Oregon Prosecution for illegal firearm transfer by legislative aide......

[billdeserthills]

Just deface the serial number before selling it

 

[3MTA3]

My last transfer they charged me $15 to check the rifle I was selling. Then charged the buyer $25 for the transfer. Some shops were $50+. Trying to move guns with a $50 dollar penalty on top really sucks . The A holes are trying to price us out of selling or trading. And the high transfer costs benefit the shops to move their inventory instead.

Make no mistake - this law was never about actually keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. This law is to punish gun owners while looking good to uninformed voters.

 

[jrd541280]

I find it hard to believe a political staffer didn't fully know about this law. If not though, it's no wonder the gubment is as screwed up as it is. Just me.

 

[Mikej]

I think more than a few folks are doing business as usual and pretending it doesn't even exist. Heck, in some parts of the state, the Sheriff and even the prosecutors have said they won't go after this silly law. Now Multnomah County, I'm sure they'd love to catch someone trying to bypass the law.

No one is "Trying" to catch anyone doing anything. BUT, if anyone of us honest, law abiding gun owners sold a gun without the transfer hooey and then later, the person you knew as a good guy, did something illegal with the gun they will be coming after you, for sure. Then they could say, "See, this is why we needed this law".

I don't think I would eve sell etrain a firearm, without the check, and I know, with out a doubt, him to be one of the good guys! You just never know when some gung-ho DA is going looking for someone to make an example with.

 

[notazombie]

Really? I'd sell any one of you guys one of my guns...if I still had any. Sadly, I haven't had any in over 2 years. Just hanging out here and looking at the pictures is going to have to be good enough.

 

[Alexx1401]

No one is "Trying" to catch anyone doing anything. BUT, if anyone of us honest, law abiding gun owners sold a gun without the transfer hooey and then later, the person you knew as a good guy, did something illegal with the gun they will be coming after you, for sure. Then they could say, "See, this is why we needed this law".

I don't think I would eve sell etrain a firearm, without the check, and I know, with out a doubt, him to be one of the good guys! You just never know when some gung-ho DA is going looking for someone to make an example with.

What would worry me a lot more is not selling it to the guy I know is good. It's what happens if it gets stolen from the friend. The friend really can't report it without risking admitting he ended up with it on the wrong side of this law. If he tells you, then you could try but that could be a PITA. If neither of you say anything then good chance it's going to end up at a crime. Then when they come to you and ask how your gun ended up at a crime what do you say? New law is bogus and stupid. Trying to ignore it and or violate it probably also just begging for trouble.

 

[etrain16]

No one is "Trying" to catch anyone doing anything. BUT, if anyone of us honest, law abiding gun owners sold a gun without the transfer hooey and then later, the person you knew as a good guy, did something illegal with the gun they will be coming after you, for sure. Then they could say, "See, this is why we needed this law".

I don't think I would eve sell etrain a firearm, without the check, and I know, with out a doubt, him to be one of the good guys! You just never know when some gung-ho DA is going looking for someone to make an example with.

At this point, I'm pretty much done with even doing private sales - it's become such a hassle under SB941, it's not worth it. As for selling to folks I know, I know folks I would trust, even from this site, but as @Alexx1401 pointed out above - what if that gun got stolen and used in a crime? It would still be tied to me without that official transfer.

Just too much risk, it's not worth it.

But, I do believe many folks are still doing it for one of two reasons: 1. they don't care and aren't worried about the possible backlash later and 2. they don't even know about the law - which was evidenced just today when a member in this thread admitted they knew nothing about it - 2 years after it went into effect.

 

[Alexx1401]

At this point, I'm pretty much done with even doing private sales - it's become such a hassle under SB941, it's not worth it. As for selling to folks I know, I know folks I would trust, even from this site, but as @Alexx1401 pointed out above - what if that gun got stolen and used in a crime? It would still be tied to me without that official transfer.

Just too much risk, it's not worth it.

