Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 10/7/2007 3:24:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2007 3:26:33 PM EST by PromptCritical]
From the Oregon Revised Statutes


166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.

(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.

(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.

(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]


The question is, if by some monumental stroke of judicial or legislative genius, the National Firearms Act was removed from law, and NFA stuff was no longer federally restricted:

Would the lack of basis under Federal law mean the above code is null and void?

Or would we be completely screwed since there would be no way to federally register the weapons and thus no way to meet the requirements of the state law? (not to mention ironic)
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 3:59:38 PM EST

"registered as required" and if not required then no need to register
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 5:05:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Civil:
"registered as required" and if not required then no need to register


Your faith in the state is touching.

However - it says "as required," not "if required."

If it's no longer possible to do, then you cannot comply with Oregon statute.

But that's just my cynical viewpoint - YMMV.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 5:21:34 PM EST
I read that as "as required" - conforming to federal law.

If federal law requires no registration - fine, you don't need to do anything.
Link Posted: 10/7/2007 5:35:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
I read that as "as required" - conforming to federal law.

If federal law requires no registration - fine, you don't need to do anything.


agreed
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:34:58 PM EST
Who cares, the NFA has been around since 1934!! It aint gonna change...Gun laws get WORSE over time...not better, has history taught you nothing!?
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 2:47:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 4:30:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
I read that as "as required" - conforming to federal law.

If federal law requires no registration - fine, you don't need to do anything.


Get more trial work out here in Eastern Oregon. It'll give you a whole new appreciation for what the law "says" and what actually happens to you.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 7:11:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
From the Oregon Revised Statutes


166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.

(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.

(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.

(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]


The question is, if by some monumental stroke of judicial or legislative genius, the National Firearms Act was removed from law, and NFA stuff was no longer federally restricted:

Would the lack of basis under Federal law mean the above code is null and void?

Or would we be completely screwed since there would be no way to federally register the weapons and thus no way to meet the requirements of the state law? (not to mention ironic)


You would be screwed.

Registration as required by federal law is an affirmative defense under the Oregon statute. If the federal law was repealed (won't happen) then there would be no affirmative defense. It wouldn't affect subsection 1 which states that it is forbidden to knowingly posses a machine gun . . . etc. Possession would still be illegal. As a result it is the Federal Government that protects your NFA gun rights at this time. If Hillary or Rudy take that away then kiss em goodbye.

And I might add that it is a fairly serious offense. It is a Felony classified as a level 6 on the crime seriousness scale. Same as Sodomy 3, Rape 3, Trafficking in Stolen Vehicles, Extortion to name a few. All firearms and destructive device offenses are level 6 along with unlawful possession of body armor.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 1:15:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Roguelawyer:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
From the Oregon Revised Statutes


166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.

(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.

(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.

(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]


The question is, if by some monumental stroke of judicial or legislative genius, the National Firearms Act was removed from law, and NFA stuff was no longer federally restricted:

Would the lack of basis under Federal law mean the above code is null and void?

Or would we be completely screwed since there would be no way to federally register the weapons and thus no way to meet the requirements of the state law? (not to mention ironic)


You would be screwed.

Registration as required by federal law is an affirmative defense under the Oregon statute. If the federal law was repealed (won't happen) then there would be no affirmative defense. It wouldn't affect subsection 1 which states that it is forbidden to knowingly posses a machine gun . . . etc. Possession would still be illegal. As a result it is the Federal Government that protects your NFA gun rights at this time. If Hillary or Rudy take that away then kiss em goodbye.

And I might add that it is a fairly serious offense. It is a Felony classified as a level 6 on the crime seriousness scale. Same as Sodomy 3, Rape 3, Trafficking in Stolen Vehicles, Extortion to name a few. All firearms and destructive device offenses are level 6 along with unlawful possession of body armor.


huh?.. What exactly does that mean?.... Maybe i live under a rock but can you explain? It can be illegal to own body armor?
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:08:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gunkata:

Originally Posted By Roguelawyer:
And I might add that it is a fairly serious offense. It is a Felony classified as a level 6 on the crime seriousness scale. Same as Sodomy 3, Rape 3, Trafficking in Stolen Vehicles, Extortion to name a few. All firearms and destructive device offenses are level 6 along with unlawful possession of body armor.


huh?.. What exactly does that mean?.... Maybe i live under a rock but can you explain? It can be illegal to own body armor?




166.643 Unlawful possession of body armor. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of body armor if the person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony or misdemeanor involving violence, knowingly:

(a) Wears body armor; and

(b) Possesses a deadly weapon.

(2) Unlawful possession of body armor is a Class B felony. [2001 c.635 §3]


www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:39:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gunkata:
huh?.. What exactly does that mean?.... Maybe i live under a rock but can you explain? It can be illegal to own body armor?


Otherwise know as the crime of resisting a police officer's bullet.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 5:15:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
Otherwise know as the crime of resisting a police officer's bullet.


Since it was actually the vest that did the resisting, how about we civilly forfeit it and call it even, then?
Top Top