JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,487
IMPORTANT NOTICE : The Return of SB941

  • Oregon, August 2015 was the active date of SB941 and as many know this eliminated private sales in Oregon unless a FFL was used to transfer said firearm. ( unless was transferred to a family member)
  • Between 2015 and 2018( mid) based on FBI background checks on new firearms approx 47,000 rifles were sold in Oregon that might fall underneath the new Ballot Measure should it pass. ( was based on rifles only)
Since SB941 was enacted the explosion of pro-gun non compliance was echoed around Oregon with many stating they would not comply to SB941. The statistics of how many that did said transfer with no FFL is impossible at this time to have a valid number since they do not exist. Or do they?

  • Fact: In 2015 hearings Senator Prozanski wenton public record when discussing background check stated none existed. However the State of Oregons OSP policy is 5 years of records retention. It was later increased to 10 years by Gov Brown, but for this post is negligible, because we are still within 5 years of SB941 Passing.
  • Fact all new firearms purchased after 8/2015 are not only part of FFL records but are part of the OSP no less then 5 year record retention, and most likely 10 years.
  • Fact any new firearm purchased between 8/2015 and Present ( 4/2018) would be included in these records that were retained at the OSP.
  • Fact the OSP retains what , whom and where said firearm was purchased.
  • Fact anyone selling a new firearms they purchased after 8/2015 and present and resold to a private party and exempted themselves to use a FFL would be in direct violation of SB941.
  • Fact anyone selling, buying any firearm after 8/2015 and present and failed to use a FFL would also be in direct violation of SB941.
A: If Ballot measure 43, passes it would require all qualifying firearms to be registered within a specified time. There would be records in place at the OSP showing no less then the last 5 years worth FFL purchases.
Meaning anyone who violated SB941 as listed above condition could not register said firearm because it either was sold illegally, or purchased illegally; furthermore the OSP would have records on who had said firearms that fell within ballot 43 guidelines and failed to register them if needed.
This would make those who chose to violate the law now guilty of a felony and there are records to prove it.

B: Being the OSP not just stores but has sales records in place of what was bought in the last 5 years any and all firearms falling in the guidelines must be registered, failure to do so could have complications if said firearms was bought at a FFL and now shows you on record as the owner of a firearm withing Ballot 43 guidelines and you don't have it ??

This ballot measure would ensure that many who violated SB941 would be caught, furthermore all who claim they wont comply to ballot 43 if passed wont matter if they register or not as the OSP has searchable records of all firearm sales the last 5 years ( possibly longer) so if you bought one in that time frame they know.


I have tried to discuss this with OFF and the NRA and they will not act on anything until it passes if it does.
So being I was talking to deaf ears I felt a public service was needed to post here as the people should know.
This is not legal advice but all this can be confirmed, by contacting the OSP, looking at FBI records and reviewing hearings on SB941.

Its easy to point fingers how this occurred but this is serious and could be criminal for some.
I am sure many follow the law, but even it ballot 43 passes and you refuse to register they will know what you have if you did so the last 5 years. Ballot measure 43 doesn't create a registration as much as it enhances what they already have and could create one or two felonies for some.

Its a bad bad ballot measure get active your freedom may depend on it. Unless you like a 6x9 cell.

:s0160:

DH

EDIT:
Note :
No one here needs to follow what I have posted, this is based on my experience with my involvement in SB941, the problem with all gun laws is they are all flawed, but that has never stopped the antis from going after the law abiding. So please either take or leave what I posted, its not up to me whom goes to jail or is charged. And yes there are loopholes in the laws, but often you get to argue that with your lawyer in court those facts. SB941 its self is unlawful yet three year later it stands, if #43 passes it is also flawed and illegal it would be foolish to not at least entertain where this could head.
DH
 
Last Edited:
IMPORTANT NOTICE : The Return of SB941

  • Oregon, August 2015 was the active date of SB941 and as many know this eliminated private sales in Oregon unless a FFL was used to transfer said firearm. ( unless was transferred to a family member)
  • Between 2015 and 2018( mid) based on FBI background checks on new firearms approx 47,000 rifles were sold in Oregon that might fall underneath the new Ballot Measure should it pass. ( was based on rifles only)
Since SB941 was enacted the explosion of pro-gun non compliance was echoed around Oregon with many stating they would not comply to SB941. The statistics of how many that did said transfer with no FFL is impossible at this time to have a valid number since they do not exist. Or do they?

