![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Illinois - down state
Posts: 2,364
|
Pieces of a gun . . . ?
I know this is kinda rhetorical and I suspect there is no one definitive answer but . . . is a gun in pieces still a gun?
Here in Illinois, King Pritzger (more like a jester) managed to get a bunch of gun laws pushed through state legislation. And because he literally owns the state supreme court there will have to be federal action to knock it all down. That's gonna take a while. In the mean time, as of Oct. 1 us serfs are supposed to register certain guns and magazines. The deadline is Dec. 3. LEO all over the state are vowing to have no part of this. The jester may appoint special law enforcement to make it happen. But us serfs, with our rifle hanging in our shed, still have to decide what to do. I'm wondering, if push comes to shove, if a bunch of pieces of an AR-15 stashed all over my house still constitutes an AR-15, I mean by legal definition. If it gets really bad I'll take my banned weapons to my brother in Idaho. I'd move there myself if I could get the rest of the family to come with me. Life is good ... a touch crazy but . . . Prof Young |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,790
|
By federal law, the receiver constitutes a firearm. Other parts are not considered to be firearms unless they qualify as firearms under the NFA.
The NFA defines some items to be firearms that would normally be considered to be parts. Things like silencers, certain machinegun parts, etc. Per federal law, then, if you disassemble your AR-15, the receiver is still considered to be a firearm even with no pieces attached to it. But you're talking about trying to deal with a state law. You'll have to see what constitutes a firearm under your state's law. I would expect it to be somewhat similar to the federal definition, but you should check.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
Friend's friend lives on a boat. There was huge storm and the boat capsized. He couldn't find his guns after they righted his boat. What a pity.
So I was told. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,790
|
Quote:
If you are going to transfer possession across state lines (giving guns from a resident of one state to a resident of a different state), you will need to get an FFL involved to do it legally.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,218
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,790
|
If they're locked up so the brother can not get to them, that would not be a transfer of possession since the brother would not be able to actually take possession.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Illinois - down state
Posts: 2,364
|
Thanks to one and all . . .
Yeah, I need to check with state law and the legal definition of a fire arm in IL.
Are we having fun yet? Prof Young |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,373
|
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
Since 1968 Federal law requires a serial number on a gun before it can enter commerce (be sold or otherwise transfer ownership /possession). Generally speaking this is the receiver or frame but there are exceptions. Again generally speaking the serial number is put on the major part that you cannot assemble a functional firearm without, but what ever part it goes on, THAT part (alone) is considered to be the firearm for all legal purposes.
Guns made before 1968 are not required to have serial numbers under Federal law. Most do, and, if there is a serial number you may not remove it, but there are many guns, mostly budget grade shotguns and .22 rifles that do not and never did have serial numbers.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,218
|
Getting back to the original question:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
I suppose the new laws are concerning certain kind of semi auto rifles. An AR lower receiver is serialized and is considered a firearm. But it alone doesn't necessarily make a semi auto rifle. As long as it is separated from a functioning semi auto upper receiver, it shouldn't be an assault weapon per definition. But as soon as you reassemble the rifle, you break the law. Just my understanding, and I am not licensed to practice law in your state.
There are a few legal cases in process that may over turn all these tyrannical state laws. Duncan V Bonta will deem magazine capacity restrictions unconstitutional, and it was ruled as such just last week. Miller V Bonta will do the same on assault rifles. But it is still pending. Keep the hope high and our prayers earnest. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,218
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
Quote:
Nanny as California, we can buy lower receivers no problem. Non-semi auto, straight pull, bolt action, upper on AR lower is totally kosher. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
Quote:
The various states that restrict and ban these items are NOT uniform in what it covered nor how it is defined. Sometimes the state laws are worded in such a way that they don't actually cover what everyone assumes they cover. A key point is how terms are defined, as well as how those definitions are applied. And, the application currently in force might not be legal under the law, as written. using the example of a stripped AR receiver (and not a partially finished one), legally it is a firearm. ALL BY ITSELF with no other parts attached. BUT, depending on the wording of the state law, it may not fit the state's definition of an assault weapon. Some of the state laws define assault weapons by the features a gun possesses. A stripped lower doesn't have a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or any other parts. SO, here's the question, if it doesn't have what the law defines to make it banned or restricted, is it? Should it be?? CAN it legally be?? The gun ban folks will say sure, it HAS to be, because of what you could make it into. But, does THE LAW say that? Is intent covered in your state law's definitions? or is it just physical features the item has??? I think the CA example mentioned is a perfect example of what is possible. You could build a manually operated (straight pull) bolt action on an AR lower receiver, and NONE of the state laws restricting semi autos can be applied. Prohibiting the AR lower because "the only thing you can do with it is make an assault weapon" is a LIE. Some places ban AR lowers by name. If that's the case, you're pretty much stuck. But if they ban it because it has the features on the "ban list" when it does not, in fact have those features, I think I Judge needs to rule on that. Right now (and hopefully for the future) courts have been instructed to consider historical precedent and the idea of govt overreach as valid reason to dismiss cases and even invalidate laws. There are laws that include the intent as the crime, or part of the crime. For example, build a silencer without govt approval, and even if it doesn't actually reduce the sound, your intent was criminal and you can be convicted for that, because that law includes criminal intent. Check carefully what your state's ban/restrict laws actually say, it might not be fully in line with what everyone assumes they say.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,218
|
Quote:
Which is why the OP needs to read the Illinois definition, and the Illinois laws that pertain thereto. I can't help. I have enough difficulty trying to keep up with the anti-gun laws my state passes each year.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,792
|
From 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
Looks like they ban by name all variants of AR-15. So a lower alone is assault weapon.
-TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
the list would be much shorter if they simply listed what wasn't an "assault weapon" in their eyes...
![]() The AR is named, and all "variants" are covered. SO, even a stripped AR lower would be covered under that law's list, I think. DO note that they also include the Streetsweeper and Striker 12 shotguns. Those are NOT semi autos, they are manually operated, and do NOT have detachable magazines. They got on the original 94 AWB list, basically because they are scary looking ![]() ![]() The "drum magazine" is a non detachable cylinder and the operating mechanism is a scaled up copy of a DA revolver. They justify it being on the list with a separate sentence stating "a shotgun with a revolving cylinder" is an assault weapon. Our tax dollars at work, once again.... ![]()
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
But how do they define AR-15? What if it is renamed to 51RA?
-TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,218
|
Quote:
:list: Daisy Red Ryder carbine :/list:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,537
|
Quote:
The government accuses my rifle an AR. They will have to prove it. What makes an rifle an AR variant? The name? It looks like one? There are plenty of ARs that are not on the list. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,115
|
Quote:
Simply put, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks, flies, swims like a duck, eats duck food and breeds with ducks, its most likely to be ruled a duck, even if it doesn't say the word "duck" anywhere on it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 1,696
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|