OR Pastor won AR-15, could face charges

Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick was one of the bill's chief sponsors. She said the allegations go against the spirit of the new law.

"Pastor Lucas was trying to do the right thing. He was trying to protect his own family by making sure the gun was safely secured and that is not the same thing as somebody going into a store or buying a gun and then immediately giving it to a convicted felon,” said Burdick.

She said she commends Lucas for what he did.
Click to expand...

So the chief sponsor of the bill thinks the law should not be enforced? Why am I not surprised.
 
I am continually amazed how selectively the "spirit of a law is applied".

If a gun owner had handed over all their guns to a friend because they had a family member that was not currently stable enough to have guns in the home would they enforce the "spirit of the law" or just rightly enforce the "law"?

EDIT: Besides under the new law the pastor no longer has the cognitive ability to reasonably believe the person is not a convicted felon. Only the system can now decide that for him.
 
Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick was one of the bill's chief sponsors. She said the allegations go against the spirit of the new law.
Click to expand...
Laws don't have "spirits." Laws have words, and as a rule the police and the courts are supposed to enforce laws according to the words contained in the law. Such as when NY state enacted their SAFE law after Sandy Hook, and forgot to include a magazine capacity exception for the police. To the credit of the state police, they limited their magazines to seven rounds until the law was amended.

The same should apply here. If Ms. Burdick intended for there to be an exception for pastors who won firearms in raffles, she should have written that into the law.
 
Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick was one of the bill's chief sponsors. She said the allegations go against the spirit of the new law.
Click to expand...

Since the spirit of the new law is to mess with law-abiding firearms owners, I guess she's correct...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ill say it again, Oregons gun rights group fought hard to amend the law to make it legal to have someone safeguard a firearm for you without being illegal and Ginny Burdick and her
cronies refused to amend the law for any reason.

The amount of hypocracy expressed by Burdick in light of the Pastors antics is unparalleled.


I imagine we are not alone, but will just say many of you would be surprised at how fast Oregons gun rights are slipping away. Oregon traditionally has been a very pro gun state with liberal gun rights, but those rights are under constant attack every election to no avail. Next years session will be no exception, its already been formally announced by Gov. Brown more gun control on they way...

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/gov_brown_renews_push_for_bill.html


and none of these will make any difference on violent crime or mass shootings.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Laws don't have "spirits." Laws have words, and as a rule the police and the courts are supposed to enforce laws according to the words contained in the law. Such as when NY state enacted their SAFE law after Sandy Hook, and forgot to include a magazine capacity exception for the police. To the credit of the state police, they limited their magazines to seven rounds until the law was amended.
Click to expand...

Laws do indeed have "spirits", but are written in such a way to avoid loopholes, abuse. In the academy, we were taught to know the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. If we enforced every law as written, everybody would have an arrest record.

For example, the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon statute,720 ILCS 5/24-1. I could literally arrest 5 people a day for violating that statute for carrying concealed, on their person, while holding a valid out of state CCL, which Illinois does not honor. That's the letter of the law. Should I enforce that? Or the spirit of the law which isn't really geared towards those attempting to legally exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

As far as the OP, I don't know the letter of the Oregon law, but if he didn't violate the spirit..........#shrug let the Church gripe about the stupid waste of Church funds.
 
the reason Burdick et al didnt want to amend the law to allow safeguarding is because it wouldnt work at all if you did not include all transfers. Allowing safeguarding would be allowing a "loophole"in the law.

the "spirit" of the law is to conduct a background check on all transfers.
 
The law is to prevent me from allowing another person possession of one of my guns without first conducting a background check.

What's the difference between me giving my brother-in-law a gun without a background check and the pastor handing over an assault weapon to an acquaintance.

We all know the pastor meant no harm, same as most of us. The law is to target lawful gun owners to ensure that they don't wind up in criminal hands.

How is the pastor to know where the gun is if it's now in someone else's control.

I don't know the law verbatim, but I know it was written to limit the transfer of firearms between citizens
 
Koda, I understand what you're saying, unless safeguarding could have been written in with a very narrow definition, then a safeguarding amendment could have been abused as a loophole. So the letter of the law says all transfers, including safeguarding? Then he violated the letter of the law.

But two questions....

Does the statute include the word knowingly?
Does the statute include the words prohibited persons?

Again, without knowing the letter of the law, it's hard for an outsider to get a feel for the spirit of the law.

Regardless, I think it would be fitting if an anti-gunner violates a gun control and gets charged with doing so. Kinda of a karma thing.
 
These laws scare me. The bit about a BG check and going through a dealer even for temp transfers like loaning one a gun.

