SB 941, Armslist yayhoos

[drudgeon]

The past couple of months I've been whittling down the collection, and have attempted several times to sell on Armslist. Despite a pointed statement that all applicable laws will be followed and a Transfer/BG check is required/non-negotiable, I still get like 5-6 emails from folks asking me to do a bill of sale and telling me I am stupid for requiring a transfer. This is usually where I take the Armslist post down because I don't want to deal with it.
Full disclosure - I think SB 941 is a ridiculous law skirting previous legislature to tax, track, and punish otherwise law abiding gun owners. It does absolutely nothing to control illegal firearms, and the impact on transfers to ineligible individuals is negligible. If I could be non-compliant without being at legal risk, losing rights, I probably would. But alas, the risks seem to outweigh the moral reward of standing on principal in this situation.

I guess my question is, are there really that many folks out there who are non-compliant? Am I being overly cautious?
From reading through all the eye-bleeding sections, it seems it is a class A misdemeanor if you were to get caught selling in violation of SB 941 - and if you sell to someone with a felony conviction or to any other person precluded from firearm ownership, you could potentially be held liable and/or be charged with an alphabet soup of felony charges. Reading the post by OFF about OSP keeping records on both transferor and transferee seems to make this even more dangerous.

Could anyone elucidate me on the state of things? I tried to find some cut and dry guidelines, but forum and google searches were not exactly successful.

Read More

 

[etrain16]

The big problem in getting an answer is that no one (likely no one) on this forum or others will willing admit to breaking the law. Not only is it a violation of the site rules, but it could open you up to getting caught, potentially.

That said, I've met numerous people that have claimed to do private sales sans FFL since SB941. I have to say I'm glad to see it because it just shows how ineffective the ridiculous law is. To date, no one has been charged in Oregon under SB941 that I'm aware of, and I think most law enforcement agencies have treated this as an issue not worth their time. Instead, I think it will mostly be used as an add-on type charge if you're arrested for something else.

I have to say it does surprise me that complete strangers would ask you to do that - either they don't worry about getting caught OR, they are working as part of a sting operation trying to catch people in the act. Not worth it in any case.

It's probably happening quite a bit is my guess, but you won't see many folks broadcasting it if they do. Personally, I don't want to be that one guy they do catch and want to make an example of, so, until the law changes, I'm continuing to use an FFL.

 

[Joe13]

Hypothetically only, because I would never break any law or site rule:

If it's an online advertisement then it's an FFL issue.

If it were my best friend, well we did that transaction before the BGC laws came into effect.



-----

Personal opinion, LEO and ATF have more to do then troll Armslist for BGC violators so I highly doubt any of that stuff are set ups.


Side note: just watched a video where the guy called around on CL for people selling old gun racks. 3 calls later and he finds someone that says Yes, to his repeated inquiry into if they have any guns for sale that they would be willing to part with.

The Black Market will always thrive as long as there are laws restricting what a person can do.

 

[drudgeon]

I have to say it does surprise me that complete strangers would ask you to do that - either they don't worry about getting caught OR, they are working as part of a sting operation trying to catch people in the act. Not worth it in any case.

It's probably happening quite a bit is my guess, but you won't see many folks broadcasting it if they do. Personally, I don't want to be that one guy they do catch and want to make an example of, so, until the law changes, I'm continuing to use an FFL.

The sting scenario is one that I was considering as a possibility. The frequency and the forwardness of the responses really raise a red flag.. kind of like my old Nigerian prince pen-pal that used to write.
However, I tend to agree that the ATF probably has better things to do than troll on Armslist. I wouldn't put it above OSP to have a couple guys on it just to lend legitimacy to the law itself, especially with how many gun rights advocates / County Sheriffs have insisted that it would be unenforceable.

I totally didn't expect anyone to come out and say that they do it all the time, mostly looking to make sure that I understand the law and am not way off base. I certainly don't judge or look upon those that choose to not comply negatively - I myself am extremely frustrated in that by complying I feel am simultaneously complicit in violating a constitutional truth and personal moral conviction.

