Response from Lane County Sheriff's Office to my email inquiring as to their stance on recent anti-gun legislation

[RVTECH]

the last 9 months backlog paints a different picture...

I was referring to ILLEGAL FTF sales - they ain't on the backlog.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Typical if you do get busted is they turn you into a rat , hold the threat of prosecution over your head and get you to turn in your friends. NFA guys saw a lot of this.

Or they go to the judge and get a warrant to search your home for whatever contraband you have.

 

[solv3nt]

I was referring to ILLEGAL FTF sales - they ain't on the backlog.

What illegal FTF sales that have a statute of limitations capped at two years?

 

[Bobbygun]

You got it backwards, the state has to prove you didn't own them prior. The burden of proof is in the state, that's how our legal system works.

This is Oregon buddy. Don't confuse it with a free state.

 

[Koda]

I was referring to ILLEGAL FTF sales - they ain't on the backlog.

There's no way to know how many, or little, FTF sales are taking place.

But 114 did pass and did influence BGC sales in huge numbers. Regardless if 114 stands or not, BGC sales are still required and what people are using.

 

[WillametteWill]

You got it backwards, the state has to prove you didn't own them prior. The burden of proof is in the state, that's how our legal system works.

It is similar to a self-defense case where, during an affirmative defense, you have the burden of production. They wrote the law this way, well, because they are evil. They could simply have said magazines, guns, whatever are grandfathered like is usually done but they no doubt chose to be terrible humans.

You cannot prove you owned something on a certain date that is not serialized. You can have a receipt, but is that for this specific magazine or one you have hidden under the floorboards at your home? If you have a reasonable judge and a reasonable jury (so sorry if you live in about four counties in the state) you may be judged reasonably (or better yet, you will not have to be "judged" because they accept your proof from the beginning).

I'm going with, "I bought a gun that comes with standard capacity magazines pre 114. I have some receipts for magazines. I'll keep them out of areas where Mike Schmidt has any say." Yes, constitutional Sheriffs are a blessing. But in a DGU it will be taken out of their hands into the clutches of the DA's office.

You are of course correct in that the state has to supply the burden of proof but the way they CHOSE to word the section was not by accident, it was by malice.

 

[PiratePast40]

SB348 is just as obnoxious as M114, and I suspect that the new bill, to be introduced next session, will be the same. They are setting it up so that defense is not reasonably possible, and they know it.

Look at SB 348, Section 11 (starts on page 16), the part about magazines. They kept the compliance date of December 8th of 2022, knowing full well that people wouldn't be able to provide proof. They could have changed that date at any time during the sessions, but they chose not to.

That should give you an idea of what they think of us and the ridiculous hoops they want us to jump through, just for their amusement.

 

[coreymet]

I don't see how taking photos of your magazines to prove when you purchased them has any validity. For magazines that all look the same, photos are really no proof at all. Besides, anyone can change the date on their camera. The whole thing is absurd and unenforceable.

Take the picture with a magazine/newspaper/other periodical that is dated, surrounded by all your magazines. Even if you have to stack them or take multiple pictures. I think it would be so ironic to use Time or some other liberal periodical to "prove" I owned the magazines. And what is this with Affirmative Defense? Does the State no longer have to prove you guilty? Is AD not really just "guilty until proven innocent"? Hmmm, seems some other countries use that method.

 

[Koda]

Take the picture with a magazine/newspaper/other periodical that is dated, surrounded by all your magazines. Even if you have to stack them or take multiple pictures. I think it would be so ironic to use Time or some other liberal periodical to "prove" I owned the magazines. And what is this with Affirmative Defense? Does the State no longer have to prove you guilty? Is AD not really just "guilty until proven innocent"? Hmmm, seems some other countries use that method.

AD is like self defense laws, hurting or killing someone is obviously a crime, so self defense laws are the only laws where the burden is on the defender to provide enough evidence committing the crime was justified. IOW: To claim self defense, you have to basically admit you committed the crime... so the burden of proof shifts to you to justify it was lawful.

The way this new mag ban law applies AD doctrine baffles me. Owning a now grandfathered object is not a crime. On one hand taking photos of your mags doesnt prove the photo, or mags, is yours, but on the other hand I would think that providing -any- evidence would shift the burden of proof back onto the state. Nobody knows how the new law would play out in court.

 

[WillametteWill]

Take the picture with a magazine/newspaper/other periodical that is dated, surrounded by all your magazines. Even if you have to stack them or take multiple pictures. I think it would be so ironic to use Time or some other liberal periodical to "prove" I owned the magazines. And what is this with Affirmative Defense? Does the State no longer have to prove you guilty? Is AD not really just "guilty until proven innocent"? Hmmm, seems some other countries use that method.

We beat the picture-with-a-dated-newspaper to death when 114 first passed. Most respectfully, this is useless. I can take photos of my magazines today sitting on a 1954 newspaper I have in my cave. What does that show? I still have a newspaper from 1954. I wasn't alive in 1954.

I understand we are taught to think, "Innocent until proven guilty" and that is still true. But as @Koda eloquently stated, in a self defense situation you are admitting to a crime. You have an obligation to show your justification. There was no need for this in the wording of 114.

 

[brw2]

Well, I will deal with that when it comes. I'm federally licensed so even though small I'm in a much bigger boat so to speak. Here is an interesting note on how that works. During the great lock down I was allowed to move about freely because Trump said ammunition manufacturing was an essential business.

Meanwhile I hear the term " common use is for self defense" followed by "and therefore"......I say common use should be for sporting purposes, everything, sporting Clays, Cowboy action, speed steel, long distance, 2 gun , 3 gun, hunting, ect. I think shooting sports should be as common as Golf and no one is trying to take away irons and make you only use woods to play that game. Yes it will be inconvenient to (legally) buy firearms but we've had almost a year warning that this might be an issue. So I would think that anyone that had some sort of must have has gotten it already or at least should get the deal done soonish. Inconvenient, yes. End of the world, not hardly.

The term that the GC's have distorted is an Anally Acquired Phrase: "...common use for self defense". That little piece of **** is a concatenation and does not exist in the SCOTUS ruling. It is a lie by omission. The actual verbiage is "...common use for self defense and other lawful purposes". Unfortunately, it is becoming common practice to misquote laws and court rulings. When a JUDGE does it however, that should be cause for removal from the bench.

You may have yours, but what what about your decedents?

 

[oremike]

The term that the GC's have distorted is an Anally Acquired Phrase: "...common use for self defense". That little piece of **** is a concatenation and does not exist in the SCOTUS ruling. It is a lie by omission. The actual verbiage is "...common use for self defense and other lawful purposes". Unfortunately, it is becoming common practice to misquote laws and court rulings. When a JUDGE does it however, that should be cause for removal from the bench.

You may have yours, but what what about your decedents?

My boys have there own guns (they are in thier 40's) and when I'm gone will figure out an equitable split between the two of them for my gun stuff. Neither of them has any interest in the ammo business other than shooting Dads ammo so when I pass that will cause my FFL to expire.