But, I do believe many folks are still doing it for one of two reasons: 1. they don't care and aren't worried about the possible backlash later and 2. they don't even know about the law - which was evidenced just today when a member in this thread admitted they knew nothing about it - 2 years after it went into effect.

I fully expect a LOT of people who own guns have no idea this law went in here. Sadly this is part of how we end up with the politicians we do. Too many just don't want to pay any attention to what's going on around them. Until something happens. Then they start screaming about how did this happen.

 

[Camelfilter]

At this point, I'm pretty much done with even doing private sales - it's become such a hassle under SB941, it's not worth it. As for selling to folks I know, I know folks I would trust, even from this site, but as @Alexx1401 pointed out above - what if that gun got stolen and used in a crime? It would still be tied to me without that official transfer.

Just too much risk, it's not worth it.

But, I do believe many folks are still doing it for one of two reasons: 1. they don't care and aren't worried about the possible backlash later and 2. they don't even know about the law - which was evidenced just today when a member in this thread admitted they knew nothing about it - 2 years after it went into effect.

It's an inconvenient system, which was/is the goal.

Good shops can have everything done when I do a transfer, in about 15mins. BUT we're also "instant approved", CHL holders & odd family name.

Also depends on if the OSP computer system is working.

Good shops will charge ~$30, all in for a transfer/BCG.

You have to schedule the meet up based on the shops locale & there hours.

So a transfer can take anywhere from 15min to an hour, depending. And that's just my experience.

Still handy to do some trading, if the time & cost factor in. If the time and cost doesn't factor in to the overall value of the gun, then it's not worth it.

 

[Crohnos01]

Heck, in some parts of the state, the Sheriff and even the prosecutors have said they won't go after this silly law. Now Multnomah County, I'm sure they'd love to catch someone trying to bypass the law.

And this is precisely what makes this law so dangerous.... All of the sudden the authorities have the ability to enforce the law or not depending on which way the wind is blowing.... a law that is only enforced on conservatives for example? The result will be that they can make us all felons, and then, oh yeah.... now you can't own a gun !

 

[etrain16]

Good shops will charge ~$30, all in for a transfer/BCG.

You have to schedule the meet up based on the shops locale & there hours.

So a transfer can take anywhere from 15min to an hour, depending. And that's just my experience.

Still handy to do some trading, if the time & cost factor in. If the time and cost doesn't factor in to the overall value of the gun, then it's not worth it.

I have a local FFL that does the whole thing for $20, best price I've seen. Worst was $75. As for time, I did a private sale in early 2016 with someone that didn't have a CHL. It took over 90 minutes for the approval because they kept getting bumped down in the queue by CHL holders. On top of that, the FFL charged $45 plus the BGC fee (thankfully the buyer was paying).

If the state of Oregon was hoping to ruin private sales, I'd say they've done a good job of it

 

[rubberband]

Having done a number of private sales post SB941, it sounds like you've got it. It goes on the FFL's books, just like they're bringing in a transfer from an out-of-state vendor. And, they charge you for that too. So now you pay $10 for the BGC plus whatever transfer fee the FFL wants to charge you. The good ones only charge $10-$15 on top of the BGC fee - the bad ones, I've seen up to $75 to conduct a private party transfer.

And no, you can't call the SP yourself, with ONE exception - if you are conducting the sale at a recognized gun show, you may call the SP yourself and bypass the FFL.

Why the need for the FFL holder? To make it harder on us. To cost us more $$. To impose a form of gun control on us without calling it gun control.

Previously living in a state w/ BGC & form requirements for private transfers of handguns, this was a little tricky when the potential purchaser fails the BCG. Technically, before the handgun can be transferred back to the seller and off the FFLs books, the FFL would have to perform a BCG & forms on the seller. As a result, many sellers would include the condition that the buyer pays both FFL fees in the event of a failed transfer.

For long guns, even though a BCG wasn't required, many sellers would require the buyer to have a valid state resident CHL with the assumption being that if you have a CHL, you've passed a BCG for the CHL & have not been convicted of a felony since, which would result in the sheriff revoking your CHL.

