unregistered guns??

[LORD of WAR]

so...i have a sig 239 that i originally bought in .40...i recently purchased a .357 barrel for it...i was wondering...doesnt the fact that you can get a barrel insert from anywhere that doesnt have a serial number on it make the gun "unregistered"...i just thought it was weird that i received the barrel and it said no serial number needed

 

[carter]

Not really... The "gun" that is registered is the receiver.

Hence why you can buy an AK-47 Parts kit through the mail with no license... but if you want to buy a receiver.. you need to have one sent to your FFL. Though that part doesn't fire, it is what puts the gun "together" so-to-speak.

But I always wondered on those CSI shows why doesn't the criminal just change the barrel? But then again... they get caught.

 

[KMaurer]

The problem is the mix of federal and state laws. Under federal law the handgun frame or the rifle lower receiver constitutes the firearm. You need to jump through all the federal hoops for that one part, and nothing else really matters. OTOH, Massachusetts uses a functional definition of a gun (can't call it a firearm, since that would open an whole other can of worms). By that definition, no single part or non-functional collection or parts constitutes the firearm; only when it's capable of firing (or close enough to that state, depending on the courts' judgement) is it a gun. It's one of those things like quantum mechanics: if you understand it and think abut it too much, your brain starts to hurt. If either one ever starts to make sense, that's proof that you don't really understand it.

Ken

 

[LORD of WAR]

ahhhhhhh...it all makes sense now...i was wondering why i could get the barrel no problem...but not buy a new frame for my glock...this state is nuts

 

[Chris]

...this state is nuts

Don't let them fool you. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They make it SO hard to legally do anything while crying that it's so easy to get a gun.

And for the majority of the votors who don't really understand, the meadia feeds them only the lies.

If you were to put the same regulations on cars that are currently on guns, the outcry would be defening.

Imagine:

Secret AG list of 'legal to sell' cars and trucks, so nobody knows if the cool vehicle they just saw in an Ad was actually available to them.

Lifetime prohibition of driving for minor infractions anytime in your life.

Mandatory storage laws. Think about all those cars parked in Boston streets.

Licence requirements that differ from town to town.

License discression for certain types of vehicles. (anything over a motorcycle can be denied for any reason - Carver has only motorcycles. You have to be employed to get a license in Worcester)

Mandatory training classes. (I actually think traingin is a good idea, it's the mandatory part that I am opposed of.)

etc...