I teach CC classes. I recommend people don't buy a gun until they try several to see what works for them. Our club furnishes several for them to try.

I also do CMP Clinics and Matches. The CMP encourages the loaning of rifles to those who don't have one, to get more involved in matches.

Our club owns several pistols and rifles for our 4-H shooters.

What are temp. transfers?

I never read one of those preposed laws that explained it. The fed law didn't, from what I read of it, in each of the above incidents a BG Check and Dealer would be required for the loan, and return of the gun.

What about loaning hunting rifles. What about two hunters in the field crossing a fence. Safety would dictate one hands his partner his rifle, crosses the fence, and takes both rifles so the partner can cross the fence.

Again: What is a Temp. Transfer?
 
In WA, they staged protests after the passage of UBC law where gun owners openly exchanged firearms in violation of the law in order to prove that it was basically unenforceable.

The most disturbing thing about UBC laws is not the background checks, it's what measures that will be required to enforce them.

Safe keeping would be a gaping loophole
 
The most disturbing thing about UBC laws is not the background checks, it's what measures that will be required to enforce them.

Safe keeping would be a gaping loophole
Click to expand...

exactly.

and thats exactly why Burdick wouldnt listen to us when we tried to amend the letter of the law (we had other amendments that were more robust too.... ignored)

and thats why Burdick, et al, is so blatantly hypocritical on this...

and thats why the pastor should be prosecuted.
 
In WA, they staged protests after the passage of UBC law where gun owners openly exchanged firearms in violation of the law in order to prove that it was basically unenforceable.
Click to expand...

We did more than that. We both voluntarily complied (gun shows) AND refused to enforce (State Police, and every other enforcement agency).

The WA law is incredibly poorly written ( and mercifully fairly short). I have read it. I have not read the Oregon law, but I expect that while very similar, it's not identical.

The biggest problem with the WA law, and the reason the State Police and others are refusing to enforce it, is that it is unclear what is, and is not a "transfer" covered under the law. The State police have said that they would enforce the law, IF the state provides clarification and direction on this matter. It's coming up on a couple YEARS now, and so far, the state has NOT provided any.

"Transfer" (without further definition) includes not only the commonly used and accepted meaning, which is transfer of OWNERSHIP, but also includes transfer of POSSESSION. Now, transfer of possession CAN be covered under law, whether it SHOULD be is a different matter, but it can be. HOWEVER, if it is, it needs to be clearly defined.

The WA law could be read so as to include all transfers, both of ownership, AND possession, it makes no defined distinction. AND, as I read it, you have to take YOU, THE GUN, and the TRANSFEREE (person it is being transferred to), to an FFL dealer and have them run the check while you wait. EVERY TIME.

WHAT it DOES have are a couple of listed EXCEPTIONS to the background check requirements, such as certain direct family members (but only certain ones, for example you could transfer a gun to your grandson without a background check, but not to your nephew...), and it exempts us from having to have a background check

And here's the kicker, its the other exceptions that make the law so "bad". They law exempts "transfers" at "approved shooting ranges" (what ever those are???) and "while hunting". OK, fine, those are places where one would not want to hassle with having to go TO AN FFL dealer and have a check run, in order to hand your gun to someone else, right??

HOWEVER, by providing these exceptions, that implies the law is in effect in ALL OTHER SITUATIONS!!!!

Say I've got a close friend, not a family member, known him for 20+ years, worked with him most of that time, know for a fact that he is NOT a prohibited person. We are at an "approved" range (or hunting), he hands me his gun to check out, I do, and hand it back, NO going to an FFL dealer, no background checks run. LEGAL under the law.

Same guy, same gun, but we are in his living room. He hands me his latest Colt, or Winchester, etc., to look at. I do, and hand it back. NO going to an FFL dealer, no background checks run.

Under the law, 3 crimes have now been committed. One, when he "transferred" (handed) it to me with no BGC, TWO, when I handed it back (both misdemeanors under the law), and THREE, when HE ACCEPTED HIS OWN PROPERTY BACK without a check, and since he already "broke the BGC law" by handing the gun to me, him breaking it again, by taking it back, is now a FELONY offense.

I commend the WA enforcement agencies, for their stand on this matter, and their public admission about what, and why they are doing it.

Not certain just how the Oregon law handles this situation, but I assume it is equally draconian. However it appears that Oregon enforcement agencies are enforcing it. (All hail the state!)

IF that IS the case, then the Pastor BROKE THE LAW, and should be prosecuted, fully, and publically. NO special consideration because he did what IS ILLEGAL for "the right reasons". That is just morally wrong, and I would use a much stronger expression if the language filters allowed.