  • Fact: In 2015 hearings Senator Prozanski wenton public record when discussing background check stated none existed. However the State of Oregons OSP policy is 5 years of records retention. It was later increased to 10 years by Gov Brown, but for this post is negligible, because we are still within 5 years of SB941 Passing.
  • Fact all new firearms purchased after 8/2015 are not only part of FFL records but are part of the OSP no less then 5 year record retention, and most likely 10 years.
  • Fact any new firearm purchased between 8/2015 and Present ( 4/2018) would be included in these records that were retained at the OSP.
  • Fact the OSP retains what , whom and where said firearm was purchased.
  • Fact anyone selling a new firearms they purchased after 8/2015 and present and resold to a private party and exempted themselves to use a FFL would be in direct violation of SB941.
  • Fact anyone selling, buying any firearm after 8/2015 and present and failed to use a FFL would also be in direct violation of SB941.
A: If Ballot measure 43, passes it would require all qualifying firearms to be registered within a specified time. There would be records in place at the OSP showing no less then the last 5 years worth FFL purchases.
Meaning anyone who violated SB941 as listed above condition could not register said firearm because it either was sold illegally, or purchased illegally; furthermore the OSP would have records on who had said firearms that fell within ballot 43 guidelines and failed to register them if needed.
This would make those who chose to violate the law now guilty of a felony and there are records to prove it.

B: Being the OSP not just stores but has sales records in place of what was bought in the last 5 years any and all firearms falling in the guidelines must be registered, failure to do so could have complications if said firearms was bought at a FFL and now shows you on record as the owner of a firearm withing Ballot 43 guidelines and you don't have it ??

This ballot measure would ensure that many who violated SB941 would be caught, furthermore all who claim they wont comply to ballot 43 if passed wont matter if they register or not as the OSP has searchable records of all firearm sales the last 5 years ( possibly longer) so if you bought one in that time frame they know.


I have tried to discuss this with OFF and the NRA and they will not act on anything until it passes if it does.
So being I was talking to deaf ears I felt a public service was needed to post here as the people should know.
This is not legal advice but all this can be confirmed, by contacting the OSP, looking at FBI records and reviewing hearings on SB941.

Its easy to point fingers how this occurred but this is serious and could be criminal for some.
I am sure many follow the law, but even it ballot 43 passes and you refuse to register they will know what you have if you did so the last 5 years. Ballot measure 43 doesn't create a registration as much as it enhances what they already have and could create one or two felonies for some.

Its a bad bad ballot measure get active your freedom may depend on it. Unless you like a 6x9 cell.

:s0160:

DH

I seen one of the sb941 legislators stating on tv that the people that don' comply will be caught later down the road. This is what she ment . It was all a planned organized attack on 2A supporters . These people have got to be voted out and their legislation with them
 
Is being 'lost overboard' after 8/2015 considered a transfer under SB941? Would an 'official' report of the loss have been required?
Just sayin...

Sorry. I'm being facetious. Thanks for posting the information DuneHopper
 
Last Edited:
Were those 47,000 rifles all private party sales? Or was that new + private party? SB941 only impacted private party sales. All new sales were being recorded long before SB941 went into effect. I suspect there will be far more guns at risk due to already existing laws than those sold under SB941 - in fact, I'd wager that those sold under SB941 are probably a fraction of that total number.

Either way, they've had our records for years. Unless you had been buying FTF exclusively for all gun purchases, prior to SB941, it's a good bet they already have a record of what you own.
 
Buy more scary guns. Let them know you have them. Stop hiding in the shadows. I tell my LE buddies to make sure the SWAT team brings a sack lunch. :D
 
Unless i am missing something the ONLY guns that could be 'tracked' as illegally sold (or bought) would be post SB941 guns that were LEGALLY bought or sold and then IF sold (or bought) without a record of transfer. If a gun were bought (or sold) PRIOR to SB 941 then sold POST 941 (without a legal transfer) there is little chance of 'them' putting two and two together.
 
Were those 47,000 rifles all private party sales? Or was that new + private party? SB941 only impacted private party sales. All new sales were being recorded long before SB941 went into effect. I suspect there will be far more guns at risk due to already existing laws than those sold under SB941 - in fact, I'd wager that those sold under SB941 are probably a fraction of that total number.

