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

[jrd541280]

If komifornia becomes its own country as they wish to, would they still be able to push their dumb@ss ideas on to a foreign nation?
Would oregun, washinggun and idagun be able to deport all the komifornians back to their own country?
Rant over
for now

 

[ma96782]

IMHO, BGC Law were meant to suppress your firearms rights.

Think about it....IF the Govt really wanted to be assured that BGCs be done, so that FELONS (and other prohibited persons) not get their hands on firearms.....well, they could have made BGCs FREE by law.

Hummmm.......as a seller of a firearm, I could just call a certain phone number (Police Responsible for this) and ask that a BGC be done on a prospective buyer. Pass, Fail, Delay whatever. I figure not getting an FFL involved in my private business is better vs. what we now have.

But, you and I know that it wasn't about the BGC. It was about collecting money and making money for a certain group of people. And, who is to say that the price to do a BGC won't go up to a level that could make gun ownership almost impossible? Wow....wouldn't that help the anti gun politicians. Yup....your politician would/could still claim to be in favor of the 2nd, But of course, you'll have to pay for the privilege of exercising it.

I got an idea. Let's charge a BGC fee to attend church or publish a book? Such a law is needed. Because of all the hate speech that goes on. Which leads eventually to violence and death. Rrrrright?

*Not to mention that I might use such a system to also check up: on prospective renters, sales of other objects (i.e. pressure cookers, hammers, and knives), when making a loan, membership in my book club, etc.... We all know that FELONS (and prohibited persons) are a class of people that shouldn't be trusted, Rrrright?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Ura-Ki]

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.

What part of: "She had no reason to believe he is/was a felon" is the problem here, the language is right there clear as a bell, included right there in point #1 which I quoted!!!!

 

[Pheasantdawg]

What part of: "She had no reason to believe he is/was a felon" is the problem here, the language is right there clear as a bell, included right there in point #1 which I quoted!!!!

AND THE PROVISION OCCURS: Followed by six conditions. NONE of the those conditions were met, therefore a BGC needs to be done. Clear as a bell, but I'll explain it again. IF she believed he wasn't a prohibited person and IF she believed he did not intend to commit a crime and IF it was at a shooting range OR for the purpose of hunting OR in her presence etc.... then she would not have to do a background check. Since NONE of those six provisions applied a BCG needed to be done. It was not, therefore she violated the law.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Nice try, Thanks for playing Any one exception WILL do, read Or code!!!

 

[Pheasantdawg]

Nice try, Thanks for playing Any one exception WILL do, read Or code!!!

And which exception would that be?

 

[Misteramax]

Nice try, Thanks for playing Any one exception WILL do, read Or code!!!

He is correct or how I interpreted the bill. I'm not getting on your case, I think you're an awesome poster. It's just sb941 has a lot of wtf stuff in it. Clearly written by braindead liberals who, in the bill, contradict themselves alooooot. For example what you two are arguing about. Even reading the entire definition of a transferee and what makes someone exempt...the way they word it is stupid as all hell.

 

[Misteramax]

This why I hate politicians and the people who are braindead and support them. No one scenario builds!

 

[Ura-Ki]

According to Code, only ONE exception ( the first) need be met, how ever, the way this bill is written confuses the hell out of every thing, so from a legal stand point ( again, According to Ors Code) the first ( technically any ONE of them) SHOULD exempt. I am not a lawyer, and haven't really dug around through this mess very much, so with the wording it goes one way, then flip flops around like a dead fish, so until a case is brought before a DA, and the DA leans one way or another, we will get ( and continue to get ) a differing legal perspective

 

[DirectDrive]

So den (Norski saying).....
Do not let critical decisions go through the loins.

 

[Pheasantdawg]

According to Code, only ONE exception ( the first) need be met, how ever, the way this bill is written confuses the hell out of every thing, so from a legal stand point ( again, According to Ors Code) the first ( technically any ONE of them) SHOULD exempt. I am not a lawyer, and haven't really dug around through this mess very much, so with the wording it goes one way, then flip flops around like a dead fish, so until a case is brought before a DA, and the DA leans one way or another, we will get ( and continue to get ) a differing legal perspective

Way to not answer the question. Thanks for playing. I'm done.

 

[Ura-Ki]

GO back to post #13, and read ors code! etrain16 as alwaysis spot on and even with the twisting of words through out this bill, ANY ONE EXCEPTION, in the law holds water!!! There HAS to be more to this case then we are allowed to see, because under the exceptions, the law is unenforceable as it stands

 

[Misteramax]

the law is unenforceable as it stands

Absolutely. A good law is something that is clear as night and day! I cringe thinking about the soccer mom and her weenie manlet who wrote this monstrous bill up.

