Polymer80 80% pistol ghost gun

Starting September 1, Oregon will enforce a controversial new ban on “ghost guns”. While gun owners and gun rights advocates all see this for what it is, a law that makes people with no intent to commit crimes, by legal definition, criminals simply for owning something that has always been legal, supporters argue that this ban, enacted as part of House Bill 2005, will make communities safer.

Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who has been a vocal proponent of the ban, claims that “responsible gun ownership means respecting the gun laws of our state, and that now includes a ban on unserialized and undetectable ‘ghost guns.'” Never mind if they change those laws simply to criminals legal gun owners. The law is simply another step in the erosion of Oregon residents’ Second Amendment rights. The new law basically states that after September 1, any firearm bought after October 22, 1968, along with unfinished frames or receivers, must have a serial number.

The penalties for noncompliance are steep, with fines up to $1,000 for a first offense, and the threat of higher fines or even jail time for repeat offenders. To avoid these penalties, gun owners are being forced to take their firearms to federally licensed dealers to have them serialized, an added burden that many see as unnecessary government overreach, especially on some firearms older than 50 years and that have been owned by the same person all that time.

The law has not gone unchallenged. The Oregon Firearms Federation Inc. and Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. recently filed a motion to block the ban, arguing that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Oregonians. However, in a decision that has sparked outrage among gun rights supporters, United States District Judge Adrienne Nelson denied the motion. Judge Nelson argued that the Second Amendment right “is not unequivocal” and claimed, without substantial evidence, that unserialized or undetectable firearms are primarily used for illegal purposes, rather than for lawful self-defense, collectible or other legitimate uses.

As the September 1 deadline approaches, many gun owners feel under siege, facing what they see as yet another attempt by the state to criminalize their rights. The Oregon Department of Justice may urge compliance for the “safety of your families and communities,” but we see it for what it really is, another law that will only hamper and criminalize the otherwise law abiding. It won’t stop the criminals at all.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

39 COMMENTS

    • This is a prime example of what you get when you allow a court or a politicians to determine what rights you have and how you can exercise them in total disregard of the Constitution. Until ‘We the People” put a stop to it. Their will always be those that will use their power and authority to usurp it.

  2. RE: “Judge Nelson argued that the Second Amendment right “is not unequivocal”

    Rest assured when it comes to defending her happy behind the Second Amendment becomes unequivocal. The word unequivocal is by far and waaaay too much when talking about a gun with a number verses a gun without a number. In other words for the sneaky judge to sell her turd sandwich she stooped to word embellishment.

    Nothing new Gun Control has been screwing people for centuries…
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&feature=shared

    • Hang in there Oregon. Keep what you have like 99% of ILLannoy FOID holder’s. And keep yer powder dry! If the dims steal the next election who knows what will happen🙄

  3. ahh the old “prove you’re not guilty”

    Judge, in this Country, actions not regulated by law are presumptive lawful.

    Furthermore, before 1968, firearms did not require a serial number.

    So, in keeping with both Heller and Bruen, the plain text is implicated (acquisition of arms), and there is no historical tradition of requiring a serial number on a firearm.

  4. Interesting how the progs think state supremacy is a thing when it suits their (moronic) agenda.

    • As long as it is used against those “other” people. But eventually it will be used against them. The system always end up consuming their own.

  5. “To avoid these penalties, gun owners are being forced to take their firearms to federally licensed dealers to have them serialized, an added burden that many see as unnecessary government overreach,…”

    The demand that they be serialized by an FFL means they will be creating an illegal gun registry.

    Thank God the SCotUS is hearing the unserialized ‘Ghost Gun’ case this fall, with a decision expected by next summer…

  6. So how do these so called “Ghost Guns” become undetectable without a serial number?
    Could it be just more fear mongering from the disarmament industry?
    As for a firearm being untraceable without a serial number how do you trace a firearm that has been stolen and handed around on the black market or has had the serial numbers filed off or otherwise obliterated or altered?
    I have several perfectly legal firearms purchased privately that no official record could track for decades.
    Next question, the current trend of home built firearms has been the partially finished receivers or frames. But nothing is stopping anyone from building from scratch or machining frames from steel billets.
    As for the claims that criminals are the only people making home built firearms, most criminals aren’t that ambitious. Usually cheaper and easier to just steal or buy a stolen firearm.

