Would this even function?

[rickyrick]

I don’t know how much I have to type to keep this from being a drive—by

This a screen shot from the actual social media page.

Would this even function?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonnyc]

A member of the "Hole-in-the-Wall" gang???
No hammer, no hammer spring...and what else is missing from that OLD beast???

[TXAZ]

It's clearly not a dangerous weapon in Texas...

[Mal H]

It looks very dangerous to me, after all you could get a nasty blood blister if it closed on your finger!

The 8 officers should be proud they took it off the street.

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder if it even qualifies as a firearm under NY law. It isn't capable of firing a shot, or expelling a projectile. I don't have any use for gang members but, nonetheless, I would probably laugh 'til I peed myself if the gansta's lawyer got him off the weapons charge because it's non-functional.

[44 AMP]

I wonder if it even qualifies as a firearm under NY law. It isn't capable of firing a shot, or expelling a projectile.

I don't think it matters. Don't know of any law outside of NFA definitions that uses ability to function in its current state as a requirement. "Designed or redesigned, made or remade to fire" doesn't include "works as found". A bare stripped frame is legally a firearm and were you a felon in possession of one, the penalty is the same as possessing a complete functional firearm.

Think about this, what happens when they find a felon in possession of a gun but no ammo?? Without ammo the gun cannot be fired, but its still a gun, with all the legal requirements appended to it.

In its current state that gun is no more dangerous than an equal weight metal pipe or a rock, but it can still legally be a weapon. and it might be legally a firearm under the definition of the law. you'd need a NY lawyer to tell with any degree of certainty.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I don't think it matters. Don't know of any law outside of NFA definitions that uses ability to function in its current state as a requirement.

I don't know what the legislature meant when they wrote the law, but I believe my state's statutory definition of firearm could be interpreted that way (by an objective judge):

"Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

The object in that photo does not have a hammer and does not have a hammer spring. Ergo, it is not a device from which a shot may be discharged.

The argument might well be rejected by a liberal judge who hates guns but, if I were the gangsta's defense attorney and that was the definition under which we were operating, I would certainly run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

[T. O'Heir]

If a cop has that pointed at him in a dark alley or anywhere else, the pointer will get shot. Same as he would if it was an Airsoft or other toy gun. And it'd be considered a "Good shooting". Doesn't matter that it would not go bang.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

If a cop has that pointed at him in a dark alley or anywhere else, the pointer will get shot. Same as he would if it was an Airsoft or other toy gun. And it'd be considered a "Good shooting". Doesn't matter that it would not go bang.

I agree. The same would happen if the weapon was a $15 airsoft from Walmart that the [alleged] perp had painted all black. That justifies a cop shooting the perp -- it doesn't make the object a firearm in the eyes of the law. The cop's defense would be that It looked like a gun, not that it was a firearm (as defined in the applicable state law).

[44 AMP]

"Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

OK, yes, I see your point here. Now go look for the "rest of the story". Does the law also say something like "or the frame or receiver of such a firearm"?? many do have language like that.

I note that the law quoted says "loaded or unloaded". and "from which a shot may be discharged". So, it appears that the law considers it a firearm even when some level of work is needed to put it into firing order. Loading the gun, for example. I do not see where this rules out having to repair a gun in order to get it to work. Repaired or not, its still a "firearm".

Probably need some court ruling on what degree of repair needed removes it from the "firearm" class. DEWAT machineguns aren't legally firearms. But they aren't just "missing a few parts" they are physically altered (cut, welded, ets) to make repair a virtual impossibility.

I can see Transit Police doing their job, but I see no reason to crow about it. I do disagree with the blub about it "being very dangerous in the wrong hands". Dangerous as a club yes. Very dangerous? I don't think so.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

OK, yes, I see your point here. Now go look for the "rest of the story". Does the law also say something like "or the frame or receiver of such a firearm"?? many do have language like that.

There is no "rest of the story." I quoted the entirety of the definition from statute.

Just another reminder that we have fifty sovereign states, and what the law says in any one (or two, or more) of them is not automatically the law in all of them.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I can see Transit Police doing their job, but I see no reason to crow about it. I do disagree with the blub about it "being very dangerous in the wrong hands". Dangerous as a club yes. Very dangerous? I don't think so.

I don't dispute that the TA cops were doing their job. I do disagree with whoever decided to make A BIG DEAL out of the fact that they took this "dangerous weapon" off the streets. It points to another foible of laws in general. In my state, as in most if not all states, we can purchase black powder handguns with no permit, no FOID, and no background check. However, we canNOT purchase (legally) non-firing replicas of handguns (or maybe of any firearms, I don't remember specifically). It's in the statutes. Dealing with some of the big Internet vendors of non-firing replicas, I've found that some simply won't sell to customers in my state. Some don't care. And one, from whom I have purchased, has a policy of selling non-firing replicas only to police and certified instructors. I wanted a non-firing Beretta 92 for a prop in my NRA Basic Pistol classes, so I e-mailed that company a scan of my NRA instructor credentials and they allowed me to buy the "gun." Technically they perhaps shouldn't have -- yet there are gun shops all over the state that are selling non-firing replicas and blank guns, and nobody seems to care that it's not legal to do so.