 

[etrain16]

The sting scenario is one that I was considering as a possibility. The frequency and the forwardness of the responses really raise a red flag.. kind of like my old Nigerian prince pen-pal that used to write.
However, I tend to agree that the ATF probably has better things to do than troll on Armslist. I wouldn't put it above OSP to have a couple guys on it just to lend legitimacy to the law itself, especially with how many gun rights advocates / County Sheriffs have insisted that it would be unenforceable.

I totally didn't expect anyone to come out and say that they do it all the time, mostly looking to make sure that I understand the law and am not way off base. I certainly don't judge or look upon those that choose to not comply negatively - I myself am extremely frustrated in that by complying I feel am simultaneously complicit in violating a constitutional truth and personal moral conviction.

Yes, the whole thing is very frustrating, and is an obvious step toward greater gun control. As to who may be trolling for lawbreakers - I would offer another option - I agree the ATF and law enforcement probably don't have the resources. But you know who does? Bloomberg. What if he's funding a few folks in states with similar laws to go sniffing around for law breakers, then reporting what they find to local LE or the ATF? That way LE and ATF don't have to expend resources until they have a real chance of catching someone. Running a few folks in each state to do this would hardly be pocket change for someone like Bloomberg. And I wouldn't put it past him to do anything he could to help push for even more gun control laws all over the country.

Total B.S. all of it. Our only chance to fight this is to change the makeup of the state house/senate and hope we can get laws like this revoked.

 

[nammac]

I think we should take the tact that the federal gubermint takes on many subjects... Don't ask... Don't tell...

Not a supporter of SB941... Or any infringement of Second Amendment Rights...

 

[ocarolan]

Sellers: if concerned about a sting operation on SB941, here is one precautionary step.

Remember SB941 completely exempts dealers and manufacturers (licensees). They are free to purchase privately from you for their own collections without any background check or state records.

Therefore, if the buyer represents himself as a licensee, then in theory you can continue the sale without any background check. I would definitely retain a notarized statement saying the buyer is a class XX FFL. This reduces your liability if the buyer were later shown to not be a true licensee. More importantly, it likely protects you from a sting scenario, since the undercover OSP agent would avoid perjuring himself.

Alternatively, remember you can offer to call OSP and do a ORS 166.441 check on the buyer. Again this discourages sting agents and also ensures your buyer is a good guy, for a mere $10. Furthermore, if you actually transfer at a qualified gun show*, you've satisfied SB941 and are good to go.

*if your "gunshow" happens in your garage, remember you may need to prove it satisfies the 166.432(2b) definition. I would print a receipt like this.

--------------------
Ocarolan's Gun Show
A private event at ___ address. 4/27/2016

Guns on site and available for transfer:
1. Berretta 92fs
2. Glock 26
[etc...]
26. Ruger 10/22 *

*Buyer please mark the firearm(s) you wish to purchase. All transfers subject to background check per ORS 166.441.
--------------------

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Sellers: if concerned about a sting operation on SB941, here is one precautionary step.

Remember SB941 completely exempts dealers and manufacturers (licensees). They are free to purchase privately from you for their own collections without any background check or state records.

Therefore, if the buyer represents himself as a licensee, then in theory you can continue the sale without any background check. I would definitely retain a notarized statement saying the buyer is a class XX FFL. This reduces your liability if the buyer were later shown to not be a true licensee. More importantly, it likely protects you from a sting scenario, since the undercover OSP agent would avoid perjuring himself.

Alternatively, you can offer to call OSP and do a gunshow BGC on the buyer. Again this discourages sting agents and also ensures your buyer is a good guy, for a mere $10 and no FFL. Furthermore, if you actually transfer at a qualified "gunshow", you've satisfied SB941 and are good to go.

From what I remember they took the private transfer off the table once SB941 passed. I dont think you can still call in your own sale anymore. Sadly.

Unless Im wrong, then that makes for a great loophole.

