Thoughts on how to prove ownership before the AW ban takes effect

[made in china]

This is a ridiculous argument and a waste of time. No I am not worried about someone trying to hack my email to steal photos of magazines. I will engage in no more discussion on this topic. It's a waste of time.

IMO, Yarome has a valid point.

I think it's plausible that with future legal changes an agency could find a way to anonymously search databases using AI, and anything that AI finds anonymously could be followed up on with warrants.

They're not going to stop.

 

[rhollister71]

Complying is what got us into this mess

This exactly

 

[rhollister71]

I have a few copies of the oregonian thats from the Mcguire and Sosa home run battle if anyone would like to Rent a copy for a photo op?

 

[FourTeeFive]

For us old guys just get a vintage Playboy magazine, open it up, and take of photo of you holding your magazines and "member" above the magazine cover at the same time. I'm sure they'll love looking at photos of you enjoying your magazines. The 1953 edition with Marilyn Monroe would be particularly appropriate to show your old Glock mags.

 

[ma96782]

I didn't do nothing!




(See what I did there?)

How about?




Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

Not in Oregon with the magazine ban. You have to prove you are innocent.

I believe that you've probably read something incorrectly in the OR law. BUT THEN, I haven't seen the actual law. And thankfully, in America (before it was spelt Amerika). We enjoyed the justice system that believed in......

Innocent until proven Guilty
and
The Govt has the BURDEN to prove it's case against YOU (in a criminal trial).

Whatever because.....
YOU still have the right to believe in what you want (even if it's incorrect).



Aloha, Mark

PS.....BTW, feel free to post a copy of the OR law (as it was signed into law). I would NOT consider it as, "thread drift". And, I would be thankful to know, how OR has screwed America's Justice System in the process.

 

[Member 53328]

Just sell everything. Own no guns.

That solves your problem. Happy now?

Do what you want. A photograph will do nothing to save you. If anything it will put you in the ground even deeper.

You have rights. I would suggest reading up on them.

Politicians don't get to strip me of my freedoms. Their signed "bills" have as much power as a restraining order.

 

[Yarome]

I believe that you've probably read something incorrectly in the OR law. BUT THEN, I haven't seen the actual law. And thankfully, in America (before it was spelt Amerika). We enjoyed the justice system that believed in......

Kinda sorta. IMO, it's more a scare tactic "add-on" charge for the purpose of leverage in a plea deal.

It's a little convoluted and not quite as cut and dry as "innocent until proven guilty".... but then again... it is. To begin with, yes... their side must present reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to lay the charge on you. Only when a charge is placed against you does it trigger your need to present a defense. Next, in the stipulated affirmative defense reqirement... a swore affidavit, under penalty of purjury ("I owned them prior to enactment") is admissable as evidence and would suffice. It then throws the ball back into the prosecutors court to disprove your evidence (sworn statement).

In a nutshell: "You're guilty!", "No I'm not!", "Yes you are!", "Prove it!!".

Does it strengthen your case to present additional proof along with your sworn statement? Sure!! Is it necessary? If you're telling the truth and they can present no compelling evidence that you're a liar... then no.

If you have a criminal history, a track record of being dishonest or your character can be attacked to cause doubt on your sworn statement then you might wanna consider going the extra mile to provide additional proof. KWIM?

YMMV

 

[ma96782]

Ha, Ha, Ha.....
Yes, I own guns......
I've went through and I am subjected to a BGC when I wish to add to my modest collection.
So, (in my Opinion) I'm a paragon and example of an Upright American.

Nah.....(as some see it).....YOU own guns.

YEAH.......only "SICK PEOPLE" want to own guns. Obviously, he's a potential Anarchists bent on the possible violent overthrow of the Govt and/or contemplating Murder.

Aloha, Mark

PS........(for some) YOU can afford to give up some of your rights. So that, I can feel safe. And, YOU can afford to pay more taxes. So that, the hungry can have steak and lobster and the homeless can have a FREE home.

But the truth be known, I don't get SNAP benefits, nor do I get housing assistance. I've PAID my way and I ain't waiting for Brandon to forgive my debt.

 

[oremike]

Not in Oregon with the magazine ban. You have to prove you are innocent.

F' them, I've had my (whatevers) forever. Prove me wrong.

 

[Howard1955]

Just in case someone here hasn't seen this video, here's a link.

