With the AWB signed Can I sell a personal AR out of state?

[quneur]

(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(E) Flash suppressor, flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider,
sound suppressor, silencer, or any item designed to reduce the visual
or audio signature of the firearm;

It can't be sold anymore at least for a mag fed semi-auto rifle . Replacing the part, talk to a gunsmith as I wouldn't know how that would work. But its my understanding from reading the text.

Objects which supposedly can't be sold (beside gun internals):

(A) A grip that is independent or detached from the stock that​

protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon...​

​

(B) Thumbhole stock;​

​

(C) Folding or telescoping stock;​

​

(D) Forward pistol, vertical, angled, or other grip...​

​

(E) Flash suppressor, flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider,15​

sound suppressor, silencer...​

​

(F) Muzzle brake, recoil compensator, or any item designed to be18​

affixed to the barrel...​

​

(G) Threaded barrel ...​

​

(H) Grenade launcher or flare launcher​

​

(I) A shroud​

​

The list parts when attached creates an 'assault weapon'. But certain items like a muzzle break attached to a bolt action does not fall under SB1240 so I don;t know whether its saleable. I would imagine if the distributor says it for a bolt action gun, it should be okay. But as I said, its ubiquitous.

 

[arakboss]

Interpreting the law with a worse case scenario view is helpful when trying to get people to oppose it. Once the law is on the books then we can use a more realistic interpretation. For an Oregon example, I don't think HB 2005 will ban possession of unserialized uppers, unless the upper is a firearm on it's own. That was a project I did one time. It wasn't practical to aim but it did fire rounds, loaded one at a time.

 

[PiratePast40]

Interpreting the law with a worse case scenario view is helpful when trying to get people to oppose it. Once the law is on the books then we can use a more realistic interpretation. For an Oregon example, I don't think HB 2005 will ban possession of unserialized uppers, unless the upper is a firearm on it's own. That was a project I did one time. It wasn't practical to aim but it did fire rounds, loaded one at a time.

I was also thinking that it was only about uppers until I actually read the ATF definitions. According to ATF, a receiver IS the firearm. There is a carve out for AR platform firearms and I posted that as well. The authors of HB2005 used the ATF definition of a firearm, i.e., a receiver is a firearm. They decided to forego the subsequent change that made the lower reciever of an AR the firearm. They have purposely turned the upper receivers into firearms in Oregon, knowing full well that the lower receiver is the firearm according to ATF. According to 2005, an AR platform firearm now consists of two separate recievers, i.e., firearms. That includes requiring all that goes with manufacturing and marking of separate firearms.

I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

 

[arakboss]

I was also thinking that it was only about uppers until I actually read the ATF definitions. According to ATF, a receiver IS the firearm. There is a carve out for AR platform firearms and I posted that as well. The authors of HB2005 used the ATF definition of a firearm, i.e., a receiver is a firearm. They decided to forego the subsequent change that made the lower reciever of an AR the firearm. They have purposely turned the upper receivers into firearms in Oregon, knowing full well that the lower receiver is the firearm according to ATF. According to 2005, an AR platform firearm now consists of two separate recievers, i.e., firearms. That includes requiring all that goes with manufacturing and marking of separate firearms.

I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

I don't think we will know for sure until the State prosecutes a case for an unserialized upper. My guess is it will be business as usual for most.

 

[PiratePast40]

I don't think we will know for sure until the State prosecutes a case for an unserialized upper. My guess is it will be business as usual for most.

Guess all you want but it's written plainly in the bill.

 

[arakboss]

Guess all you want but it's written plainly in the bill.

I guess we will see all the AR15s pulled from FFL's shelves then and the AG's office inundated with cases against those with ARs or parts.

 

[PiratePast40]

I guess we will see all the AR15s pulled from FFL's shelves then and the AG's office inundated with cases against those with ARs or parts.

Senator Patterson told me we were allowed adequate time since we have until 1 July 2024 to have them engraved and reported to OSP. Under, Section 19 of 2005B, OSP is given $356,816 to cover the cost of entering the "unserialized firearms" into their database.

Just because it makes no sense, is unconstitutional, illegal, and impossible to comply, doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

 

[arakboss]

Senator Patterson told me we were allowed adequate time since we have until 1 July 2024 to have them engraved and reported to OSP. Under, Section 19 of 2005B, OSP is given $356,816 to cover the cost of entering the "unserialized firearms" into their database.

Just because it makes no sense, is unconstitutional, illegal, and impossible to comply, doesn't mean they aren't doing it.

There is a bright side, if uppers are indeed considered firearms. A person with a meager AR collection will have his AR collection double.

 

[PiratePast40]

There is a bright side, if uppers are indeed considered firearms. A person with a meager AR collection will have his AR collection double.

 

[03A3Sporter]

You can tie this sorta legislation up for years in court these days. This isn't the days when Cali passed an AWB unchallenged. Lawyer up and challenge every little nit picking comma, period, word , etc. Do it Democrat style challenge definitions and every little thing you can think of, I feel bad for you all and I hope you can elect different folks at some point in the PNW

 

[nwslopoke]

Just come out and say, Oregon is trying to enforce a registration. They don't know what they want to do with it yet because they still haven't out what an AR15 really is. It's more a talking point and moral victory for them.

While I have a few vertical foregrips, I hate them. I shoot better without them. According to the democrats (who somehow know best), that's impossible. Maybe I should shoot from the hip, like on TV. Meanwhile, none of the other oppressive gun laws they've enacted has reduced "gun violence" in Oregon. Or don't they know?