It all sounds like a PITA and it was a lot of confusion when the laws first went into effect. I've done a bunch of private transfers as a seller & buyer under that scheme without a hitch. Most FFLs charged more for private transfers but some don't; $45 was about the most expensive I experienced but $25 was typical.

 

[etrain16]

Previously living in a state w/ BGC & form requirements for private transfers of handguns, this was a little tricky when the potential purchaser fails the BCG. Technically, before the handgun can be transferred back to the seller and off the FFLs books, the FFL would have to perform a BCG & forms on the seller. As a result, many sellers would include the condition that the buyer pays both FFL fees in the event of a failed transfer.

For long guns, even though a BCG wasn't required, many sellers would require the buyer to have a valid state resident CHL with the assumption being that if you have a CHL, you've passed a BCG for the CHL & have not been convicted of a felony since, which would result in the sheriff revoking your CHL.

It all sounds like a PITA and it was a lot of confusion when the laws first went into effect. I've done a bunch of private transfers as a seller & buyer under that scheme without a hitch. Most FFLs charged more for private transfers but some don't; $45 was about the most expensive I experienced but $25 was typical.

I had one private sale where the buyer got delayed. I asked the FFL (Tigard Pawn) what we do now. They had the buyer pay me and sent me on my way. I asked what happens if he's eventually denied. They said the gun is technically theirs until the transfer is completed. As I recall, they said they would offer 2 options to the buyer - get the denial worked out and try again (I think they charged a fee for holding the gun) or, they could sell the gun through the FFL on consignment, at which point the buyer would be taking a loss. Either way, at no point were they going to involve me further in the transaction - they considered it between them and my buyer at that point. I left, money in hand and they finished up with the buyer at some point. I don't know how other FFL's would handle it, but that's they way they handled it on that transaction.

Now, I have been a regular customer, so maybe they gave me different treatment than they may have with folks they didn't know? Not sure. Either way, it's unnecessarily complicated and really not worth the hassle any more.

 

[Mikej]

What would worry me a lot more is not selling it to the guy I know is good. It's what happens if it gets stolen from the friend. The friend really can't report it without risking admitting he ended up with it on the wrong side of this law. If he tells you, then you could try but that could be a PITA. If neither of you say anything then good chance it's going to end up at a crime. Then when they come to you and ask how your gun ended up at a crime what do you say? New law is bogus and stupid. Trying to ignore it and or violate it probably also just begging for trouble.

^^^ Winenr winner chicken dinner!

At this point, I'm pretty much done with even doing private sales - it's become such a hassle under SB941, it's not worth it. As for selling to folks I know, I know folks I would trust, even from this site, but as @Alexx1401 pointed out above - what if that gun got stolen and used in a crime? It would still be tied to me without that official transfer.

Just too much risk, it's not worth it.

But, I do believe many folks are still doing it for one of two reasons: 1. they don't care and aren't worried about the possible backlash later and 2. they don't even know about the law - which was evidenced just today when a member in this thread admitted they knew nothing about it - 2 years after it went into effect.

You know I just picked you out of the crowd here because you were in this convo, not because you are in any way shifty or anything like that? Besides, we've done biz already before this stupid unenforced, unenforceable, freakish law went into affect!

I've only done two transactions since the law went into affect. One I was the buyer at Money Market Pawn ($30.00) and it was easy and only took about 15 minutes. Except when I'm buying I'm always nervous because you never know when some little glitch or error will get you delayed the process was painless. The other I was selling at Tigard Pawn 4 More ($25.00) where I didn't have to pay, fill out the form or be nervous about getting a delay. The process isn't really any more painful than driving across town to meet in a parking lot. And there's some peace of mind putting the onus on the state! Then no matter what, I'm off the hook!