 

[GrayGoose]

Is this thread going to become 30 pages of "Oh no, how do we comply with tyranny!!!"

 

[Jay Walk]

Is this thread going to become 30 pages of "Oh no, how do we comply with tyranny!!!"

 

[chipotle]

Anyone have any thoughts about how to be able to prove later on that you owned your banned weapon before the ban takes effect?

Many of mine were bought from individuals with no paperwork when I lived in Texas. Some of mine date back to the 1980's and I don't have a sales receipt.

I guess gun shops could do dated appraisals with SN's in the coming days but that sounds like a lot of work to drag them all out and some cost.

Any other ideas?

Who cares? Our dictatorship's goal with this (much like the magazine ban) was to curb sales/transfers.

Register nothing, prove nothing. Make them work for it, don't kowtow to the regime.

 

[jtr]

Measure 114 text:
"180 days after passage the manufacture, sale, use or possession of large-capacity magazines is a Class A misdemeanor:
▪ exception for law enforcement and armed services personnel in performance of their duties; and
▪ those who own or later inherit large-capacity magazines when used
on owner's property, at shooting ranges/competitions, while hunting consistent with applicable regulations, and during transport to permissible location (if secured separately from firearm) have affirmative defense."

How is this different than guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Yarome]

How is this different than guilty until proven innocent?

In a way it's not. If a charge sticks, you may be considered guilty until you prove your innocence. However, you have to be charged in the first place to trigger the need for a defense. Basically, the burden of proof to charge you is much lighter, but it must still exist.

A charge can get thrown out for failing to present reasonable suspicion, too... so no defense would be necessary in that case.

The "guilty until proven innocent" part kicks in only after charges have been placed against you. Negating the need for the state to meet a higher standard of proof for a conviction.... It's on you to prove you lawfully own them.

So "it is", but "it isn't".

As any good attorney will tell you.. the best defense is a simple one. The more "proof" you provide the more avenues of rebuttal you are providing the prosecutors. Say... like a photo. You just opened it up for a prosecutor to argue that you possess the tools and know how to have altered them. Anything to create reasonable doubt... they'll do it. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

The less you give them to pick apart, the better off you are.

 

[Bandook]

That's a great idea! I have a few saved up just for that use. Maybe this one?

View attachment 1380777


Kidding of course. So the "proof" would be in the EXIF data for the photo right, since the newspaper simply proves you couldn't have taken the photo BEFORE that date. But it doesn't prove when after that newspaper date the photo was taken. And with EXIF editors out there, that info can be changed.

This is why ilikegunspdx solution he posted makes sense. It adds a couple of layers of additional "proof" that would probably not be questioned during a "routine" check.

This whole subject is so depressing. I'm sorry I brought it up.

Take a picture, email it to yourself via one of the established email services (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.)
Those email timestamps are sufficient proof as long as you leave the emails on their servers.

I don't think you need a fancy app or anything. Mail server timestamps are pretty solid. Send from yahoo to gmail for double check on timestamp.

Although... perfect alibis are suspect too

 

[TTSX]

If it were me and I was genuinely worried, I would take the serialized items to a notary or appraiser and have a signed an dated copy of whatever paper you wanted that included the serials in print.

 

[made in china]

Take a picture, email it to yourself via one of the established email services (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.)
Those email timestamps are sufficient proof as long as you leave the emails on their servers.

I don't think you need a fancy app or anything. Mail server timestamps are pretty solid. Send from yahoo to gmail for double check on timestamp.

Although... perfect alibis are suspect too

The only problem with that is those are free email programs, and if you look in the TOS you have no explicit rights to complete privacy. Technically, with the dawn of AI, they can know what you have just by letting AI analyze the data on their servers.
If you're ok with that, go for it. Just something to consider as rights and laws change.....

 

[Bandook]

If it were me and I was genuinely worried, I would take the serialized items to a notary or appraiser and have a signed an dated copy of whatever paper you wanted that included the serials in print.

I guess that's the easiest for the truly... worried.
Personally, I'd not worry about this sort of proof for 2 generations later.

If we look at the trajectory of these WA laws over the last 5 years, while wishing everybody a long life, we'll end up with a registry well before we get to a second reconveyance. At that point, any other proof other than registration with the state will mean nothing.