    • “So how do these so called “Ghost Guns” become undetectable without a serial number?”

      They mean undetectable by the BATF. Since there was never a serial number on it, as far as they are concerned, it doesn’t exist.

      No record, no paper trail, they way the Founders intended it. You cannot overthrow a government if the government knows where every gun is…

    • “But nothing is stopping anyone from building from scratch or machining frames from steel billets.”

      0% lowers are their next target!

    • they are terrified of any loss of control…which is what these guns represent…plenty of room for compromise here..but they don’t seem interested…

  9. Despite the (bogus) ‘special prosecutor’ Jack Smith having zero authority to carry forth, and didn’t from the beginning, basically he was never approved by Congress to act in this capacity, to bring indictments or prosecute, and despite the SCOTUS ruling and federal courts rulings to the contrary of Jack Smiths actions … Jack Smith though Bidens DOJ has once again filed (as in new), basically, ‘election interference’ ’emotional’, (super-ceding) indictments against Trump in Washington, DC. so basically the same previous unlawful and unconstitutional case can be re-hashed.

    Forget about a mis-carriage of justice, Jack Smith performed a full abortion of justice.

    Anyway…. DOJ has indicted President Trump again in Washington, DC. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWTL4byId48

  12. First, there is no such thing as a ‘ghost gun’. There are guns with or without traceable serial numbers, and guns commercially manufactured or personally made.

    Second, the term ‘ghost gun’ is an invented term by anti-gun intended to create an emotional state response to their implied ‘horrible and the world will end’ if law abiding people have guns concept.

    Third, the anti-gun term ‘ghost gun’ is ambiguous and vague on purpose. They create these terms like ‘buckets’ they can fill with anything they want. For example, the terms ‘assault weapon’ and ‘weapons of war’ as applied for the MSR (AKA AR-15) – when actually the AR-15 was never a military weapon, was never an ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapon of war’, and has never, contrary to the anti-gun, been issued in U.S. military service or been used in any U.S. military ‘war’ capability, and was originally created and intended as a semi-auto ‘sporting’ rifle by Armalite.

    The AR-15 is not a military weapon or ‘assault weapon’ or a ‘weapon of war’ and never has been. The original design was a scaled down version of the AR-10, and was intended for the civilian market as a semi-auto ‘sporting’ rifle. It wasn’t actually created by Stoner as his rendition came later after that scale down design. The original design scale down was by Jim Sullivan. Later, Stoner took that and made modifications and design changes to the original civilian scale down design to suit military purposes thus creating a new design but still in the same design series cycle of Armalite at the time which was rifle design cycle 15 thus the AR-15 designation meaning ‘Armalite Rifle 15’. It unfortunately still carried the AR-15 designation not because it was a military only design but simply because it was done in the same design cycle. Thus there were actually two different AR-15 designs, with the original being intended for the civilian market and the other, the Stoner design, being derived from the civilian version design. So in reality, contrary to anti-gun and other sources, the AR-15 was actually intended to be and was designed as a civilian rifle. In other words it always was for the civilian market. The derived from the civilian version design Stoner design was what Colt got in the patent purchase, Colt took that and did a redesign and marketed their redesign to the military and it later became designated the M-16 and did a civilian version and marketed that to the commercial civilian market. But here again that unfortunate use of the AR-15 designation… part of the agreement with Colt to buy the patent was that the AR-15 designation would be carried forth by Colt and this resulted in some early models of the rifles sold to the military and civilian markets having the AR-15 designation on them thus because it was sold to the military with that designation it started to become known as a ‘military rifle’. And from that eventually derived the term ‘assualt weapon’ invented by Josh Sugarman as a means to deceive the public and then from the anti-gun as ‘weapon of war’ to deceive the public by use of the concept that Stoner invented the AR-15 as a military weapon when in reality he didn’t as his design was only a rendition of a civilian rifle and not an invention by him. The AR-15 is not a military weapon or ‘assault weapon’ or a ‘weapon of war’ and never has been.