EQUAL TREAMENT UNDER THE LAW its not just an abstract ideal (though in practice it often seems so...:mad:)

MAKE THEM PUBLICALLY ADMIT THEIR HYPOCRACY! Other than court challenges, its the only avenue we have, once the law is in place.
 
Its my impression (opinion) that when they wrote our law they learned a lot from the debacle of Washington’s law and clarified it better... that is, its easier to understand but still invasive

44 Amp said:
Not certain just how the Oregon law handles this situation, but I assume it is equally draconian. However it appears that Oregon enforcement agencies are enforcing it. (All hail the state!)
Click to expand...

here is the actual law: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941/Enrolled

You will find the law defines a "transfer" as "the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, in-cluding, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm."

There are some exceptions to the law for hunting, immediate family etc. etc. but thats it, nothing for safeguarding... like rickyrick said safeguarding would be a huge loophole.

easier/quicker to read.... Here is a shorter abbreviation of the law: https://www.oregon.gov/osp/docs/SB941_Information_Sheet.pdf
 
This has turned out to be very interesting. Thanks to all contributors.

The poor old pastor has taken one for the teams. Yes I meant teams because it's educational to us (we should all be following this one) and if he unwittingly committed a gun crime, then he's taking it for the antis. We have voiced our opinions on UBCs as being abusive to law abiding citizens, now this kinda proves it.

I feel for the pastor, even though he attempted to pull a political statement jerk move. Hopefully he will come out of it with a new perspective on the issue.
 
The poor old pastor has taken one for the teams. Yes I meant teams because it's educational to us (we should all be following this one) and if he unwittingly committed a gun crime, then he's taking it for the antis. We have voiced our opinions on UBCs as being abusive to law abiding citizens, now this kinda proves it.
Click to expand...
yes exactly.

On one side if they don’t enforce this law then that means all of us can ignore it (in theory... I'd like to hear some opinions on that from the lawyers here.)

On the other side, if they do enforce this law it proves how invasive and infringing it is to lawful citizens, especially those who are trying to do the right thing (safeguarding).
 
mrray13 said:
For example, the Illinois Unlawful Use of a Weapon statute,720 ILCS 5/24-1. I could literally arrest 5 people a day for violating that statute for carrying concealed, on their person, while holding a valid out of state CCL, which Illinois does not honor. That's the letter of the law. Should I enforce that? Or the spirit of the law which isn't really geared towards those attempting to legally exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...
Are you a police officer? If yes, what's the other moniker applied to your profession?

Answer: Law Enforcement Officer. If you are a police officer, your job is to enforce the law, objectively and uniformly. It's the job of the courts to decide if an arrestee violated the "spirit" of a law, or if he/she didn't and should skate.

My great-grandfather was a law professor and my grandfather was his student. I was raised to believe (and I still believe) that laws that are enforced arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because they lead to contempt for the rule of law. And, with all due respect, if you are deciding on the street which violators of a law you'll arrest and which you'll ignore -- you are enforcing the law arbitrarily and capriciously.

I know that my carry permits are not recognized in Illinois and if I were to go to Illinois I would not think of carrying. I would (and should) expect to be arrested. If other people are allowed to break Illinois law while I'm dumb enough to remain legal, I'm sorry but I just don't see that as particularly fair.
 
Last edited:
SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Transfer” means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including,
but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. “Transfer” does not
include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason
to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the
firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:
Click to expand...

(F) For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the
provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury.
Click to expand...

Those two sections quoted, bold, underlined emphasis mine, are why the pastor WON'T get prosecuted. By my understanding, those two pretty much sum up safeguarding without spelling it directly. Someone correct me if they think I'm wrong, but from my Law Enforcement background and training, in Illinois, I wouldn't charge the pastor. Or anyone else who hands off a firearm as pointed out in the above two sections.

Aguila Blanca, I respect what you are saying, but it's literally impossible to enforce the law as you suggest. From any angle, it's just impossible. That's why, IMHumbleO, we enforce the spirit moreso the letter. Like I said previously, if we enforced the letter on every law, everyone would have an arrest record. See the improbability to that? How do you investigate, arrest, prosecute, house, enforce non incarcerated convictions on every person in the nation, save those under 13? 13, because that's the age in Illinois you can be charged, convicted for a criminal offense. Your state might vary. Don't think I'm accurate? When's the last time you rolled a stop sign, didn't use a turn signal, in front of a cop and didn't get the ticket? Or even pulled over? If we enforced the letter period, then what is supposed to happen? Hopefully, you see what I'm getting at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top