Will the buyer get in trouble for non 941 compliance, or just the seller?

[wired]

Here is the thing.

Most stings are not by LEOs - they are by informants.

Just because you know someone doesn't mean they are not an informant now. Most informants cooperate with LEOs because they either want the money or they got caught doing something and the justice system has offered them a reduced sentence if they inform on someone else - someone they probably know.

How many people do you completely trust SO much that you KNOW they would never rat you out even if faced with a 30 year prison in a federal pound me in the a** prison?

My answer is very few and I think that most people, if they were smart and honest with themselves, would say the same thing.

About 12 years ago I was at a gun show in Puyallup. I got t talking to a guy I had known for years who was running a table. He asked me if I was interested in an AK? He pulled a Galil out from under the counter. Took about 3 seconds to realize it was a full auto AK straight from the IDF. I picked it up and set it back down and grabbed a rag and wiped my prints off it and told him never to to pull that thing out in public . I never talked to that guy again. A few weeks later a mutual acquaintance was arrested for MG charges. He just finished a 8 year prison term a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that guy in Puyallup was working as a CI to save his skin and I distanced myself from that crowd ASAP. Be careful. They are out there.

 

[Skier]

I'm not a lawyer, but my opinion is that it's primarily the seller that's taking the largest risk of violating the law. This is what I see in the law that helps me form my opinion on this question...

ORS 166.435:

Paragraph 2: "...a transferor may not transfer a firearm to a transferee unless the transfer is completed through a gun dealer..."
To me, this states that the "transferor" (e.g. seller) is prohibited from doing something ("transferor may not"), not the transferee (e.g. buyer) in this statement.

Paragraph 3: "A transferor may transfer a firearm to a transferee only as provided in this section." Specifies how the transferor can do a transfer. "... prior to the transfer both the transferor and the transferee must appear in person before a gun dealer..." This, in my opinion, is the only clause that might expose the transferee to any risk of violating the law. It states that "both transferor and transferee must appear" so that could be read as a requirement (which could possibly be violated by either party), but from another point of view, this paragraph is specifying how the transferor needs to do the transfer, so that kind of puts the burden on the transferor. This is the only place I can see any risk to the transferee in a non-compliant transfer, but it's not entirely clear.

Paragraph 5: "A transferor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section commits a Class A misdemeanor." (or a Class B felony, if you're charged a second time after being convicted a first time). This seems to be the only part that mentions what kind of crime one would be charged with if this law was violated, and it only mentions the transferor, not the transferee.

So, that's my opinion on the law (and nothing but my layman's opinion). Now in addition to that, here's a couple links regarding the pastor the purchased ~$3000 in raffle tickets to win an AR-15 (he won) so he could melt it down and turn it into a piece of art...

Oregon SB 941: Bad gun law is not being enforced

Did Episcopalian minister commit gun crime under Oregon SB 941?

So, while this is only anecdotal evidence of how the law might be applied, in every instance I've read about this story, the only thing that has been mentioned was that the pastor may have violated the law when he transferred it a parishioner for "safe keeping" until he could make his plans to do destroy it, violating ORS 166.435 because he didn't go to an FFL and get a BGC on the parishioner before transferring it to him. I've not seen ANY mention anywhere suggesting that the Parishioner might have violated the law and/or be brought up on charges.

 

[Skier]

P.S. If in doubt, maybe only do transfers in Coos County. ;-)

COOS COUNTY CRUSHES ANTI-GUN LAW

Coos County

 

[The Heretic]

P.S. If in doubt, maybe only do transfers in Coos County. ;-)

COOS COUNTY CRUSHES ANTI-GUN LAW

Coos County

County law/etc. does not supersede state law.

 

[Koda]

wow. 3 pages and only 1 correct answer, by Skier. Lots of sting op conspiracy theory's though.

Its the seller that's liable for the law, not the buyer. The buyer is not transferring anything, he is receiving something. If the seller was smart, he would only sell "pre 941" guns.