 

[jrd541280]

And alas. I believe Ura-ki, but not sure, brought up the jist term in this conversation. LAWYER. Why in the hell do I need one of those to protect me? IMHO, the state should need one to protect itself from bringing false allegations. Just me.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Here is my take on this BS "LAW," its untenable, and Unenforceable, and it WAS found wanting by the D/A that heard the case of the Preacher Man form Lake-O (?) because he technically met ONE exception as listed!!! So, we get to this case, and some how the person is "found" guilty, however this doesn't add up, the punishment doesn't fit, so, my thinking is the D/A and judge came up with something else to stick, and the politicos are spinning it so that we "Think" this law was applied, after all, it all ready failed to hook a big fat fish, it's been two plus years with out a single catch, so the politicos desperately NEED a win, so they go fishing! JMO

 

[jrd541280]

To be clear, under this bullsh!t law, she should have known, being a politico and all. She did choose that line of work. Now, after work, my neighbor comes over, says I have a flat, can I borrow your car to go to the store? Is he drunk? Hell, I don't know. Is he stupid? I don't know. Am I responsible for being a good neighbor? Apperently so. What the hell happened to personal responsibility?
If our fore fathers wrote the constitution today, there would be no trees left.

 

[StacattoP]

You know if that was any of us on this form they would throw the book at us hard and tell us how ashamed we should be of ourselves.

 

[Quartermaster]

No dog in this, but now I am confused. But then again I confuse easily. Do I understand this correctly? Under Oregon SB941 ALL private sales of firearms inside Oregon now require a BGC, (background check) by the State Police AND ALSO RUNNING THAT TRANSFER THROUGH THE BOOKS OF AN FFL?

Is this something new? I already knew about the BGC requirement but I DID NOT KNOW about the FFL requirement. Some help here please. Yikes!

I believe that is correct since you can't do your own BGC's anymore. The only transfer you can do that doesn't require this is to a close relative.

That is correct, and has been the case since August 2015 when SB941 went into effect. There are exceptions say between certain family members, but, if you want to stick to the law, all private sales must go through an FFL.

What surprises me is how many folks, even 2 years later, don't know about this crap law. I'm sure plenty of folks have broken that law and didn't even know it. Plenty of others are likely breaking it knowingly, though the police seem rather uninterested in actually enforcing it - except when it meets some political agenda.

Just to clarify, an FFL is NOT required to do a transfer if you are "inside the building" of a gun show, section 3 of SB941.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941/Enrolled
Also, allowing someone to use your firearm for hunting, range use, self defense, are all LEGAL to do, as long as you don't believe they are prohibited, because you're not selling the gun to them. You're lending it.
http://www.oregon.gov/osp/docs/SB941_Information_Sheet.pdf

 

[Quartermaster]

AND THE PROVISION OCCURS: Followed by six conditions. NONE of the those conditions were met, therefore a BGC needs to be done. Clear as a bell, but I'll explain it again. IF she believed he wasn't a prohibited person and IF she believed he did not intend to commit a crime and IF it was at a shooting range OR for the purpose of hunting OR in her presence etc.... then she would not have to do a background check. Since NONE of those six provisions applied a BCG needed to be done. It was not, therefore she violated the law.

Way to not answer the question. Thanks for playing. I'm done.

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.

F. Like your grade in this exam. They were going to a protest where they believed they may have faced serious injury or bodily harm. She had no reason to believe he was prohibited from possessing.

 

[Pheasantdawg]

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.

F. Like your grade in this exam. They were going to a protest where they believed they may have faced serious injury or bodily harm. She had no reason to believe he was prohibited from possessing.

Imminent peril, or imminent danger, [1] is an American legal concept where Imminent peril is "certain danger, immediate, and impending; menacingly close at hand, and threatening." [2] In many states in the USA, a mere necessity for quick action does not constitute an emergency within the doctrine of imminent peril, where the situation calling for the action is one which should reasonably have been anticipated and which the person whose action is called for should have been prepared to meet;[3] the doctrine of imminent peril does not excuse one who has brought about the peril by her own negligence.[4]

You can't claim imminent danger in this case since he had to actually go to the event after obtaining the firearm. If he had believed he was in Imminent danger or faced death at the protest he could have easily avoided it by simply NOT GOING.

Pretty sure the lawyers/court went over all this crap already, or she would have gotten off.