Oh, yeah -- my point. The object in the photo might (or might not) be a firearm under my state's laws, and that determination would affect how (or if) it might be sold. But a real percussion cap revolver? Walk into Cabela's and walk out with the gun, the powder, the lead balls, and the primers. No background check required. Does it make sense? Not to me.

[rickyrick]

The officers did a service. I’m thankful that the suspect was not shot for having that thing.
So it was a good job.
I’m not sure that it was worthy of a group photo though.

That could have easily turned deadly for the suspect.

[Paul B.]

"The object in that photo does not have a hammer and does not have a hammer spring. Ergo, it is not a device from which a shot may be discharged.

The argument might well be rejected by a liberal judge who hates guns but, if I were the gangsta's defense attorney and that was the definition under which we were operating, I would certainly run it up the flagpole and see who salutes."

I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not???? Maybe the point is some "innocent" New Yorker suddenly has that thing stuck in his face will probably not even have a clue that it's a worthless piece of junk. All he sees is "GUN!". (I was assuming it would stay shut/latched, whatever you prefer.) Still, it could have gotten someone killed, maybe the perp shot by a cop or some victim with a bad heart who freaks out at the gun and dies. Seems to me it all came out for the good. So far.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

But a real percussion cap revolver? Walk into Cabela's and walk out with the gun, the powder, the lead balls, and the primers. No background check required. Does it make sense? Not to me.

In your state it works that way in other its different. FEDERAL law doesn't consider muzzle loaders as firearms but some states still do. Again, 50 states and often 49+ different rules.

[Hawg]

In your state it works that way in other its different. FEDERAL law doesn't consider muzzle loaders as firearms but some states still do. Again, 50 states and often 49+ different rules.

Mississippi is one of those. A felon can't own or hunt with a muzzle loader.

[Aguila Blanca]

A felon can't (legally) own a percussion cap firearm in my state, either. I never said they could. I said anyone can walk into a store and buy one with no background check.

Are there any states in which a buyer of a black powder, percussion cap firearm has to go through a background check?

[TruthTellers]

For those wondering if it is a firearm, if an AR lower requires a NICS check and gets logged as a firearm, then it's a firearm even if it can't fire a round.

I could be wrong and myabe that's the legal criteria for the transfer of a firearm using the serialized portion, but so long as the frame has a serial number, it's a firearm.

Even muzzleloaders, while not firearms for purposes of transactions, are considered firearms when possessed or carried.

[bamaranger]

It'd make a poor club.....

[stinkeypete]

That sure looks like a Harrington and Richardson .22 Special

The name of the pistol is ".22 special", not the cartridge. My dad told me that Cooper the Trooper told him that the PA Highway Patrol bought a lot of them as they had a grip like their issued revolvers but shot cheap .22 ammo.

My grandpa got one from Cooper, which passed to my dad which passed to me when I was 15 or 16 for hunting rabbits.

I think the biggest danger of that hunk of metal would be some sentimental fool might take it on and try to restore it. The .22 Special is not all that common.

About 20 years back I undertook a search and eventually found one in decent shape. On a vacation with my dad, I showed him what I had found. "Hey Dad! Take a look at what I found! I got a replacement for that old .22 Special!"

My dad looked at me and said "That thing? Whatever for?"

So much for a sentimental family history, it really is a flimsy bit of junk. I wore my original one out and sold the one I searched for high and low for about what I bought it for.

Yeah.. the danger there is someone trying to restore it for sentimental reasons!

[jmr40]

More dangerous to the guy carrying it than anyone else.

[2ndsojourn]

Keep up the good work officer.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I don’t know how much I have to type to keep this from being a drive—by

This a screen shot from the actual social media page.

Would this even function?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would function quite well as a club.

[Pathfinder45]

It's still inferior to a baseball bat. Which makes me wonder if bats are ever banned. Also reminds me of the cult film, "The Warriors", in which one of the gangs colors consisted of baseball uniforms and equipment, especially bats as weapons. In a society that outlaws weapons, but not sports, it would seem that sporting equipment could be a near perfect cover for weaponry. Golf, anyone? So it appears to me that the chief value of the broken, incomplete gun, in this case, would be to look like you have a gun; a bluff that one would hope no one else calls, since it is clearly inferior to at least a few sporting implements, and also caries legal risks, perhaps more-so than a hockey stick.

[Remington74]

I didn't know that New York had slow news days.

[danco]

Updated the old meme, for everyone's use...