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.
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...
)
MAKE THEM PUBLICALLY ADMIT THEIR HYPOCRACY! Other than court challenges, its the only avenue we have, once the law is in place.