    Fourth, the term ‘ghost gun’ encompass a lot they do not tell you about on purpose so they can keep implying that fire arms made by law abiding American individuals are ‘evil’. For example, they don’t really want people to know that the term ‘ghost guns’ also encompasses complete guns that were legally made and sold by federal licenses holders but were stolen and the serial numbers were obliterated in some manner. They don’t want you to know that the term ‘ghost gun’ also encompasses any gun that the ATF can’t trace back to an FFL within 6 hours, it takes a minimum of 24 hours on 99% of guns for the ATF to trace a gun back to an FFL when the gun has a serial number – this means that 99% of guns the ATF traces goes in the ‘ghost gun’ category thus falsely inflating the numbers of crime guns recovered and claimed to be ‘ghost guns’.

    Fifth, a serial number on a gun has never, contrary to movies and TV shows, actually solved a violent crime or prevented a violent crime like the anti-gun want to claim. The reason is simple, the presence of absence of a serial number does not prove the person actually used the gun as that requires other evidence.

    • .40 cal Booger,

      With respect to solving crimes, the civilian disarmament industrial complex claims that serialized firearms left at crime scenes direct law enforcement to whom they should intensely focus their investigation in order to secure the evidence necessary to prove that the owner pulled the trigger.

      For example, John Doe is the registered owner of a firearm which John Doe leaves at a crime scene. Law enforcement finds John Doe’s firearm and trace it to John Doe. Law enforcement also finds John Doe’s unique DNA (which is not yet in any database) on the firearm and on the victim. Since the firearm is registered to John Doe, law enforcement can now camp outside John Doe’s home and wait for John Doe to discard something in his trash which they can legally grab to acquire John Doe’s unique DNA profile. With a matching DNA profile from John Doe and on the firearm and victim, law enforcement can now arrest and prosecute John Doe.

      Thus there is clear utility in traceable firearms. (Never mind the fact that criminals rarely leave firearms at crime scenes and criminals often use firearms that cannot be traced to them anyway.)

      The problem on our side is allowing civilian disarmament advocates to drag us into a debate over social utility. A reasonably intelligent person can make a valid social utility argument for just about everything. Privacy is a HUGE one. Law enforcement could solve countless additional crimes if every person had to wear a tracker at all times, if every person had to have cameras inside every room of their homes which law enforcement viewed and recorded at all times, and if every spoken/written/typed word was recorded and traceable to law enforcement. But we don’t allow that previous list because it violates our inherent human dignity codified in our privacy laws. We must take the same tact with firearms.

      • “With respect to solving crimes, the civilian disarmament industrial complex claims that serialized firearms left at crime scenes direct law enforcement to whom they should intensely focus their investigation in order to secure the evidence necessary to prove that the owner pulled the trigger.”

        That’s false. Has never happened.

        Have they ever used a serial number to discover who the owner was? Yes, they have. But discovering who the ‘owner’ is does nothing to show the ‘owner’ or anyone else actually used the gun to commit a violent crime.

        But have they ever used a serial number to discover who the actual perpetrator of a violent crime was? Nope, has never happened. Its a false logic they use, that without serial numbers the actual perpetrator of a crime can’t be found and convicted. Think of it like this, if all they had was a serial number and they dragged some person into court – would the serial number alone be enough to convict the person of a violent crime? Nope. What they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that person actually used the gun to commit the violent crime and a serial number does not do that or help that happen. The presence or absence of a serial number does nothing to show the gun was actually used by a specific person in a violent crime.

        • .40 cal Booger,

          I think you missed my point. A serial number and registration absolutely can lead police to a PRIME SUSPECT to whom they focus additional investigation to acquire additional critical evidence.

