Oregon SB 978 Place Holder Anti-Gun Bill

[arakboss]

Rep jeff Baker D emailed me back & he's a no, supposedly. I haven't seen any mention of him but then again I've not been looking.

Keep those letters coming hot and heavy for Sen. Roblan and Sen. Beyer.
[email protected]
[email protected]

Before you write Sen. Beyer consider reading up on him and find something you can thank him for, then ask him to vote no on SB 978-5 for whatever awful reasons you care to mention. He may be leaning no. This is supposedly his last tour and will not be running again for his seat.

 

[NW Backpacker]

We're coming into the Legislative home stretch, only about 8 weeks of so left in this session, let's continue to apply pressure as much as possible.

My focus has been Peter Courtney, he has the ability to keel this legislation off the senate floor, that's exactly what I've been asking him to do. There's simply too many flaws in this bill that came out of committee along party lines and is opposed 5 to 1 by the people. We must adhere to what the People Want!!!!

I'd prefer that we adhere to the 2A of the US Constitution - ....shall not be infringed.

Has anyone made the argument to the D Senators, or to the Governor, that this bill was pushed essentially in secret and without transparency until it was too late to do much about it? The Governor has said she wants transparency in government but that is probably only the case when it helps her cause, not ours.

One bright spot is that if most pre-1968 firearms are declared illegal because of this law, enough voters would likely be so angry that Rs would have a good chance of taking back some power in the next election - Kate did not win by a huge margin.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Mentioned the national vote in that FB post. I hope Trump wins the popular vote and Oregon and all the other blue states are forced to give their votes to him!!!!!

 

[arakboss]

View attachment 570804


Mentioned the national vote in that FB post. I hope Trump wins the popular vote and Oregon and all the other blue states are forced to give their votes to him!!!!!

Unfortunately that popular vote movement will allow a handful of population center states to decide the POTUS for the rest of the country forever. From some reason population center states usually like to give up their liberty and they enjoy seeing that liberty taken from others as well. The founders understood this but their destined to be ignored.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Unfortunately that popular vote movement will allow a handful of population center states to decide the POTUS for the rest of the country forever. From some reason population center states usually like to give up their liberty and they enjoy seeing that liberty taken from others as well. The founders understood this but their destined to be ignored.

Forever will be short duration for American blue cities if they are forced to give their votes to him. They will riot and burn blue cities to the ground.

 

[arakboss]

Just fired off this one to GM of Klamath Herald and News:

Good morning Gerry,

I wanted to alert you to a controversy brewing in Salem regarding SB 978-5. It turns out Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) of the bill will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 US made firearms, nearly all firearm imported prior to 1968 and any home built firearms that did not use a receiver or frame that was serialized in accordance with the federal regulations listed in SB 978-5. I can't identify the name of the assistant or Democrat Senator who confirmed this information for me but they ran this issue through the Legislative Office and they sent this back to the Senator:

As it is right now – if the bill[sic] wouldn't qualify as an antique firearm then there is no grand fathering process for otherwise non-conforming firearms. I will bring this up to the Chair and see if its something he thinks there needs to be an amendment for and what that would look like. The difficulty, as I'm sure you can imagine, is figuring out what the "cut off" is for having these firearms – but the simple answer for your constituent is that there is not currently a provision that would allow him to continue to possess that firearm lawfully.

I can't tell you if this was the original intention of the bills language or not but it will be the result. Washington State just passed a similar law (HSB1739) banning untraceable firearms but they were smart and included a grandfather clause that deems all untraceable firearms legal if they were manufactured before July 1, 2019.
It looks like some Democrat Senators are going to vote no on this bill, whether there will be enough to derail the bill or not is still up in the air. I would appreciate it if you would pass this off to one of your reporters to look for a story here. I will contact Sen. Linthicum's office and fill his office staff in on this situation tomorrow. You might reach out to him or Sen. Thatcher's office for more details on current status of bill.

Below is detailed information on why SB 978-5 will criminalize these older firearms.


Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written. Washington State has a similar law in the works (SHB1739) but it grandfathers in all untraceable firearms manufactured before July 1, 2019.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.
I want to emphasize that even if a firearm has a serial number, if it was manufactured prior to 1968, that serial number doesn't meet the SB 978-5 requirements. A lot of people are assuming any old serial # from the manufacture will exempt their firearms. Serial numbers prior to 1968 were not done in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R 478.92 because these regulations did not exist. As the ATF fully admits, pre-1968 firearms are not traceable.

"Can a firearm trace always identify the first retail purchaser?
No. Many factors can make the trace of a firearm impossible. The most
common among these is the incomplete or inaccurate description of the
firearm (see Chapter 3 for more information). Other prohibiting factors
include obliterated markings; damage or loss of firearms transaction
records; a manufacturing date prior to 1968; and, trace requests for
firearms that were not manufactured in, or lawfully imported into, the
United States."

Same goes for imported firearms, which may have a serial number from the foreign factory but that won't exempt them from SB 978-5 prohibition. Firearms imported before 1968 are going to suffer the same fate. If your imported firearm doesn't have a importer issued serial number and importer identification markings engraved on the firearm, it will be prohibited from possession under SB 978-5 law.

There are a few antique exemptions but it will only impact a tiny fraction of the pre-1968 firearms that will be prohibited.

Home built firearms, including those built off 80% receivers/frames, that were not serialized by a licensed manufacture in accordance with the federal regulations will also be prohibited from possession. Engraving your own serial number at home will not exempt your firearm from this law.



One more important point regarding the untraceable firearms law laid out in Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2), is that there are no exemptions for FFLs. In the Sections related to unfinished receivers/frames, there are some FFL exemptions but not for untraceable firearm possession. If it passes, FFLs will have a lot of inventory purging to do or risk felony charges and losing their FFL.

Here are the two Sections I've discussed here:

"(b) 'Untraceable firearm' means a firearm other than an antique
firearm for which the sale or distribution chain, from a licensed
retailer to the point of first retail sale, cannot be traced by a law
enforcement agency by means of a serial number affixed to the
firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) and all regulations issued under the authority
of 18 U.S.C. 923(i), including but not limited to 27 C.F.R. 478.92.


"(2) A person who knowingly possesses, manufactures, assembles,
causes to be manufactured or assembled, imports into this state, offers
for sale, sells or transfers an untraceable firearm commits a Class B
felony.

I will leave you with this thought. I have seen estimates that there are 3 million plus firearms owned by Oregonians. Hundreds of thousands of these firearms will be illegal to possess if SB 978-5 passes. Owners will in many cases unknowingly be committing a Class B Felony simply for continuing to possess a family firearm they have owned for decades and possibly passed down through generations.

 

[arakboss]

In SB 978-5 Section 26 (9) (b) & (d) the word "adjacent" is used to describe grounds that included in the definition of a public building in which licensed concealed carry could be prohibited under SB 978-5. I was wondering what the legal definition of adjacent was and this is what I found:
Lying near or close to; contiguous. The difference between adjacent and adjoining seems to be that the former implies that the two objects are not widely separated, though they may not actually touch, while adjoining imports that they are so joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes.
What this means to me is: If a empty patch of land across the street from a public building was owned by the entity that owned the public building it could be included in the prohibition of permitted concealed carry for that building, I guess it depends on what they consider widely separated?
What about sidewalks in front of public buildings: Usually the property line goes to the street edge, and the sidewalk is an easement over the property.

 

[Dozer99]

This is a copy of a letter I have been sending to the Senators:

Dear Senator ##########

The reason I am contacting you is there might be an unintended consequence of SB 978-5 if passed. Most of the VFW and American Legion post's throughout the state have in their armories Pre-1968 rifles such as the 1903 Springfield. Because these rifles are bolt action, they are still fully functional and can fire live ammo (we don't but could) however we use blanks for our honor guard functions.

If SB 978-5 passes there is as you know a section that would make it a Felony to posses a pre-1968 rifle-

Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.