Either way, they've had our records for years. Unless you had been buying FTF exclusively for all gun purchases, prior to SB941, it's a good bet they already have a record of what you own.

  1. They don't specify on the FBI website as private as I don't think there is a distinction on the paper trail a transfer is a transfer from what I saw.
  2. Yes they have had records for years, but they also now can see what you should own and if you don't you violated SB941, and they will use #43 to accomplish this.
  3. I hypothetically know allot of people that allegedly didn't comply.
Down our way the Sheriff said he would not enforce it so many hypothetically around here did this.
There is no way out of this if one did a private sale without a FFL, and yes many more guns as noted are under this.

Now all this said........good luck finding resources to enforce it, I simply don't see a budget to pull off what they want to do, doesn't change it would set the wheels in motion,
 
Are you actually saying that the NRA will not fight a ballot initiative, unless it first passes? Heck, by then, it will be way, way too late.
.

What seems is they are working behind the scenes not sure exactly what, but they don't want to waste resources unless it gets serious, obviously OFF and the NRA don't read the news where #43 is plastered all over the internet.
 
  1. They don't specify on the FBI website as private as I don't think there is a distinction on the paper trail a transfer is a transfer from what I saw.
  2. Yes they have had records for years, but they also now can see what you should own and if you don't you violated SB941, and they will use #43 to accomplish this.
  3. I hypothetically know allot of people that allegedly didn't comply.
Down our way the Sheriff said he would not enforce it so many hypothetically around here did this.
There is no way out of this if one did a private sale without a FFL, and yes many more guns as noted are under this.

Now all this said........good luck finding resources to enforce it, I simply don't see a budget to pull off what they want to do, doesn't change it would set the wheels in motion,

That's a big problem, aside from the likely unconstitutionality of IP43, is that there is no provision to fund enforcement. As I understand it (correct me of I'm wrong), only the state legislature can allocate funding. As it stands, they're not enforcing SB941. State police, Portland police and others say they're already short handed.

The only way this can work for them is voluntary compliance. If NY, CT, LA County, etc are any indicator, they can expect about 10% compliance at best.
 
That's a big problem, aside from the likely unconstitutionality of IP43, is that there is no provision to fund enforcement. As I understand it (correct me of I'm wrong), only the state legislature can allocate funding. As it stands, they're not enforcing SB941. State police, Portland police and others say they're already short handed.

The only way this can work for them is voluntary compliance. If NY, CT, LA County, etc are any indicator, they can expect about 10% compliance at best.

Knowing how the anti's react my guess would be they now have all they need to create examples.
I would not be surprise if a special investigator was assigned to investigate FFL purchasers if this passes.
I doubt they would go after average firearms owners, but I am sure they would look at head liners and site owners like this one, and see where and example can be made of. If I recall even people like Kevin Starret I am sure will be looked at carefully as well as those that made allot of purchases. I allegedly know of a person that bought dozens of AR's and flipped them, allegedly. If I had to guess this is how they would do it, and being the Govs office oversees the OSP it would be easy to grant access to a special investigator which I believe she has the power to create. So probably would be done that way since no budget is there. If I recall this is how California did it was target people and grandstand the media outlets focusing on how felons could own these guns now that they sold illegally. Its right out of their playbook is my opinion.
 
Knowing how the anti's react my guess would be they now have all they need to create examples.
I would not be surprise if a special investigator was assigned to investigate FFL purchasers if this passes.
I doubt they would go after average firearms owners, but I am sure they would look at head liners and site owners like this one, and see where and example can be made of. If I recall even people like Kevin Starret I am sure will be looked at carefully as well as those that made allot of purchases. I allegedly know of a person that bought dozens of AR's and flipped them, allegedly. If I had to guess this is how they would do it, and being the Govs office oversees the OSP it would be easy to grant access to a special investigator which I believe she has the power to create. So probably would be done that way since no budget is there. If I recall this is how California did it was target people and grandstand the media outlets focusing on how felons could own these guns now that they sold illegally. Its right out of their playbook is my opinion.

I still expect IP43, if it made it to the ballot, and if it passed, to get challenged in the courts, probably for a long time. I'm not worried about immediate enforcement. My bigger concern is it fails and the legislature takes it up instead. Unless we unseat the Dem majority and/or get rid of bloody Brown, we're hosed. I think we have a better chance fighting a ballot measure than we do the legislature and their phony emergencies.
 