          That does not matter, though, because it requires that government invade our privacy in the first place through requiring serial numbers and registration. For that reason alone government should not be able to require serialization and registration.

          As I stated: government tries to rationalize serialization and registration via arguments of social utility and we should NOT even allow that line of attack because it violates our inherent human dignity.

          • Oh I got your point. But the concept, although it may lead them to the person who owned the gun it doesn’t necessarily lead them to the person who actually committed the crime.

            For example:

            1. Its extremely unlikely a gun owner would leave the gun they own at the scene of a crime to be recovered. So it would not matter if a serial number was on it or not because the police would not have the gun anyway to check.

            2. Although a criminal with a stolen gun (over 98.7% of crimes using guns are committed with stolen guns) might leave a gun at the crime scene. If the gun were recovered from the crime scene and had a serial number its only going to lead the cops back to the FFL or owner from which it was stolen and does nothing to lead them to the actual bad guy.

            3. Even in the case where the actual owner of the gun commits a violent crime and that crime is discovered, them having possession of the gun with a serial number, the serial number did nothing to lead police there if the crime was detected.

            There are zero actual violent crime suspects that were ever ‘detected’ and caught and prosecuted and convicted because a gun either had a serial number or not.

        • I think it gives the antis an avenue to punish folks for having the audacity to own a firearm in the first place.

  13. that now includes a ban on unserialized and undetectable ‘ghost guns.’”

    Undetectable??? Really? How so?

    I’m quite certain that my PMFs are quite “detectable.” LOL! They are identical in their “detectability” as all my factory firearms.

    This is not a misstatement or slip. The use of the word “undetectable” is very much intentional and designed to leverage the willful ignorance of the general public.

    “Ghost!” “Undetectable!” OMG! OMG! Nobody NEEDS an undetectable ghost gun! OMG!

      • Of course it’s a lie. Some will argue, “He meant that they were untraceable.”

        No. If that’s what he meant, he would have said that. He intentionally conflated the terms to leverage the willfully ignorant and gullible public (who think “Die Hard” is real) into agreeing with his disarmament agenda.

        Nobody needs undetectable guns! OMG!

        • Well, in their law they use this (anti-gun created) term ‘undetectable’ and filled it with the definitions they wanted and the definitions are anti-gun agenda self serving. And in their law its derived from the federal law definitions of ‘firearm’ and ‘frames/receivers’, both of which have already been stuck down in part as unconstitutional at SCOTUS in different contexts. So on the face of it their law was for a fact already unconstitutional when it was created.

          Anti-gun did the same thing when Glocks came to the U.S. The anti-gun org known today as ‘Brady United’ started its life in 1974 as the organization known as ‘National Council to Control Handguns’ and was trying to ban handguns. They had back then an ardent supporting admirer named Joe Biden who was attracted to their agenda idea they could control peoples actions and access for ‘things/activities’ based upon invoking feelings of ‘fear’ and ‘insecurity’ with slanted/false focused propaganda, which is a key component in establishing and maintaining a mar ==x – ist socia ==list communism. And by doing that could eventually dictate national policy to control the rights of people to bend them to the governments will which is also a key component in establishing and maintaining a mar ==x – ist socia ==list communism.

          The ‘National Council to Control Handguns’ started this thing that Glocks were ‘undetectable’ because they were made of ‘plastic’, which was never true. This crazy false concept of ‘undetectable’ eventually led to a federal law, the ‘undetectable firearms act’, that had no basis in reality because Glocks were never ‘undetectable’, as the act intends and claimed way back by the anti-gun org when Glocks were introduced, by ‘metal detectors or x-ray machines’. And ever since then the term ‘undetectable’ has been hanging around in the anti-gun lexicon as an irrational emotionally based fear mongering technique term.