 

[Oya]

Having done a number of private sales post SB941, it sounds like you've got it. It goes on the FFL's books, just like they're bringing in a transfer from an out-of-state vendor. And, they charge you for that too. So now you pay $10 for the BGC plus whatever transfer fee the FFL wants to charge you. The good ones only charge $10-$15 on top of the BGC fee - the bad ones, I've seen up to $75 to conduct a private party transfer.

And no, you can't call the SP yourself, with ONE exception - if you are conducting the sale at a recognized gun show, you may call the SP yourself and bypass the FFL.

Why the need for the FFL holder? To make it harder on us. To cost us more $$. To impose a form of gun control on us without calling it gun control.

Important to establish a good working relationship with an FFL. Also a good reason to pass on it when a seller
or buyer wants to do a run around the law. Like we used to say, just say no.

 

[nwslopoke]

It's a selective tax. Even though this woman worked for the government (will she lose her job?) She worked for the wrong side. You can shoot a puppy in the face. If the DA doesn't want to prosecute a law was never broken.
After the "preacher" proved the law was a joke the states needed a victory.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Exceptions, Exemptions, Non-Applicable Circumstances
1. "Transfer" does not include: The temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:

highlighted for your viewing pleasure!

SO, to toss a Monkey Wrench in the works, How did this woman break the law exactly?!??!?!??!
This provision in the law should have let her off the hook, but as has been seen, that isn't the case here, they chose to make an example out of her, despite the clean language in the laws exceptions
This law IS only for use against the law abiding, not the other way around, it makes no means available to stop a felon, only after a felony happens, AND, they make a felon out of a good guy for nothing if that good guy believes point #1 listed above!

Thanks etrain16, that really clears it all up for me now
So glad I left this stupid state!

 

[etrain16]

highlighted for your viewing pleasure!

SO, to toss a Monkey Wrench in the works, How did this woman break the law exactly?!??!?!??!
This provision in the law should have let her off the hook, but as has been seen, that isn't the case here, they chose to make an example out of her, despite the clean language in the laws exceptions
This law IS only for use against the law abiding, not the other way around, it makes no means available to stop a felon, only after a felony happens, AND, they make a felon out of a good guy for nothing if that good guy believes point #1 listed above!

Thanks etrain16, that really clears it all up for me now
So glad I left this stupid state!

Yeah, but you live in the state that passed mag restrictions and forced Magpul to move! Sounds like your state is headed the way of OR, WA and CA Didn't CO used to be gun friendly? I know Hickenpooper is no friend to gun owners.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yeah, but you live in the state that passed mag restrictions and forced Magpul to move! Sounds like your state is headed the way of OR, WA and CA Didn't CO used to be gun friendly? I know Hickenpooper is no friend to gun owners.

YES, my state did the mag ban thing ( which no one follows, and there has only been ONE person made an example of) and they even voted against striking it down, so yea, I live in stupid too, but we are still FAR more gun friendly then Orygun as far as gun rights go. But yea, the AzzHAts up in Boulder and Denver wanna copy Kaliforina with all the draconian laws and more stupid!!!

 

[Pheasantdawg]

highlighted for your viewing pleasure!

SO, to toss a Monkey Wrench in the works, How did this woman break the law exactly?!??!?!??!
This provision in the law should have let her off the hook, but as has been seen, that isn't the case here, they chose to make an example out of her, despite the clean language in the laws exceptions
This law IS only for use against the law abiding, not the other way around, it makes no means available to stop a felon, only after a felony happens, AND, they make a felon out of a good guy for nothing if that good guy believes point #1 listed above!

Thanks etrain16, that really clears it all up for me now
So glad I left this stupid state!

She broke the law because none of the exceptions were met.
Exceptions, Exemptions, Non-Applicable Circumstances
1. "Transfer" does not include: The temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:
a. At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;
b. For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;
c. Under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of the transferor;
d. To a transferee who is in the business of repairing firearms, for the time during which the firearm is being repaired;
e. To a transferee who is in the business of making or repairing custom accessories for firearms, for the time during which the accessories are being made or repaired; or
f. For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury.

Highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

Absent any of the exceptions the FFL/BCG comes into play.