SB941 Question

2Wheels4Ever · Nov 20, 2015

I just read the law, and I could not find any aspects regarding to my hypothetical situation.

Let us say that I bought a gun legally, and then legally sold it to my cousin without a background check. (All good under SB941).

Let us then say my cousin illegally sells the gun to another person without a background check and the gun is used in a crime.

1. Is it my responsibility to show documentation (bill of sale) to police if that gun was used in a crime and then comes back to me?
2. Am I liable?
3. What if I forgot which cousin I sold it to?

IheartSig · Nov 20, 2015

I look at SB941 like a @#$%ed up game of Hot Potato..... You need to make sure you aren't left holding the potato. If the gun comes back to you, and there is no paper trail leading it away from you, guess what?

You get to hold the Hot Potato.

Deebow · Nov 20, 2015

Though I am no lawyer, my guess to all of the above is NO.

You sold it legally; what happens after that is not your problem. Selling a car to your brother, who then sells it to someone for a baggie of meth and then they run over a little old lady doesn't make you liable.

And as I have said in at least 6 other places here at NWFA, the cops aren't looking to hem someone up a small misdemeanor charge three transactions ago (with however much time passing) when they can get a big juicy attempted murder/murder/felonious assault case instead on the guy who actually used the gun in a crime

Prosecutors like those cases too. Helps them at election time to be "tough on crime."

nammac · Nov 20, 2015

"Hot Potato" - that's actually a great description of liberals attempts at gun control...

To answer the question, one should always keep detailed records and receipts if all firearms transactions. Never know when it might come back on you...

dobeman · Nov 20, 2015

how close are you to that cousin? will he throw you under the bus? "I didn't sell that gun, my cousin did (you)"... and then you sold it before SB941 and you don't know where it went after that.

etrain16 · Nov 20, 2015

All this just shows what an ill-thought-out mess SB941 really is. It shows that they had no clue what they were doing when they wrote it, including all the possible implications and how the heck they would ever enforce it. Realistically at this point, only guns bought, through the system, post 941, can ever be a consideration. Otherwise, it's all he said she said. The burden of proof is on them, not that they won't try.

Member 5605 · Nov 20, 2015

Once you legally sell it...

It's not your problem.

Case in point:
Yesterday a buddy calls me. Vancouver PD discovered a firearm that was originally purchased by him 3 years ago on a felon in Washington. They asked if it had been stolen. His response: no I sold it 3 years ago.

End of story. It was sold within the scope of the law.

If I "sold" a firearm to a relative, there would be no checks. I would hope that their diligence on any new potential buyers would as mine were. There is no required record keeping on sales that are exempted via 941....

Wait.. What's 941 again?

David Bowman · Nov 20, 2015

Dyjital said:
Once you legally sell it...

It's not your problem.

Case in point:
Yesterday a buddy calls me. Vancouver PD discovered a firearm that was originally purchased by him 3 years ago on a felon in Washington. They asked if it had been stolen. His response: no I sold it 3 years ago.

End of story. It was sold within the scope of the law.

If I "sold" a firearm to a relative, there would be no checks. I would hope that their diligence on any new potential buyers would as mine were. There is no required record keeping on sales that are exempted via 941....

Wait.. What's 941 again?

That is exactly what some of us have been saying on this forum for awhile.

The Heretic · Nov 20, 2015

It "isn't your problem" if you can prove it isn't your problem.

You never know when you will get some hotshot DA who wants to make political points who will try to charge you with something even if you did sell it legally and they know you sold it legally. You need to protect yourself from today's anti-gun politics and you do that with a paper trail.

dude23 · Nov 23, 2015

Deebow said:
Though I am no lawyer, my guess to all of the above is NO.

You sold it legally; what happens after that is not your problem. Selling a car to your brother, who then sells it to someone for a baggie of meth and then they run over a little old lady doesn't make you liable.