I am not sure how many other Veterans groups have thought about this nor do I know if the legislature has taken this into account. Since our rifles were issued to us on a temp/forever loan by the U.S. Army and are still U.S. Government property it might cause some conflict were this bill to pass and the rifles to be confiscated by the state! Not to mention the first time one a Veteran marches down the street in a parade with one, that Veteran would be committing a Felony in full view of the public.

Our Veterans would also no longer be afforded a true Military funeral, where a 21 gun salute is our Nations final farewell to an honored Son or Daughter. To intentionally take this away from the Families of our brave Veterans is unconscionable.

In closing, I ask for your help in stopping this Unconstitutional bill that discriminates against our Nations Veterans,

Respectfully,

My Name
Commander VFW Post ****

 

[arakboss]

This is a copy of a letter I have been sending to the Senators:

Dear Senator ##########

The reason I am contacting you is there might be an unintended consequence of SB 978-5 if passed. Most of the VFW and American Legion post's throughout the state have in their armories Pre-1968 rifles such as the 1903 Springfield. Because these rifles are bolt action, they are still fully functional and can fire live ammo (we don't but could) however we use blanks for our honor guard functions.

If SB 978-5 passes there is as you know a section that would make it a Felony to posses a pre-1968 rifle-

Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.


I am not sure how many other Veterans groups have thought about this nor do I know if the legislature has taken this into account. Since our rifles were issued to us on a temp/forever loan by the U.S. Army and are still U.S. Government property it might cause some conflict were this bill to pass and the rifles to be confiscated by the state! Not to mention the first time one a Veteran marches down the street in a parade with one, that Veteran would be committing a Felony in full view of the public.

Our Veterans would also no longer be afforded a true Military funeral, where a 21 gun salute is our Nations final farewell to an honored Son or Daughter. To intentionally take this away from the Families of our brave Veterans is unconscionable.

In closing, I ask for your help in stopping this Unconstitutional bill that discriminates against our Nations Veterans,

Respectfully,

My Name
Commander VFW Post ****

Excellent, that should get some attention. Great job!

 

[arakboss]

This is a copy of a letter I have been sending to the Senators:

Dear Senator ##########

The reason I am contacting you is there might be an unintended consequence of SB 978-5 if passed. Most of the VFW and American Legion post's throughout the state have in their armories Pre-1968 rifles such as the 1903 Springfield. Because these rifles are bolt action, they are still fully functional and can fire live ammo (we don't but could) however we use blanks for our honor guard functions.

If SB 978-5 passes there is as you know a section that would make it a Felony to posses a pre-1968 rifle-

Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.


I am not sure how many other Veterans groups have thought about this nor do I know if the legislature has taken this into account. Since our rifles were issued to us on a temp/forever loan by the U.S. Army and are still U.S. Government property it might cause some conflict were this bill to pass and the rifles to be confiscated by the state! Not to mention the first time one a Veteran marches down the street in a parade with one, that Veteran would be committing a Felony in full view of the public.

Our Veterans would also no longer be afforded a true Military funeral, where a 21 gun salute is our Nations final farewell to an honored Son or Daughter. To intentionally take this away from the Families of our brave Veterans is unconscionable.

In closing, I ask for your help in stopping this Unconstitutional bill that discriminates against our Nations Veterans,

Respectfully,

My Name
Commander VFW Post ****

Did you send this to Sen. Beyer and Sen. Roblan?

 

[Dozer99]

Yes I did. Who else should I send it too?

 

[Dozer99]

Just got this email from a staffer from Sen Roblan,

Thank you so much. Sen. Roblan supports your position and is working with his colleagues in articulating his concerns

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Excellent, that should get some attention. Great job!

Is this actually a letter or is an email? Would a signed letter on nice stationary and VFW letterhead (I'm imagining something very official looking with a US flag, etc.) make a bigger impact?

 

[Dozer99]

This is an email I have sent to about a half dozen of the D's in the senate so far.

I am writing this on behalf of myself (i'm the one that signed for the 1903's in my post) because I can not represent the VFW as a whole. I will however be the one whom is arrested for possession of "untraceable firearms" if this passes into law.

edit: you know what, let me think about sending this in as a letter. What's the worst they can do to me, throw me out of the VFW for defending freedom again!