 

[ocarolan]

From what I remember they took the private transfer off the table once SB941 passed. I dont think you can still call in your own sale anymore. Sadly.

Unless Im wrong, then that makes for a great loophole.

Actually SB941 only removed the free voluntary background check option in 166.433 (3), see section 7.

It preserves the private gunshow transfer option, only amending 166.436 for clarity in section 3. The ORS 166.441 forms and notices must still be published at gun shows and OSP must still accept phoned background checks from non-licensees. So "Ocarolan's Garage Gunshow" is a legitimate compliance option for SB941.

I would also point out this is perfectly in spirit with the purported intent of SB941 - safety and background checks. It could make the transferred firearm more difficult to trace however, since dealer records of sale are saved forever, whereas private receipts may be discarded after 5 years.

*Those who experienced the passage of Measure 5 back in 2000 may celebrate, since gun owners now enjoy more options from the over-broad definition of 166.432(2)(b).

 

[Member 5605]

Free men live free

 

[PaulB47]

Obedience is not a virtue.

Alternatively, remember you can offer to call OSP and do a ORS 166.441 check on the buyer.

This seems to miss the point of noncompliance.

 

[mjbskwim]

I read most of the OP but no e of the rest
IF you don't know the person you are selling to,WTF would you think it a good idea to not do a check?
I won't comment on the law,bit you don't need the state patrol breathing down your neck for a,even $1000 gun
Use a ffl

 

[Hawaiian]

The law is the law, like it or not. I will not do a sale without keeping it 100% legal. I have too much to lose to do it any other way and I am not willing to risk it. It simply ain't worth it, for me.

 

[IronMonster]

I cant comment on any sales, Since I don't sell guns. What I can comment on is the number of private background checks reported in Washington in the last year less than 3000 private sales through NCIC

<broken link removed>

 

[PaulB47]

The law is the law, like it or not. I will not do a sale without keeping it 100% legal.

As has been noted many times, the most effective enforcement by far happens in the minds of the peons. If people ignored bad laws, they would be impossible to enforce. Ask yourself if you would have followed the Fugitive Slave Law, and turned in or reported any escaped slaves? Will you turn in your guns if that command comes down from on high?

Homeschooling exists only because parents valued their children more than they valued the dictates of the education establishment. They broke the law.

Yes, breaking an evil law does take some courage, no doubt about that.

 

[IronMonster]

I will tell you a little story, I just got my CPL a few years ago. Prior to that I had been turned down by more than one person who I wanted to buy a firearm from because I didn't have one.

Now there was no law requiring one yet these folks decided it was the "right" thing to do to ensure they were being "safe"

Now that's fine. I had one deal where I really wanted to buy the guys several thousand dollar rifle and was quite irritated he would not even talk to me about it because I did not have a card, but that's my problem not his. A guy can choose any reason why he does not want to deal with someone else. If he only wants to sell it to a guy with green eyes and black hair and wears fake eyelashes its his prerogative.

The thing that I do have an issue with is often these same guys who would not engage in a completely legal transaction because they they were under some delusion that they were at risk of prosecution from selling to the wrong guy would tell you that they fully supported and believed in the the 2nd Amendment

Now.... Its a pretty short bit, the relative part being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you really believe in the second explain to me how is right to deny a sale to a person simply because they do not have the endorsement of the state? The state forces you to apply for a right granted to you in the constitution, which in my mind is unconstitutional to begin with and now you are going to tell me that You believe in the 2nd yet take it upon yourself to decide that only those blessed by the state are "safe" to have your firearm even though 95% of the population of legal firearms owners don't have a carry card? Don't feed me that BS, You have clearly shown you think only certain folks, blessed and approved by the state are worthy of the privilege (not right) of owning a gun.

Anyway.... I finally buckled and got a card, and of course just months later I594 passed rendering the point moot.

 

[etrain16]

I will tell you a little story, I just got my CPL a few years ago. Prior to that I had been turned down by more than one person who I wanted to buy a firearm from because I didn't have one.

