27
Currently waiting in the lobby at OSP with my buddy and there are two others here in the lobby with the same issue: denied when they ostensibly should not have been.
Excellent! Hopefully some new light will be shed. Your efforts are appreciated.
Keep us posted. VERY curious about this/these situation(s)
- Messages
- 23
- Reactions
- 27
I can confirm, along with the 5 other gentleman who were all informed of the same: NICS background checks no longer recognize set aside convictions. Folks will need to appeal directly to FBI NICS as mentioned in the pamphlet OSP provided me.
Last Edited:
So basically my 2 buddies who literally just both went through Oregon Gun Law to have their records expunged, are screwed?
Did you request that they produce a copy of the law change or at least referenced which law/code/provision that now ignores state laws?
ETA: If OSP is doing it under the table by way of inter office policy, and know full well the law doesn't actually allow it, it wouldn't surprise me that they would respond very vaguely to "some new feeb law". KWIM?
If it's real, they should have no problem supplying a law/code for reference.
If it's true it's a really big deal, not just for Oregon, and my google-fu may just be weak, but I'm finding absolutely nothing about any changes or other similar cases of feeb denials based on expunged records. To say... outside of the 18-20yr old expanded background checks, that is.
They are state level laws and the feeb database relies solely on information provided by the state. Or... so it is printed and documented on every source I've seen so far.
Maybe it's going to take an appeal to pin down exactly which (new/ratified) law is being applied for denial. Certainly info I would specifically request in an appeal.
They are state level laws and the feeb database relies solely on information provided by the state. Or... so it is printed and documented on every source I've seen so far.
Maybe it's going to take an appeal to pin down exactly which (new/ratified) law is being applied for denial. Certainly info I would specifically request in an appeal.
- Messages
- 23
- Reactions
- 27
I'll expand a bit on my experience and what I learned.
The staffer who I met with stated that OSP runs a background check themselves and asks the feds to run one concurrently. The fed check came back reporting I was denied for the charge that I had set aside years ago. OSP said they have no involvement with or knowledge of changes to NICS but there was clearly something that changed recently.
The staffer who met with my buddy said essentially the same thing. We were both told to appeal the decision to the FBI as outlined in my previous post.
That aligns with some information about potential changes to BCGs as others have mentioned in this thread. It also aligns with an anecdotal understanding that Oregon has been an outlier in how they conduct BCGs, as alluded to in the M114 court proceedings there was a difference in how Oregon worked with the FBI and I seem to recall it being stated in some filings that this was being addressed by the state. Again, these are anecdotes but may be useful towards understanding what's going on.
We also called the FBI number on the pamphlet and the nice lady who answered directed us to file an appeal on the website, that is the only mechanism to kickoff that process.
Some internet research on the drive home indicated that an appeal will direct the FBI to validate the NICS record and when they contact Oregon they will be unable to validate since the record no longer exists in Oregon, and the appeal would then be granted. I'm proceeding down that rabbit trail next and will report back.
FWIW I never received a call back from the denial line, probably because the lobby is full of walk ins
The staffer who I met with stated that OSP runs a background check themselves and asks the feds to run one concurrently. The fed check came back reporting I was denied for the charge that I had set aside years ago. OSP said they have no involvement with or knowledge of changes to NICS but there was clearly something that changed recently.
The staffer who met with my buddy said essentially the same thing. We were both told to appeal the decision to the FBI as outlined in my previous post.
That aligns with some information about potential changes to BCGs as others have mentioned in this thread. It also aligns with an anecdotal understanding that Oregon has been an outlier in how they conduct BCGs, as alluded to in the M114 court proceedings there was a difference in how Oregon worked with the FBI and I seem to recall it being stated in some filings that this was being addressed by the state. Again, these are anecdotes but may be useful towards understanding what's going on.
We also called the FBI number on the pamphlet and the nice lady who answered directed us to file an appeal on the website, that is the only mechanism to kickoff that process.
Some internet research on the drive home indicated that an appeal will direct the FBI to validate the NICS record and when they contact Oregon they will be unable to validate since the record no longer exists in Oregon, and the appeal would then be granted. I'm proceeding down that rabbit trail next and will report back.
FWIW I never received a call back from the denial line, probably because the lobby is full of walk ins
Last Edited:
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
Want To Trade Primers For Medium To Slow Powders.- Started by arakboss
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Free 3 pair Mens 511 tactical pants sz 36x30 tan blue- Started by R971
- Replies: 1
-
2004 sprinter cargo van with lumber/ladder rack- Started by matts
- Replies: 0
-