          And today we have Joe Biden in office creating the ‘White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’ staffed entirely by radical extremist left wing rabid anti-gun people from anti-gun organzations who exercise the power of elected officials without being elected officials, paid by tax payer dollars and are not even government employees, with no controls on them, creating government policy designed to control peoples actions and access for ‘things/activities’ based upon invoking feelings of ‘fear’ and ‘insecurity’ with slanted/false focused propaganda and control the rights of people (not just the 2A, all of them for everyone, this ‘office’ does much more than ‘gun violence’) to bend them to the governments will. And Brady United people and other anti-gun org people are routine visitors to ‘consult’ with the ‘White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’. And Kamala Harris wants to continue this, what is basically a, ‘reign of fear tyranny’, concept to more fully install the next parts of a mar ==x – ist socia ==list communism.

          Unless of course it was the Glock 7 made entirely of porcelain, which some anti-gun people still think actually exists. I’m serious, I had an anti-gun person a little over a year ago tell me about ‘undetectable’ guns ’cause “80% kits” and they actually cited “…the Glock 7 is made entirely of porcelain and that makes it undetectable…”

          So its not just a word, this ‘undetectable’ thing. Its part of an anti-gun agenda.

  14. “Responsible gun ownership means respecting the gun laws of our state, and that now includes a ban on unserialized and undetectable ‘ghost guns.’” — Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum

    Let’s change the context from firearms to something else and see if the Attorney General’s statement is still A-OK. The hypothetical context is a state whose population is in serious decline and the state believes that decline will be a major problem for the state–thus the state has passed a law requiring women of child-bearing age to register for forced impregnation so that the state can forcibly impregnate women to prevent population decline.

    “Responsible citizenship means respecting the population laws of our state, and that now includes a ban on unregistered and undetectable women of child-bearing age to uphold our forced impregnation laws.”

    I have said it many times and it bears repeating: a very large number (most?) of the Ruling Class are just plain evil and revel in causing chaos and suffering. They are the equivalent of scumbags at the beach who get-off on smashing young children’s sand castles. Whenever a government entity creates a policy, rule, or law which tells us what we can or cannot do, take a hard look at it. Seriously consider whether justifications are just a con-job to secure compliance for the real agenda which is causing chaos and suffering, or at the least to consolidate wealth and power for the Ruling Class.

    • What you have with the Ruling Class is the 3+ generation effect. The first generation gained wealth and with the wealth political influence. They used the wealth to set up the next generation to further gain and consolidate wealth and influence. The third-plus generation have only known wealth, power, influence, and privilege. They know daddy’s lawyers will always get them out of trouble. With their power and privilege, they see themselves as above mere normal people and have little but disdain and contempt for their “lessers”. Inflicting pain and suffering onto normal people has as much amusement as if they were cruel to an animal.

  16. “Responsible gun ownership means respecting the gun laws of our state, and that now includes a ban on unserialized and undetectable ‘ghost guns.’”

    no, that’s not what “Responsible gun ownership” means, that’s what you want it to mean because it serves your agenda.

    its like saying “Responsible gun ownership” means you can’t own guns.

    • there is no such thing as “unserialized and undetectable ‘ghost guns.’ ”

      a ‘ghost gun’ is not a firearm category of actual firearm.

      they are not ‘undetectable’.

      they may not have a serial number, but for self-made firearms and for law abiding people they are covered by the 2A which says nothing about needing a serial number.

      • or in other words… despite the many laws already prohibiting guns for criminals, with serial numbers or not…. you decided to create criminals by infringing the constitutional rights of law abiding people who like to build their own guns to turn them into felons and you call it ‘responsible gun ownership’ if they don’t exercise their 2A rights.

  17. What is truly disturbing, is the part about being purchased after October 22, 1968.

    Where did they come up with date an why?

    Does it really state purchased? What if it was gifted, inherited? How would they know if it was purchased?

    I understand their warped logic, but firearm owners KNOW, criminals don’t obey laws.

    How ignorant can a judge be, to say: there is No Evidence of them being used for self-defense?!

    There is less evidence the law will Do Any GOOD!

Comments are closed.