Now there was no law requiring one yet these folks decided it was the "right" thing to do to ensure they were being "safe"

Now that's fine. I had one deal where I really wanted to buy the guys several thousand dollar rifle and was quite irritated he would not even talk to me about it because I did not have a card, but that's my problem not his. A guy can choose any reason why he does not want to deal with someone else. If he only wants to sell it to a guy with green eyes and black hair and wears fake eyelashes its his prerogative.

The thing that I do have an issue with is often these same guys who would not engage in a completely legal transaction because they they were under some delusion that they were at risk of prosecution from selling to the wrong guy would tell you that they fully supported and believed in the the 2nd Amendment

Now.... Its a pretty short bit, the relative part being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you really believe in the second explain to me how is right to deny a sale to a person simply because they do not have the endorsement of the state? The state forces you to apply for a right granted to you in the constitution, which in my mind is unconstitutional to begin with and now you are going to tell me that You believe in the 2nd yet take it upon yourself to decide that only those blessed by the state are "safe" to have your firearm even though 95% of the population of legal firearms owners don't have a carry card? Don't feed me that BS, You have clearly shown you think only certain folks, blessed and approved by the state are worthy of the privilege (not right) of owning a gun.

Anyway.... I finally buckled and got a card, and of course just months later I594 passed rendering the point moot.

I can tell you from my point of view, prior to SB941 here in Oregon, I would expect, at a minimum, a state issued ID - usually a DL - why? Because, like it or not, it's a felony for me to sell a handgun to someone from another state - and I'm not risking my freedom, my job, my family, for someone else to own a gun. It is a reasonable step I could take to prove that I at least tried to verify they were a resident of my home state.

As for selling handguns in my home state, I would ask for a CHL. Why? Because the law in Oregon, again, like it or not stated that I had to have no reason to believe that I was selling to a prohibited person. And how am I supposed to know that if I don't already know the person I'm selling to? Are you willing to again, risk your freedom, your job and family over someone else's right to bear arms? I was not willing to take that risk. I also don't want to live with the burden of knowing I armed someone that then went on to harm someone else with that gun. A CHL gives me at least some level of verification that the person is likely not a criminal or mentally unstable - not complete assurance, but at least a reasonable level of assurance.

I think most folks would agree that there are some people that simply should not own guns - they are a danger to themselves or others. Aside from asking for some kind of state issued ID, or going through a background check, I don't know how I can be at least somewhat reasonably assured that I'm not arming prohibited person. I don't think the 2nd ever intended that criminals and the mentally unstable should be allowed arms.

 

[IronMonster]

I can tell you from my point of view, prior to SB941 here in Oregon, I would expect, at a minimum, a state issued ID - usually a DL - why? Because, like it or not, it's a felony for me to sell a handgun to someone from another state - and I'm not risking my freedom, my job, my family, for someone else to own a gun. It is a reasonable step I could take to prove that I at least tried to verify they were a resident of my home state.

As for selling handguns in my home state, I would ask for a CHL. Why? Because the law in Oregon, again, like it or not stated that I had to have no reason to believe that I was selling to a prohibited person. And how am I supposed to know that if I don't already know the person I'm selling to? Are you willing to again, risk your freedom, your job and family over someone else's right to bear arms? I was not willing to take that risk. I also don't want to live with the burden of knowing I armed someone that then went on to harm someone else with that gun. A CHL gives me at least some level of verification that the person is likely not a criminal or mentally unstable - not complete assurance, but at least a reasonable level of assurance.

I think most folks would agree that there are some people that simply should not own guns - they are a danger to themselves or others. Aside from asking for some kind of state issued ID, or going through a background check, I don't know how I can be at least somewhat reasonably assured that I'm not arming prohibited person. I don't think the 2nd ever intended that criminals and the mentally unstable should be allowed arms.

What it comes down to is you are saying there is no right to bear arms, That someone should get to decide who should have the privilege of doing so, and making it clear its a privilege and not a right. In this case that person is you, You were under no legal obligation to check ID and could not be prosecuted for not doing so. Again, something you decided to do to under the deluded compulsion to do the anti's work for them. You are doing this because you are scared of what someone else might or has done.

