Oregon Oregon Ballot Measure 114 – Magazine Ban and Permit To Purchase Firearms — Vote NO!

[baker3gun]

Section 926 is just a few sentences. Federal only.
Is there another section that enjoins the states?
Thx.

 

[baker3gun]

On the other hand. Look at Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, California,Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and probably some other States... where there are permits/license to buy; and/or mag bans and/or AWBs edit with registries.. I do believe there currently are no suits regarding permit/license to purchase firearm schemes such as what Illinois have (FOID?) ?

I mentioned Illinois FOID in an earlier post.
I agree.
I don't know of any even partially successful legal challenges to laws that require gun permits.

To me, the concept is not difficult. Requiring a permit is tantamount to requiring govt permission to buy a gun. Fully unconstitutional.

IMO - the real challenge is convincing scotus to formally and permanently decide and declare them unconstitutional.
That will be a tough battle, and it will really get down to the nitty gritty core of constitutional protection of the citizen right to arms.
A victory would be fantastic.
A loss would be catastrophic.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

On the other hand. Look at Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, California,Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and probably some other States... where there are permits/license to buy; and/or mag bans and/or AWBs edit with registries.. I do believe there currently are no suits regarding permit/license to purchase firearm schemes such as what Illinois have (FOID?) ?

as I understand it they had the registries in place prior to FOPA 86 and FOPA 86 prohibited creation of state registries.



Under S 49 of FOPA 86 Amends the rulemaking authority of the Secretary to provide that no regulation may require: (1) the transfer of records required under this Act to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State; or (2) the establishment of any system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions. Requires a 90-day public comment period for proposed regulations.

 

[Local Loader]

The registration part might not be winnable in a suit since several states already have them but with one massive difference, they are not available for anyone to search, they are private and only searchable by LEOs and the courts.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The registration part might not be winnable in a suit since several states already have them but with one massive difference, they are not available for anyone to search, they are private and only searchable by LEOs and the courts.

The existing registries are, as I understand it, in place prior to FOPA 86 and essentially grandfathered. A new registry would not be.

 

[E4mafia]

Update to my earlier post

https://twitter.com/x/status/1594759836452921344

@Librarian

 

[Local Loader]

The existing registries are, as I understand it, in place prior to FOPA 86 and essentially grandfathered. A new registry would not be.

Either way, the major part of it that needs to be challenged is the publicly searchable part. This opens the door to people abusing the red flag portion. Neighbors don't like that you have a gun(s)?, they report that you're a danger and you're screwed.

 

[baker3gun]

In the interests of shifting focus back to productive avenues,
may as well paste the whole thing:

§926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;
(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's 1​ authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.

(c) The Attorney General shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845(a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.

The blue text is USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 926, in its entirety.

The red highlights are mine.
"The AG may not prescribe a rule or reg that requires a register to be established."

There is no federal prohibition of state-level registers or registration in this particular law.
If there is another federal law that prohibits state registers, I need that link for my own knowledge and purposes.

Thx.

 

[baker3gun]

The registration part might not be winnable in a suit since several states already have them but with one massive difference, they are not available for anyone to search, they are private and only searchable by LEOs and the courts.

The idea of searchable public databases of gun owners is offensive.
It invades privacy.
It enables govt to confiscate.
It undermines public safety.

If I want to challenge the constitutionality of a searchable public database of gun transfers or gun owners, that's a tall order, for the reasons listed in the first half of post #2798. The actual legal challenge would be complex and slow to resolve.

I predict a state-level challenge would fail. I'm somewhat sure that all Oregon supreme court justices are unethical biased lefties.

I need to go back and read M114 again.
I don't recall the section that creates or allows a "public" searchable electronic database of the identity of gun owners.
Section 4(5)((a) and (b) describe a LEO departmental database, but no mention of public access.
Section 4(2)(c) allows " any additional information that [a department] determines would be helpful to ensuring the permit-to-purchase process is being administered in a consistent and equitable manner. "
That clause is a bad idea it grants too much leeway, but it doesn't specifically create or allow a database of identities.
Is there another section that applies specifically to publication of gun owner or applicant identity?
Thanks.

