Selling guns in Oregon after M114

[levi333]

I apologize if this is well known, searching several ways didn't bring anything up.

Assuming 114 goes into effect as written, will a non FFL seller need to have a permit to sell a personal gun? I know an FFL is required for the transaction.

I heard the seller and buyer would both need the permit, but I haven't seen it written specifically.


Thank you

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

I apologize if this is well known, searching several ways didn't bring anything up.

Assuming 114 goes into effect as written, will a non FFL seller need to have a permit to sell a personal gun? I know an FFL is required for the transaction.

I heard the seller and buyer would both need the permit, but I haven't seen it written specifically.


Thank you

FAR from any kind of expert but my best guess no. To do the sale legally the transfer takes place with an FFL. So the FFL will make sure the buyer has the correct items. I have heard nothing that the law is forcing gun owners who already have guns to get a permit to just have them. If you have something you wish to sell the one to ask of course would be an FFL who does transfers.

 

[solv3nt]

Permit to purchase, but if the buyer fails the BGC you'll need a permit to get your gun back.

 

[Camelfilter]

Permit to purchase, but if the buyer fails the BGC you'll need a permit to get your gun back.

Yup.

Then there is the possibility of seeing something you'd really like while at the FFL...

 

[GrayGoose]

That would be a personal choice.

 

[arakboss]

I apologize if this is well known, searching several ways didn't bring anything up.

Assuming 114 goes into effect as written, will a non FFL seller need to have a permit to sell a personal gun? I know an FFL is required for the transaction.

I heard the seller and buyer would both need the permit, but I haven't seen it written specifically.


Thank you

Not yet but maybe Rev Nutters will come out with Permit To Sell IP next year.

 

[PiratePast40]

Permit to purchase, but if the buyer fails the BGC you'll need a permit to get your gun back.

Section 9 of BM114 leads me to believe you can do a private transfer yourself if at gun show. If that's the case, you could keep the gun until you get approval. However, subsection (6) adds some confusion and I really don't have a clue what it means. Sounds like it means you can do the private transfer at a gun show unless you knew it was a gun show?

REQUIRES PERMITS FOR ALL TRANSFERS AT GUN SHOWS (2015 Amendment) SECTION 9. ORS 166.438 is amended to read:
(1) A transferor who is not a gun dealer may not transfer a firearm at a gun show unless the transferor: (a)(A) Verifies with the department that the recipient has a valid permit-to-purchase issued under section 4 of this 2022 Act; ([A]B) Requests a criminal background check under ORS 166.436 prior to completing the transfer; (C) Receives a unique approval number from the department indicating that the recipient is qualified to complete the transfer; and ([C]D) Has the recipient complete the form described in ORS 166.441; or (b) Completes the transfer through a gun dealer.
(2) The transferor shall retain the completed form referred to in subsection (1) of this section for at least five years and shall make the completed form available to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of criminal investigations.
(3) A person who organizes a gun show shall post in a prominent place at the gun show a notice explaining the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section. The person shall provide the form required by subsection (1) of this section to any person transferring a firearm at the gun show.

PAGE - 10 New sections are in boldfaced type. Matter in amended sections in boldfaced type is new; matter [struck through and bracketed] is intended to be omitted.

(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if the transferee is licensed as a dealer under 18 U.S.C. 923.
(5)(a) Failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section is a Class C felony if the person has two or more previous convictions under this section at the time of the offense.
(6) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) or (3) of this section that the person did not know, or reasonably could not know, that more than 25 firearms were at the site and available for transfer.

 

[arakboss]

I apologize if this is well known, searching several ways didn't bring anything up.

Assuming 114 goes into effect as written, will a non FFL seller need to have a permit to sell a personal gun? I know an FFL is required for the transaction.

I heard the seller and buyer would both need the permit, but I haven't seen it written specifically.


Thank you

Another aspect of selling in a post m114 environment is that it will be an extreme buyers market. We are already in a buyers market as evidenced by all the firearms lingering in the classifieds. Once a permit is required there are going to be far fewer buyers competing for available firearms.

Combine that with the coming recession and it's a recipe for a market much more favorable to buyers.

If three day rule is spared through March we may see an uptick of buying when tax refunds show up. But once a permit is required sellers are going to struggle and buyers with permits will be heavily advantaged.

 

[Skully]

Another aspect of selling in a post m114 environment is that it will be an extreme buyers market. We are already in a buyers market as evidenced by all the firearms lingering in the classifieds. Once a permit is required there are going to be far fewer buyers competing for available firearms.

Combine that with the coming recession and it's a recipe for a market much more favorable to buyers.

If three day rule is spared through March we may see an uptick of buying when tax refunds show up. But once a permit is required sellers are going to struggle and buyers with permits will be heavily advantaged.