You justify it as being "safe" but in reality you are just bowing to the fear and pressure of the anti crowd. There was a time in this country when firearms were not things to be feared. Where anyone could walk into a store and buy one for any reason. That people were not terrified of them as objects. You are not responsible for what someone chooses to do with an inanimate object. Do you think you need to check someone's driving record before selling them a car to make sure they don't have a string of DUI's? Do you need to make sure a guy has never beat his wife before you sell him a baseball bat? Why not? How is it different ? Its only different in the eyes of society because of the fear mongering of anti gunners who will stop at nothing to demonize guns and gun owners.

Guns are not dangerous, people are. A state issued card is no indication of a person's worth or stability.

Now I am not saying everyone should have a gun, but once you start limiting who can it becomes a pretty slippery slope with the restrictions creeping until all of a sudden only some elite group is entitled to the privilege

In my mind you have been fooled into thinking its your job to protect the world from bad people. That you are somehow culpable for the evil someone else could potentially do with an inanimate object I call BS.

 

[Koda]

I will tell you a little story, I just got my CPL a few years ago. Prior to that I had been turned down by more than one person who I wanted to buy a firearm from because I didn't have one.

Now there was no law requiring one yet these folks decided it was the "right" thing to do to ensure they were being "safe"

Now that's fine. I had one deal where I really wanted to buy the guys several thousand dollar rifle and was quite irritated he would not even talk to me about it because I did not have a card, but that's my problem not his. A guy can choose any reason why he does not want to deal with someone else. If he only wants to sell it to a guy with green eyes and black hair and wears fake eyelashes its his prerogative.

The thing that I do have an issue with is often these same guys who would not engage in a completely legal transaction because they they were under some delusion that they were at risk of prosecution from selling to the wrong guy would tell you that they fully supported and believed in the the 2nd Amendment

Now.... Its a pretty short bit, the relative part being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you really believe in the second explain to me how is right to deny a sale to a person simply because they do not have the endorsement of the state? The state forces you to apply for a right granted to you in the constitution, which in my mind is unconstitutional to begin with and now you are going to tell me that You believe in the 2nd yet take it upon yourself to decide that only those blessed by the state are "safe" to have your firearm even though 95% of the population of legal firearms owners don't have a carry card? Don't feed me that BS, You have clearly shown you think only certain folks, blessed and approved by the state are worthy of the privilege (not right) of owning a gun.

Anyway.... I finally buckled and got a card, and of course just months later I594 passed rendering the point moot.

well, you do realise I594 was created under the pretence that gun owners were not doing background checks on private sales...

I don't have a problem with background checks.... I have a problem with registration, which is what I594 is. Asking someone for a CHL to sell privately is not a registration process and is in no way limiting anyone from their RTKBA because anyone can acquire one. I think a 2A supporter is doing the right thing by taking some measure to assure the person is not prohibited, the CHL was the easiest way without registering the gun.

of course I agree all that is moot now that I594 passed.

 

[NWCustomFirearms]

I cant comment on any sales, Since I don't sell guns. What I can comment on is the number of private background checks reported in Washington in the last year less than 3000 private sales through NCIC

<broken link removed>

I'm with you, I cannot comment on the amount of private sales but I can comment on the amount of private transfers that have come through my shop. After the law went into effect it was several months before I saw my first 594 inspired transfer and I bet we did less then 10 private transfers during the first year which is less then half of 1% of our transfers during that time. I highly doubt that no guns were privately sold in that time frame. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the law I still have to follow it so when people ask me what to do I tell them to follow the law and paying for a transfer is cheap insurance. Yes it is an inconvenience and tramples on private commerce laws and will do absolutely nothing to curb violence, but as a dealer I still have to advise others to follow. Plus you do not want to be the hobby of some DA trying to make a name for himself. The frequency of the private transfer is getting more and more but we still do about 15 to 1 transfers vs private transfers. Waste of time and money if you ask me.