If not, then debating the merits of a public searchable database and privacy invasion is premature, at best.

It makes sense to shift focus back to actual legal challenges, or repeal. IMO.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

In the interests of shifting focus back to productive avenues,
may as well paste the whole thing:

§926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;
(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's 1​ authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.

(c) The Attorney General shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845(a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.

The blue text is USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 926, in its entirety.

The red highlights are mine.
"The AG may not prescribe a rule or reg that requires a register to be established."

There is no federal prohibition of state-level registers or registration in this particular law.
If there is another federal law that prohibits state registers, I need that link for my own knowledge and purposes.

Thx.

You missed the Or state part. See the bolded part for where state registries are forbidden. The first bolded portion grandfathers existing registries. The second bolded portion forbids state registries

 

[nammac]

Well, I just received an instant approval just minutes ago, at Sportsman's Warehouse of all places…

 

[baker3gun]

You missed the Or state part. See the bolded part for where state registries are forbidden. The first bolded portion grandfathers existing registries. The second bolded portion forbids state registries

Cherry picking.

No offense, and not going to argue with you, but the argument you present will not prevail under any legal scrutiny.
Because what you are saying is not what the law pasted above says.
The basic sentence structure says something entirely different than what you are saying.

Best focus now is broader tangible legal challenges to 114, or repeal.

Thx.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Cherry picking.

No offense, and not going to argue with you, but the argument you present will not prevail under any legal scrutiny.
Because what you are saying is not what the law pasted above says.
The basic sentence structure says something entirely different than what you are saying.

Best focus now is broader tangible legal challenges to 114, or repeal.

Thx.

I am saying that is how the sentence structure reads. Please read this part again, as it clearly states no new registries for states after the date of enactment.

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State

 

[dancinghippos]

Well, I just received an instant approval just minutes ago, at Sportsman's Warehouse of all places…

In or out of Oregon?

 

[arakboss]

A possible tactic is to have carve-outs as they did with Measure 91 in 2014 that legalized marijuana. Several counties opted out of having dispensaries. It would be a way for the people that wanted this to have it, while the rest of us law abiding citizens go about our lives without the government sniffing our shorts like the neighbors dog. Have no idea if this is a valid way to proceed, but it could result in additional complications for traffic court Floyd and his ilk.

This is an opportunity for the more progressive among us to write, call and visit Salem in person and make sure their choice of pols in Salem hear about how unhappy they are with this measure.

The less (opposite of) progressive don't have to be left out of this game, but they will need to try and play a convincing progressive when they contact the anti pols in Salem. I would not expect miracles but this fight can still be fought on many fronts and this would be one way to do it.

 

[nammac]

In or out of Oregon?

Sportsman's in 185th in Hillsboro…

 

[baker3gun]

@Wombat of Doom
Again, for the sake of focus and I guess group benefit -

Consider three things:

1 - Section 926 applies to the United States Attorney General. It says that the US Dept of Justice (it's head) shall not create a rule or reg that requires any [Brady+ancillary act] record to be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.
It does not mention states' attorneys general or any other state-level public body or entity, thus, it does not prohibit such rules or regs from being made by state authorities.
Side note: the ATF archive does exist, and is routinely used to conduct traces on crime guns. Do a search for National Tracing Center, and eTrace.
My understanding is that this archive is considered to be an ATF archive, not FBI. But I'm not an expert; I need to read more about it.

Section 926 goes on to say that the AG shall not create a rule or reg that requires any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
Again, state entities are not mentioned, thus not prohibited.

2 - After FOPA passed, some states passed laws that directly or indirectly created or allowed some form of register.
No entity has ever used your Sec 926 argument to contest those laws.

3 - If your argument can prevail, you should use it in court.
If you can convince a court that your interpretation is correct, then you can strike down any law passed after 1986 that creates any form of register.
May I suggest starting in Oregon: SB 941 required universal BGC's for all transfers. This created a de facto register. If the state knows you received a gun, and there is no record of you transferring it out, then the state knows that you or your family member still has it. That's a de facto register, extending back to 2015, or, extending back as far as the government can find records. The law says that the records will only be kept for 5 years, but, ...