I still expect IP43, if it made it to the ballot, and if it passed, to get challenged in the courts, probably for a long time. I'm not worried about immediate enforcement. My bigger concern is it fails and the legislature takes it up instead. Unless we unseat the Dem majority and/or get rid of bloody Brown, we're hosed. I think we have a better chance fighting a ballot measure than we do the legislature and their phony emergencies.

Ive had the same thought, that the legislation will try and by pass it, however I am hopeful if it fails that will be because votes didn't want it. HMM its a gamble on their end to try and shove it down our throats when the majority said no. The Majority in Oregon act like a group of retarded monkeys so there is no real way of knowing how stupid they will get. The legislators no doubt have discussed this idea in the past and may be looking at this as a signalling point, if it is close and fails they may try, if its overwhelmingly no, they may not.
But as said they are like a group of retarded monkeys when it comes to Oregons best interest.
I agree as well they may not do anything for a long time, my reason to post this is to tell people; Hey if you have not done a iffy private sale then don't and if you have stop at least for now. I still think OFF and the NRA should not ignore what I told them as this is a huge incentive to use to show our side how bad it can get and why. Its like talking to a brick wall with those two agencies not in 15 years have they listened so I guess why start now.
 
Last Edited:
I sold a firearm to a good friend, at a FFL in Nampa, and all he had to do for his BGC was show his Idaho Resident Enhanced permit. I thought that was pretty cool. I have given multiple firearms to family members.

@DuneHopper , there are some flaws in your logic. Comments in text below:
IMPORTANT NOTICE : The Return of SB941
  • Oregon, August 2015 was the active date of SB941 and as many know this eliminated private sales in Oregon unless a FFL was used to transfer said firearm. ( unless was transferred to a family member)
  • Between 2015 and 2018( mid) based on FBI background checks on new firearms approx 47,000 rifles were sold in Oregon that might fall underneath the new Ballot Measure should it pass. ( was based on rifles only)
Since SB941 was enacted the explosion of pro-gun non compliance was echoed around Oregon with many stating they would not comply to SB941. The statistics of how many that did said transfer with no FFL is impossible at this time to have a valid number since they do not exist. Or do they?

  • Fact: In 2015 hearings Senator Prozanski went on public record when discussing background check stated none existed. However the State of Oregons OSP policy is 5 years of records retention. It was later increased to 10 years by Gov Brown, but for this post is negligible, because we are still within 5 years of SB941 Passing.
  • Fact all new firearms purchased after 8/2015 are not only part of FFL records but are part of the OSP no less then 5 year record retention, and most likely 10 years.
  • Fact any new firearm purchased between 8/2015 and Present ( 4/2018) would be included in these records that were retained at the OSP.
  • Fact the OSP retains what , whom and where said firearm was purchased.
  • Fact anyone selling a new firearms they purchased after 8/2015 and present and resold to a private party and exempted themselves to use a FFL would be in direct violation of SB941.
  • Fact anyone selling, buying any firearm after 8/2015 and present and failed to use a FFL would also be in direct violation of SB941.
A: If Ballot measure 43, passes it would require all qualifying firearms to be registered within a specified time. There would be records in place at the OSP showing no less than the last 5 years worth FFL purchases.
Meaning anyone who violated S941 as listed above condition could not register said firearm because it either was sold illegally, or purchased illegally; furthermore the OSP would have records on who had said firearms that fell within ballot 43 guidelines and failed to register them if needed.
[P7 :: Purchased Illegally is arguable depending on the dates of ownership of the seller in that transaction....]
This would make those who chose to violate the law now guilty of a felony and there are records to prove it.

B: Being the OSP not just stores but has sales records in place of what was bought in the last 5 years any and all firearms falling in the guidelines must be registered, failure to do so could have complications if said firearms was bought at a FFL and now shows you on record as the owner of a firearm withing Ballot 43 guidelines and you don't have it ??
[P7 :: well then, you better have a Chain of Custody ready. ]
This ballot measure would ensure that many who violated SB941 would be caught, furthermore all who claim they wont comply to ballot 43 if passed wont matter if they register or not as the OSP has searchable records of all firearm sales the last 5 years ( possibly longer) so if you bought one in that time frame they know.


