So I decided to search for details and this is what I found. Case law May-Oct 2009 Suffolk County, MA
It doesn't appear gray to this case, where the state in order to convict for possession of a firearm without a license must prove the firearm is operable and capable of discharging a bullet.
The link has the rest of it.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/75/75massappct361.html
ETA: At least in this case, it appears that the state has the burden to prove that the firearm is indeed functional. I don't see how anybody could reason that a lower, even though it had been a complete firearm 20 years ago, without constructive parts in possession, could still be considered a firearm because it is not capable of discharging a round without a barrel. Maybe disasembled with all parts available, but just a lower i don't see how given the states burden to show the firearm is functional to charge with illegal possession. Maybe I am confusing something.
