• NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    If you’re genuinely considering doing this (or someone you know), you should probably ask a lawyer. Or at least ask in a law-oriented message board. There are probably also lawery websites where you can ask questions and they (eventually, if they feel like it) answer them publicly. But either way, even if the law decidedly allows it, it can still cause loads of headaches because if an officer mistakenly believes it’s illegal they can still take you in and/or confiscate it, and it can take you a while to prove that it’s actually allowed. Take this risk into account. If you still think it’s cool enough to justify that risk, I say go ahead.

    If this is more of a curiosity or a thought experiment type question, then knock yourself out and ignore my party pooping!

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I think in the new usa anything is possible. When there are no laws being enforced then are there really any crimes?

  • just2look@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Most firearms have a single serialized part that is considered to be the firearm. For pistols is is generally the frame. For something like an AR, it is the lower reciever. So they would be breaking the law to own that part regardless of whether they had the other parts.

    The only way I know of to get around that is if the firearm was irreversibly modified to be unable to fire a bullet. At that point it is no longer legally a firearm. The ways that is usually done are pretty destructive though. Like chopping the frame/receiver in half kind of destructive.

      • just2look@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Like the other comment said, the barrel is not the firearm. If you have parts, tools, and things that could feasibly make a gun then they can charge you with possession of a gun. Firearm laws are complex and difficult. And honestly it would probably be easier and safer to try to use replica/prop parts just to avoid issues.

      • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        No. As they said, the receiver is the firearm, not the barrel. As long as the receiver is intact, you can replace the barrel and have a functional gun.

  • Forester@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you bought an 80% upper and all of the furniture and then never milled out the 80% upper, you could do this with an AK. As legally, there would be no firearm or firearm components. I am not a lawyer. Speak to a lawyer

  • Iirc, and don’t rely on my memory for anything real without consulting a local attorney, as long as the firearm isn’t functional, as in it has been rendered unable to fire at all, regardless of being assembled or not, it’s no longer a firearm fur that specific purpose. But there’s fairly strict rules about what actually renders weapon legally fucked enough to pass muster.

    That being said, it isn’t really about US laws for the most part, it’s state laws that will fuck you in the ass. So, again, grain of salt.

    But that’s how people can own actual military gear without an ffl. You get a “machine” gun that’s entirely welded into a brick, and has paperwork with it, you don’t have to do anything else.

    With another that being said, a convicted felon is going to want to be very careful anyway. Yeah, eventually it’ll be handled and it won’t come back on them, but it’s still gonna be at least a brief clusterfuck if the wrong person sees it. A lot of cops don’t give a fuck and will cause trouble before checking to see if it’s actually legal.

    Edit: it’s usually the receiver that’s considered the important part. And it isn’t enough to just not have one visible in your scenario. You’d want proof that there wasn’t one, just to avoid hassles