I have tried to discuss this with OFF and the NRA and they will not act on anything until it passes if it does.
So being I was talking to deaf ears I felt a public service was needed to post here as the people should know.
This is not legal advice but all this can be confirmed, by contacting the OSP, looking at FBI records and reviewing hearings on SB941.

Its easy to point fingers how this occurred but this is serious and could be criminal for some.
I am sure many follow the law, but even it ballot 43 passes and you refuse to register they will know what you have if you did so the last 5 years. Ballot measure 43 doesn't create a registration as much as it enhances what they already have and could create one or two felonies for some.

Its a bad bad ballot measure get active your freedom may depend on it. Unless you like a 6x9 cell.

:s0160:

DH

Now would be a great time to contact an attorney and transfer firearms into a trust.
Here's a very informative article on them: Gun Trusts—What's All the Fuss? | Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law | Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law / Probate and Property Magazine
 
I sold a firearm to a good friend, at a FFL in Nampa, and all he had to do for his BGC was show his Idaho Resident Enhanced permit. I thought that was pretty cool. I have given multiple firearms to family members.
@DuneHopper , there are some flaws in your logic. Comments in text below:

I actually have no idea what you are talking about? Your comments in red reinforce what I posted.
There is no logic to be flawed this is how the laws are written.
[P7 :: Purchased Illegally is arguable depending on the dates of ownership of the seller in that transaction....]
It is already confirmed that the id of the firearms and the current owners are retained, this is what was stated by the OSP and during legislative hearings.

[P7 :: well then, you better have a Chain of Custody ready. ]
Yes this is correct also as is stated and a simple bill of sale will not be adequate, the transfer as you are stating is not as described a valid transfer shall occur. The FFL shall retain the records at least 5 years.


The change of transfers under SB941 to a family member was only defined down to Nephew level and
was not address in #43 nor SB941, so yes it is a loophole which I omitted from my post as there is no relevance to the current ballot or laws that have been considered for this post, I actually prefer this as it created a massive flaw in the ability to enforce and track said firearms.
And to this your welcome, they may have planned for the future but so did I when then was drafted. Many think I compromised, nope I looked at the future I knew was coming and did my part.

A trust however can only be used with the included allowed transfers family members why the owner was alive the same chain is used.
If you review SB941 you will see a list of what information is retained on a transfer, so whom ever you sold them to thru a FFL the ID of said firearm is and was included.

Sorry hope I answered what you were saying, if you have not read SB941 you can view it here.
SB941 2015 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System
 
SB941 is un-enforceable. I am not legally allowed to sell to my cousin, yet I can sell to my mother, she sells to her sisters, and then she sells to her son. Now that cousin sells in a same manner and the gun, which I was not allowed to sell to a third party, is now in that third parties hands. Nowhere in SB941 did they state you have to keep a paper trail of your sold firearms to immediate family. It is a ridiculous law that did nothing to stop crime and killed the second hand market for firearms.
 
SB941 is un-enforceable. I am not legally allowed to sell to my cousin, yet I can sell to my mother, she sells to her sisters, and then she sells to her son. Now that cousin sells in a same manner and the gun, which I was not allowed to sell to a third party, is now in that third parties hands. Nowhere in SB941 did they state you have to keep a paper trail of your sold firearms to immediate family. It is a ridiculous law that did nothing to stop crime and killed the second hand market for firearms.
Exactly the language was chosen so it could not be enforced. But if those have done as I suggested that is what they could look for there was no way to add that to the exception, it would have been attempted but any further divination they surely would have realized family should not be allowed either. You have to do what you can sometimes I did what I could.
 
I can almost guarantee that this was the endgame of 941: compile 4-5 years worth of as many names and transfers as possible, then legislate registration. Then, finally, comes the confiscation :mad:
 
I can almost guarantee that this was the endgame of 941: compile 4-5 years worth of as many names and transfers as possible, then legislate registration. Then, finally, comes the confiscation :mad:

And imagine had we not added the family exclusions it would have been even worse, as it is now it leaves a nice loop hole to maybe , just maybe will interfere with #43 doing much at all.
If you look back at my old posts from way back then, I discussed this and why certain things had
to be preserved and I caught allot of slack for it. Well all this said and done we will know by years end how this is playing out.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top