 

[arakboss]

Yes I did. Who else should I send it too?

Sen. Courtney for sure: [email protected]

 

[arakboss]

This is a copy of a letter I have been sending to the Senators:

Dear Senator ##########

The reason I am contacting you is there might be an unintended consequence of SB 978-5 if passed. Most of the VFW and American Legion post's throughout the state have in their armories Pre-1968 rifles such as the 1903 Springfield. Because these rifles are bolt action, they are still fully functional and can fire live ammo (we don't but could) however we use blanks for our honor guard functions.

If SB 978-5 passes there is as you know a section that would make it a Felony to posses a pre-1968 rifle-

Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.


I am not sure how many other Veterans groups have thought about this nor do I know if the legislature has taken this into account. Since our rifles were issued to us on a temp/forever loan by the U.S. Army and are still U.S. Government property it might cause some conflict were this bill to pass and the rifles to be confiscated by the state! Not to mention the first time one a Veteran marches down the street in a parade with one, that Veteran would be committing a Felony in full view of the public.

Our Veterans would also no longer be afforded a true Military funeral, where a 21 gun salute is our Nations final farewell to an honored Son or Daughter. To intentionally take this away from the Families of our brave Veterans is unconscionable.

In closing, I ask for your help in stopping this Unconstitutional bill that discriminates against our Nations Veterans,

Respectfully,

My Name
Commander VFW Post ****

I would email the Oregon Coast Military Museum and explain your situation with the VFW weapons and ask them to support Sen Roblan in voting no on SB 978-5. Sen. Roblan was sponsoring the ffl transfer exemption for museum's (SB 697) but they stuffed it in to the SB 978-5 bill (Section 29) probably hoping to gain a yes vote from Sen. Roblan. The OCMM is in Sen. Roblan's district and I am pretty sure they asked him to sponsor the ffl transfer exemption for them.

I already sent them a letter but it wouldn't hurt for them to hear from others. Here is their email address: [email protected]

 

[Dozer99]

Just got this back from a staffer of Sen Beyer,

Hello "Dozer99", (no I didn't use my screen name!)


Thank you for contacting Senator Beyer to express your concerns about the potential impact of SB 978 on older firearms that do not have serial numbers. We have heard from several other groups and individuals about this issue and I believe that this will be included in the further amendments to the bill to be considered in the Senate Rules Committee. While Senator Beyer does not serve on the Rules Committee he is following this bill closely and will keep your concerns in mind should the bill come to the floor for a vote.


Thank you,

 

[arakboss]

Just got this back from a staffer of Sen Beyer,

Hello "Dozer99", (no I didn't use my screen name!)


Thank you for contacting Senator Beyer to express your concerns about the potential impact of SB 978 on older firearms that do not have serial numbers. We have heard from several other groups and individuals about this issue and I believe that this will be included in the further amendments to the bill to be considered in the Senate Rules Committee. While Senator Beyer does not serve on the Rules Committee he is following this bill closely and will keep your concerns in mind should the bill come to the floor for a vote.


Thank you,

I was afraid that would happen.
This is a good opportunity to hit him with details. Can you reply back and set him/her straight that it's all pre-1968 firearms not just ones without serial numbers. You can copy and paste some or all of this info:

Below is a lengthy description of the reasons why SB 978-5 will criminalize hundreds of thousands of currently lawfully owned firearms in Oregon:

In case this aspect of SB 978-5 has not been brought to your attention yet, please be advised of the following. Section 17 (1) (b) & Section 17 (2) will criminalize possession of nearly all pre-1968 firearms manufactured in US, nearly all firearms imported in to US prior to 1968 and nearly all home built firearms made with unserialized receivers or frames regardless of date. SB 978-5 does not offer any grandfathering clause for these groups of firearms. That will result in hundreds of thousands of currently owned firearms becoming illegal with passage of the bill as currently written. Washington State has a similar law in the works (SHB1739) but it grandfathers in all untraceable firearms manufactured before July 1, 2019.