And as I have said in at least 6 other places here at NWFA, the cops aren't looking to hem someone up a small misdemeanor charge three transactions ago (with however much time passing) when they can get a big juicy attempted murder/murder/felonious assault case instead on the guy who actually used the gun in a crime

Prosecutors like those cases too. Helps them at election time to be "tough on crime."

Yeah, but it's a gun, not a car. If they decide they don't like you or don't like guns they'll arrest you and hope you can't afford a lawyer and take a plea deal. This is especially true if the gun was used in a crime against anti's who start screaming "why did this person have a gun!" And usually one of the local politicians will take up the issue like a crusade in order to use the media attention as a springboard for their career.

RB87 · Nov 24, 2015

Deebow said:
And as I have said in at least 6 other places here at NWFA, the cops aren't looking to hem someone up a small misdemeanor charge three transactions ago (with however much time passing) when they can get a big juicy attempted murder/murder/felonious assault case instead on the guy who actually used the gun in a crime

Prosecutors like those cases too. Helps them at election time to be "tough on crime."

Thing is, you're rolling the dice here assuming you don't get an overzealous DA/cops. That is ultimately the point of the 941 law, to get people fearing the law/police so they comply and put everything on the government databases.

Ten or so years ago I was on a grand jury and a DA put in a charge of "inciting a riot" against a defendant also up on assault charges. The testimony of one of the responding officers was just "lots of people were around the two fighting and we were worried for our safety". None of us on the jury bought the charge and no-billed it while approving of the assault charge. The DA whose case it was a few days later was working the jury room and mentioned to some of us that she had heard we denied one of her charges. "We do listen to you guys and take things into consideration". It was a very passive aggressive version of "you jerks took away my plea bargaining chip".

Having faith in the current legal system or your fellow Americans/Oregonians that work in it is foolish. I have more faith in the corner preacher talking about the end times.

bolus · Nov 24, 2015

RB87 said:
Thing is, you're rolling the dice here assuming you don't get an overzealous DA/cops. That is ultimately the point of the 941 law, to get people fearing the law/police so they comply and put everything on the government databases.

Ten or so years ago I was on a grand jury and a DA put in a charge of "inciting a riot" against a defendant also up on assault charges. The testimony of one of the responding officers was just "lots of people were around the two fighting and we were worried for our safety". None of us on the jury bought the charge and no-billed it while approving of the assault charge. The DA whose case it was a few days later was working the jury room and mentioned to some of us that she had heard we denied one of her charges. "We do listen to you guys and take things into consideration". It was a very passive aggressive version of "you jerks took away my plea bargaining chip".

Having faith in the current legal system or your fellow Americans/Oregonians that work in it is foolish. I have more faith in the corner preacher talking about the end times.

Jury nullification.
Just call me to jury duty Oregon. I dare you.

etrain16 · Nov 24, 2015

bolus said:
Jury nullification.
Just call me to jury duty Oregon. I dare you.

I've been summoned to jury duty 4 separate times now - the first two times were to serve terms of 1 month (before Clackamas County went to a single day call). To date, I have never actually served on a jury, nor even been questioned for one. Every time I end up getting dismissed because they settled or just didn't have any cases. I keep wondering if the day will come that I'll get to share my thoughts with the court

bolus · Nov 24, 2015

etrain16 said:
I've been summoned to jury duty 4 separate times now - the first two times were to serve terms of 1 month (before Clackamas County went to a single day call). To date, I have never actually served on a jury, nor even been questioned for one. Every time I end up getting dismissed because they settled or just didn't have any cases. I keep wondering if the day will come that I'll get to share my thoughts with the court

I get dismissed because Im a physician. I get thrown off every time. I think the lawyers see me as someone who would influence the rest of the jury or think logically. Who knows.

wired · Nov 25, 2015

I once told the interviewing attorney that I believed in Jury Nullification and I really dont like the police in any way , shape or form. Made it to jury foreman that time. The guy walked like every other person tried by every other jury Ive ever been on.