166.435(5)(a) is the exact letter of the law indicating the burden is on the seller / "transferor"...
ORS 166.435 - Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

 

[Osarion]

or could it have been a sting , and I would indeed be in trouble? He did mention the word sting, which raised a red flag in my head.

Is this actually a thing? Are stings actually set up for individual people purchasing one weapon who, I'm going to assume, are probably not on the government's radar for being gun runners? At least with you, I'm going to assume.

I mean, it's not like you're trying to sell meth, or convince a 12yo boy to come meet you in RL or something. Aren't state law enforcement agencies hurting for employees right now?

 

[The Heretic]

Is this actually a thing? Are stings actually set up for individual people purchasing one weapon who, I'm going to assume, are probably not on the government's radar for being gun runners? At least with you, I'm going to assume.

I mean, it's not like you're trying to sell meth, or convince a 12yo boy to come meet you in RL or something. Aren't state law enforcement agencies hurting for employees right now?

I haven't heard of one yet, but I would not put it past some pol (i.e., the current governor) trying to make political points, directing the OSP to run a sting op or two or three, in order to make headlines.

Remember, laws and law enforcement are not always necessarily about stopping crime - they are often about politics and controlling people.

That said, if as another poster proposed, that the primary person at risk is the seller and not the buyer, then it would be even harder (IMO) to run a sting as sellers would be less inclined to fall for the sting than a buyer.

 

[swiftvision]

If the guy never met you before and would rather have a firearm floating around the next 50 years in his name than have to have it transferred out at no cost to him? Sounds like a set up. Things are rarely too good to be true. Especially in this current environment. Pay a few extra dollars and keep it clean.

If I was the seller, I would have passed on you too.

 

[Natty Bumpo]

I'm not a lawyer, but my opinion is that it's primarily the seller that's taking the largest risk of violating the law. This is what I see in the law that helps me form my opinion on this question...

ORS 166.435:

Paragraph 2: "...a transferor may not transfer a firearm to a transferee unless the transfer is completed through a gun dealer..."
To me, this states that the "transferor" (e.g. seller) is prohibited from doing something ("transferor may not"), not the transferee (e.g. buyer) in this statement.

Paragraph 3: "A transferor may transfer a firearm to a transferee only as provided in this section." Specifies how the transferor can do a transfer. "... prior to the transfer both the transferor and the transferee must appear in person before a gun dealer..." This, in my opinion, is the only clause that might expose the transferee to any risk of violating the law. It states that "both transferor and transferee must appear" so that could be read as a requirement (which could possibly be violated by either party), but from another point of view, this paragraph is specifying how the transferor needs to do the transfer, so that kind of puts the burden on the transferor. This is the only place I can see any risk to the transferee in a non-compliant transfer, but it's not entirely clear.

Paragraph 5: "A transferor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section commits a Class A misdemeanor." (or a Class B felony, if you're charged a second time after being convicted a first time). This seems to be the only part that mentions what kind of crime one would be charged with if this law was violated, and it only mentions the transferor, not the transferee.

So, that's my opinion on the law (and nothing but my layman's opinion). Now in addition to that, here's a couple links regarding the pastor the purchased ~$3000 in raffle tickets to win an AR-15 (he won) so he could melt it down and turn it into a piece of art...

Oregon SB 941: Bad gun law is not being enforced

Did Episcopalian minister commit gun crime under Oregon SB 941?

So, while this is only anecdotal evidence of how the law might be applied, in every instance I've read about this story, the only thing that has been mentioned was that the pastor may have violated the law when he transferred it a parishioner for "safe keeping" until he could make his plans to do destroy it, violating ORS 166.435 because he didn't go to an FFL and get a BGC on the parishioner before transferring it to him. I've not seen ANY mention anywhere suggesting that the Parishioner might have violated the law and/or be brought up on charges.

Thank you for making the effort to answer the OP's question and for giving reasons why you believe your response to be correct.

 

[PaulB47]

good for him for not wanting to comply
good for you for not falling for a police setup.

Yeah, a deal too good to be true usually is.

However the law is bullbubblegum, and I personally will no longer comply with it in private sales.