SB 978-5 requires that nearly all firearms in Oregon have a serial number that was done by the licensed manufacture of the firearm in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R regulations. Although many older firearms have serial numbers, many won't be legal under SB 978-5 law. Pre-1968 U.S. made and imported firearms will not have serial numbers done in accordance with the federal regulations.
I want to emphasize that even if a firearm has a serial number, if it was manufactured prior to 1968, that serial number doesn't meet the SB 978-5 requirements. A lot of people are assuming any old serial # from the manufacture will exempt their firearms. Serial numbers prior to 1968 were not done in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) & 27 C.F.R 478.92 because these regulations did not exist. As the ATF fully admits, pre-1968 firearms are not traceable.

"Can a firearm trace always identify the first retail purchaser?
No. Many factors can make the trace of a firearm impossible. The most
common among these is the incomplete or inaccurate description of the
firearm (see Chapter 3 for more information). Other prohibiting factors
include obliterated markings; damage or loss of firearms transaction
records; a manufacturing date prior to 1968; and, trace requests for
firearms that were not manufactured in, or lawfully imported into, the
United States."

Same goes for a pre-1968 imported firearm, which may have a serial number from the foreign factory where it was manufactured but that won't exempt it from SB 978-5 prohibition. If your imported firearm doesn't have a importer issued serial number and importer identification markings engraved on the firearm, it will be prohibited from possession under SB 978-5 law.

There are a few antique exemptions but it will only impact a tiny fraction of the pre-1968 firearms that will be prohibited.

Home built firearms, including those built off 80% receivers/frames, that were not serialized by a licensed manufacture in accordance with the federal regulations will also be prohibited from possession. Engraving your own serial number at home will not exempt your firearm from this law.


One more important point regarding the untraceable firearms law laid out in Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2), is that there are no exemptions for FFLs. In the Sections related to unfinished receivers/frames, there are some FFL exemptions but not for untraceable firearm possession. If it passes, FFLs will have a lot of inventory purging to do or risk felony charges and losing their FFL.

Here are the two Sections I've discussed here:

"(b) 'Untraceable firearm' means a firearm other than an antique
firearm for which the sale or distribution chain, from a licensed
retailer to the point of first retail sale, cannot be traced by a law
enforcement agency by means of a serial number affixed to the
firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. 923(i) and all regulations issued under the authority
of 18 U.S.C. 923(i), including but not limited to 27 C.F.R. 478.92.


"(2) A person who knowingly possesses, manufactures, assembles,
causes to be manufactured or assembled, imports into this state, offers
for sale, sells or transfers an untraceable firearm commits a Class B
felony.

Hundreds of thousands of these firearms will be illegal to possess if SB 978-5 passes. Owners will in many cases unknowingly be committing a Class B Felony simply for continuing to possess a family firearm they have owned for decades and possibly passed down through generations

 

[arakboss]

Just got this back from a staffer of Sen Beyer,

Hello "Dozer99", (no I didn't use my screen name!)




Thank you for contacting Senator Beyer to express your concerns about the potential impact of SB 978 on older firearms that do not have serial numbers. We have heard from several other groups and individuals about this issue and I believe that this will be included in the further amendments to the bill to be considered in the Senate Rules Committee. While Senator Beyer does not serve on the Rules Committee he is following this bill closely and will keep your concerns in mind should the bill come to the floor for a vote.


Thank you,

You could reply back and tell him the VFW rifles have serial numbers but the serial numbers don't comply with fed regs laid out in SB 978-5.

 

[arakboss]

Just got this back from a staffer of Sen Beyer,

Hello "Dozer99", (no I didn't use my screen name!)


Thank you for contacting Senator Beyer to express your concerns about the potential impact of SB 978 on older firearms that do not have serial numbers. We have heard from several other groups and individuals about this issue and I believe that this will be included in the further amendments to the bill to be considered in the Senate Rules Committee. While Senator Beyer does not serve on the Rules Committee he is following this bill closely and will keep your concerns in mind should the bill come to the floor for a vote.


Thank you,

Can I borrow this reply from Sen. Beyer's office and send it out to a few others?