***

I've watched @arakboss 's grassroots activism since 2015.
Commendable, at a minimum. I joined his google group for county organizers.

I would suggest that a very large number of citizens not adopting a progressive attitude,
might be just what the doctor ordered.

Perhaps a **** you attitude is what we need now.
However, it only works when millions of people do it together.
Politically effective unity is what we have always failed to achieve.

I 100% agree with the suggestion to fight on every front.

Thx.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

@Wombat of Doom
Again, for the sake of focus and I guess group benefit -

Consider three things:

1 - Section 926 applies to the United States Attorney General. It says that the US Dept of Justice (it's head) shall not create a rule or reg that requires any [Brady+ancillary act] record to be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.
It does not mention states' attorneys general or any other state-level public body or entity, thus, it does not prohibit such rules or regs from being made by state authorities.
Side note: the ATF archive does exist, and is routinely used to conduct traces on crime guns. Do a search for National Tracing Center, and eTrace.
My understanding is that this archive is considered to be an ATF archive, not FBI. But I'm not an expert; I need to read more about it.

Section 926 goes on to say that the AG shall not create a rule or reg that requires any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
Again, state entities are not mentioned, thus not prohibited.

2 - After FOPA passed, some states passed laws that directly or indirectly created or allowed some form of register.
No entity has ever used your Sec 926 argument to contest those laws.

3 - If your argument can prevail, you should use it in court.
If you can convince a court that your interpretation is correct, then you can strike down any law passed after 1986 that creates any form of register.
May I suggest starting in Oregon: SB 941 required universal BGC's for all transfers. This created a de facto register. If the state knows you received a gun, and there is no record of you transferring it out, then the state knows that you or your family member still has it. That's a de facto register, extending back to 2015, or, extending back as far as the government can find records. The law says that the records will only be kept for 5 years, but, ...

***

I've watched @arakboss 's grassroots activism since 2015.
Commendable, at a minimum. I joined his google group for county organizers.

I would suggest that a very large number of citizens not adopting a progressive attitude,
might be just what the doctor ordered.

Perhaps a **** you attitude is what we need now.
However, it only works when millions of people do it together.
Politically effective unity is what we have always failed to achieve.

I 100% agree with the suggestion to fight on every front.

Thx.

IIRC, Oregon has been accused of having an illegal registry a couple of times. It is why theoretically they are not supposed to retain records of sales (but we all know they do retain them) If you will note, SB 941 was supposed to have no records retained after a certain length of time. Why do you think the law said the records will only be kept 5 years? IIRC, this issue is why. IIRC, This issue has been used to prevent state registries in the past. How do you think I found out about it?

And I am out of this state as fast as I can. I was planning it before 114, but 114 has not helped my attitude.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just a note... these 8 States have laws to the effect of prohibiting gun registries

• Delaware-surprising.
• Florida
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Pennsylvania (long guns only)
• Rhode Island-also surprising.
• South Dakota
• Tennesse
• Vermont

Compare that to

Two States that requires registration of all firearms;

California

Hawaii

Plus Washington D.C.


States that requires registrations of handguns;

New York

New Jersey (New residents apparently?)

Then you have States with specific classes of guns and "large" magazines to be registered;

• California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
• Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
• Hawaii (assault pistols)
• Maryland (assault pistols)
• New Jersey (assault weapons)

So.... there's that.

On one hand, Federal Supremacy Clause and 2A post-Bruen could be used to ensure that 50 States gun laws be consistent and following the 2A; but... the fact remains... there are still States that have registries and permits/licenses required but these are in the minority.


Edit. A suit against Washington DC's firearms registration scheme would probably be the best avenue; as it is a Federal entity and not quite a "State" but has pretty much the same status as a State.. and this was also where we won the landmark Heller case which got us to Bruen.

 

[Librarian]

A nit: CA does not require registration of all firearms.

CA does require either using an FFL for transfers, or 'voluntarily' filing paper for things like intrafamilial transfer, C&R aquisitions, and moving to CA with guns, and those transactions get recorded in their Automated Firearms System (AFS).

But guns that have not been transferred since 1991, or long guns since 2014, need not be registered; it is legal to own, possess, and use a gun not known to the state of California.

But, just a nit.