Most likely it would be best to sell out of state at that point. Because people won't want to sell a 2,000$ gun for 1k to the one guy interested who refuses to pay 2k. Tho long term I think it will end up like California much more expensive with less FFLs and guns available.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

its a personal choice to obey unconstitutional laws. just my take

 

[ocarolan]

Section 9 of BM114 leads me to believe you can do a private transfer yourself if at gun show. If that's the case, you could keep the gun until you get approval.

This is a really interesting point. Currently Oregon law allows non-dealers to conduct a BGC and fulfill SB941 (and M114). For historical reasons, this only applies at a gun show.

I think OSP even still provides a form for this:
https://www.oregon.gov/osp/Docs/Firearms_Transfer_Record_072016.pdf

Mentioned this back in 2015:
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/would-a-gun-shop-make-this-trade.207308/#post-1338863

Curious, has anyone attempted that with OSP recently? Suspect they'd balk and need a congress person to bend their arm, but it's worth trying.

*presumably anyone could fulfill the definition of gun show by offering 25+ guns for sale.

 

[Koda]

Permit to purchase, but if the buyer fails the BGC you'll need a permit to get your gun back.

only if you want the gun back, seems like the buyer is the one whos screwed.
but my question is why would you need a permit/+BGC to get your gun back if the buyers BGC fails then legally there was no transfer?

 

[solv3nt]

only if you want the gun back, seems like the buyer is the one whos screwed.
but my question is why would you need a permit/+BGC to get your gun back if the buyers BGC fails then legally there was no transfer?

It didn't seem to fall under an exception, so legally speaking, since it's on the FFL books, it wouldn't be yours.

 

[Koda]

It didn't seem to fall under an exception, so legally speaking, since it's on the FFL books, it wouldn't be yours.

Then sounds like the best thing to do is get paid befor the buyers BGC and leave....


Quite the risk for the buyer...

 

[Alexx1401]

only if you want the gun back, seems like the buyer is the one whos screwed.
but my question is why would you need a permit/+BGC to get your gun back if the buyers BGC fails then legally there was no transfer?

One of the FFL's would have to answer to be sure but, "Think" that if the gun is staying in the shop the FFL has to enter it into his book. So to hand it back would be another transfer. Unless there is a carveout in the law for Pawn I have to guess its going to be the same. Pawn a gun and need a permit to get it back. Last couple times I sold here the shop did not even offer to hold the gun. When buyer got delayed we were both sent home the gun going with me. Now that the 10 day wait is in for semi long guns not sure what they do here. All this to keep us all "safe" since the scum of course have to care about none of it

 

[TTSX]

Another aspect of selling in a post m114 environment is that it will be an extreme buyers market. We are already in a buyers market as evidenced by all the firearms lingering in the classifieds. Once a permit is required there are going to be far fewer buyers competing for available firearms.

Combine that with the coming recession and it's a recipe for a market much more favorable to buyers.

If three day rule is spared through March we may see an uptick of buying when tax refunds show up. But once a permit is required sellers are going to struggle and buyers with permits will be heavily advantaged.

I would think it'd be a seller's market as there won't be nearly as many FFLs still in business to choose from and many who already own guns may not be willing to let theoretically irreplaceable items go cheap

 

[Brownsalamander]

I have a hunch this will only encourage more under the table sales that are off the records.

 

[arakboss]

I would think it'd be a seller's market as there won't be nearly as many FFLs still in business to choose from and many who already own guns may not be willing to let theoretically irreplaceable items go cheap

That sounds plausible but I don't think very many FFLs will be going out of business. It will only take a few FFLs to support an area where there are few eligible buyers.

 

[arakboss]

One of the FFL's would have to answer to be sure but, "Think" that if the gun is staying in the shop the FFL has to enter it into his book. So to hand it back would be another transfer. Unless there is a carveout in the law for Pawn I have to guess its going to be the same. Pawn a gun and need a permit to get it back. Last couple times I sold here the shop did not even offer to hold the gun. When buyer got delayed we were both sent home the gun going with me. Now that the 10 day wait is in for semi long guns not sure what they do here. All this to keep us all "safe" since the scum of course have to care about none of it

There are no carve outs for pawn loans, a background check is required to pick up your firearm after a loan is paid off.

The only option for getting your firearm back without a BG check, from an FFL after an overnight or longer stay, is if it was entered in the gunsmith book instead of the A&D book. It would be smart for FFLs to maintain both books and offer up some really basic gun maintenance, testing or accessorizing service. These could be scheduled and completed on a schedule that the gunowner and FFL agreed too and may provide "storage" service along with the misc service.


Does a licensed gunsmith have to conduct a NICS background check before returning repaired or customized firearms?

No, if the firearm is being returned to the person from whom it was received. However, if the firearm is delivered to someone other than the person from whom it was received, a NICS background check is required.
[18 U.S.C. 922(t); 478.124(a)]

 

[GrayGoose]

I have a hunch this will only encourage more under the table sales that are off the records.

That is precisely what should happen.