Noncompliance only works if people actually refuse to comply. Otherwise, the prohibitionists win. Take care who you deal with, but don't let fear completely control you. And yeah, what risk there is (which I believe is very little if common sense is applied) appears to belong to the seller.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Its a transfer law, both buyer and seller are required to be present. Seller info goes into the dealers A&D, for where it came from (acquisition), and then buyers info for the disposition.

 

[Dan Adams]

I am in a somewhat similar quandary. A long-time friend of mine (and former pistol trainer for police departments) would like to buy one of my handguns, but absolutely refuses to run it through an FFL, even though I would do it at a WAC show where it costs us members only $10 and I was willing to pay the fee myself. It's upsetting, to say the least, to realize that we fear our own government in matters that should be private between good friends.

 

[66PonyCar]

I am sure the governor's office and the OSP would VERY much like to make an example of somebody who transferred guns illegally.

Yeah, I'll believe it when the right reverend gets prosecuted for transferring that AR-15. I bet he gets a pass, but you wait until some gun owner breaks the law, then they will come down on him like a ton of bricks.

 

[crstrode]

"Nobody who wants a decent price for a gun they are selling goes to a pawn shop. If he had the receipt from Cabelas then the gun can be traced to him already, so why be paranoid? And then there's the really, really, really good price. No, it doesn't add up. Sounds like maybe he's already a felon and wanted to avoid a background check under SB941 as the seller. Be glad you walked away."

It's not a matter of paranoia on the part of the seller. It is a matter of principle. He has principles, the Voters of Oregon do not.

 

[crstrode]

"I am in a somewhat similar quandary. A long-time friend of mine (and former pistol trainer for police departments) would like to buy one of my handguns, but absolutely refuses to run it through an FFL, even though I would do it at a WAC show where it costs us members only $10 and I was willing to pay the fee myself. It's upsetting, to say the least, to realize that we fear our own government in matters that should be private between good friends."

You should be ashamed of yourself. And your former friend needs to choose his friends more carefully.

 

[wired]

It's not a matter of paranoia on the part of the seller. It is a matter of principle. He has principles, the Voters of Oregon do not.

I know . Little things.

a. He's in Washington
b. The voters in Oregon didnt vote on the Oregon measure. It was an "emergency" vote in the legislature that never made it to the voters.

 

[dejure]

Just recently, someone was prosecuted around the Wenatchee area or just north of there for this very thing. To read the article, they were evil gun runners, but in reality it was just a matter of someone ignoring a law that stomps all over the second.

The answer is this:

a) Nobody has been prosecuted under this law that I have heard of...not a single person, buyer or seller.

But, b) Laws like this are created to scare law-abiding subjects and to allow a capricious tyrannical-state machine to vindictively prosecute people they deem deserving of extra-special treatment.

 

[dejure]

Oh, and more power to them.

 

[Mecanik]

There will come a day when we won't even ask the question. We will know everything we are doing is illegal and we won't care. And when it happens we can curse the democrats for it.

 

[I594 Sucks]

I ran into a killer deal on a Ruger Gunsight Scout in 556, something I have really been wanting for a while. I met the seller in the parking lot of my usual transfer FFL, checked out the rifle, and agreed on a price. When I told him to come inside with me to complete the transfer, he refused, saying that it was a bullsh## law and he refused to comply, "as any real American should" he said. He seemed legit, and the gun wasn't stolen, as he showed me the receipt from Cabela's from when he bought it. He then told me that I was not taking any chances because I was the buyer and only the seller is accountable. I walked away from the deal because of this, really bummed out because I have wanted this particular firearm for a LLLOOONNNNGGG time, and the price was incredible. Question is, was he right, and I was a dumba**, or could it have been a sting , and I would indeed be in trouble? He did mention the word sting, which raised a red flag in my head.

You know...I might just have gone ahead and bought it. Since nobody's really gotten into trouble with this law and there are more than a few pro-gun lawyers willing to make a name for themselves, I would have felt relatively safe. However, I'm not an Oregon resident and haven't looked at the differences between your law and ours.