nothing wrong with following the law at all.
In the mean time choosing to not abide by a law as a form of protest is an individual choice but it would be better to rally a public campaign against the law instead of taking on an individual risk of imprisonment.
Didn't a group try this in Washington, in Olympia?? Weren't they pretty much ignored?? Except for getting all forms of carry banned from the Capitol building??
Proof the new "law" will not prevent "srtraw purchases", as the seller knew the buyer was "prohibited" and sold anyway... just like he can now. So, to quote a very much despised political figure "what difference, at this point, does it make?" The law would not have stopped that sale then, it will not stop similar ones now. Federal law, with some pretty big sharp teeth, already prohibits such sales.... on paper. Reality? Not so muchOnly one de facto, that used old laws to prosecute and yet quoted SB941 as the actionable event which it was not . It was a man who knowingly sold a firearm to a felon which was already illegal.
Hence the word knowingly. The firearm was not even transferred after Aug 9th yet Ceasefire Oregon reported it as a win for SB941 even though the even as way before it was affective so far none since August in a bill that was passed as a state emergency .
I understand what you are saying and it all makes sense. The only thing I do not understand is how they can trace these sales if the state is not supposed to be keeping track of the sales. They are only supposed to keep a temporary record long enough to check to see if the buyer has a criminal record. At least that is what they said here in Oregon. Has that changed?So there are many posts about people abiding by the SB941, now I am not suggesting anyone not obey laws that would be against NWFA rules.
So if someone is thinking of doing a non-FFL transfers in Oregon here are some major problems
to be considered so don't do it.
1. If a person has bought a firerarm at a FFL prior to August 9th 2015, then if that person was to sell said firearm without and FFL, and the buyer years later was approached by law enforcement and was traced back to the FLL of sale through the past seller they both could be facing legal problems.
2. Any firearm that is not sold through a FFL and the buyer so chooses to sell the firearm either to another private party or FFL will in many case also will be in legal trouble as both the previous FFL and possibly police will have the transaction record if original new sale was after Aug 9th 2015 showing whom should own it.
3. If said firearm was purchased new prior to August 9th 2015, and was later sold after that date why records would not exist if the person said the private sale was close to August 9th where they bought and then quickly sold it might be considered a straw sale. Having a firearm and selling it or buying one prior to August 9th as date of transfer are 100% legal prior. So to have had a legal transfer the date of sale must be know before Aug 9th 2015.
As time goes on the distance between sales before August 9 and After will begin to space where eventually more firearms will be bought and sold via FLL because there is no other legal option.
So it is very important for anyone to find out when the firearm was first purchased as this will be the date inquired if there is an issue.
Of course multiple transfers between family members is 100% legal regardless of purchase date.
I am in no way suggesting that people use the above legal limits to circumvent the law.
And I provided no information with instruction how one might do this, this is only a warning of what people should be aware of in the law and possible results and problem. This is not legal advice please inquire of all laws prior to any transfer.
This has been a DuneHopper community service announcement !
I'm DuneHopper and I approve this message.
there are quite a number of ways a firearm, purchased by Joe legally with BGC/NICS can legaly not be in his possession some time later. It could have been stolen and not reported. It could have been sold, in or out of state, on GunBroker or similar... the direct trace within Oregon is then lost. It could be sold to a dealer who does not do a BGC on his purchases, then resold by that dealer later. The direct line from George to FFL to Newowner does not exist. IF the gun gets traced, BATF lears from Maker which Distributor got it, then to which FFL it was wholesaled. THAT FFL could have transferred it to a second FFL, (no BGC) or sold it at retail BGC. to George. George decides to pawn it, does not redeem, pawnshop sells to second shop, maybe at retail on GunBroker, which triggers new BGC to Pete, new owner in Idaho. Pete eventually moves to Oregon, gun is stolen, he has no record of serial number but reports. gun is fund three years later at crime scene... try and trace THAT... all the long jumps..... it is not as thuogh Oregon's desired complete registry truly exists despite their wanting it to.. the whole basis for this law. They WANT to have a searchable database of who has what guns, and what guns are owned by whom. MAYBE in fifty years..... but I doubt it even then.So there are many posts about people abiding by the SB941, now I am not suggesting anyone not obey laws that would be against NWFA rules.
So if someone is thinking of doing a non-FFL transfers in Oregon here are some major problems
to be considered so don't do it.
1. If a person has bought a firerarm at a FFL prior to August 9th 2015, then if that person was to sell said firearm without and FFL, and the buyer years later was approached by law enforcement and was traced back to the FLL of sale through the past seller they both could be facing legal problems.
2. Any firearm that is not sold through a FFL and the buyer so chooses to sell the firearm either to another private party or FFL will in many case also will be in legal trouble as both the previous FFL and possibly police will have the transaction record if original new sale was after Aug 9th 2015 showing whom should own it.
3. If said firearm was purchased new prior to August 9th 2015, and was later sold after that date why records would not exist if the person said the private sale was close to August 9th where they bought and then quickly sold it might be considered a straw sale. Having a firearm and selling it or buying one prior to August 9th as date of transfer are 100% legal prior. So to have had a legal transfer the date of sale must be know before Aug 9th 2015.
As time goes on the distance between sales before August 9 and After will begin to space where eventually more firearms will be bought and sold via FLL because there is no other legal option.
So it is very important for anyone to find out when the firearm was first purchased as this will be the date inquired if there is an issue.
Of course multiple transfers between family members is 100% legal regardless of purchase date.
I am in no way suggesting that people use the above legal limits to circumvent the law.
And I provided no information with instruction how one might do this, this is only a warning of what people should be aware of in the law and possible results and problem. This is not legal advice please inquire of all laws prior to any transfer.
This has been a DuneHopper community service announcement !
I'm DuneHopper and I approve this message.
Simple... if the defensive shooting is "clean" copers have no cause to be running all manner of traces, etc. Its MY gun, does not turn up stolen, I elect not to discuss how or from whom I acquired the gun, or when. IF they want to make a federal case out of it, let them. They will have to come up with someone who can bear first hand testimony that THEY sold it to ME, and that the sale took place IN OREGON, AFTER the bill took effect. How likely is that? If the shoot is "clean" they're not going to waste the manpower to invent a case for some petty issue like that. If the shoot is NOT "clean" why am I talking to anyone but my lawyer, and WHY did I retain possession of the gun anyway? Lets get real.....
