Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillyrabbit
Firearm laws do cover "possible" modification as demonstrated by the 1993 R v Hasselwander case.
The TL;DR from that case was that if a firearm was "capable of conversion to an automatic weapon in a relatively short period of time with relative ease" it was prohibited.
The big question mark is what defines as a relatively short period of time, and what is relative ease?
Does it consist of 6 hours of machining a lower to hold a Real steel upper? Does it consist of ship of Thesusing an Airsoft gun so much that its more other parts then airsoft?
Obviously if you could slap an AR-15 upper on a GBBR lower and have the GBBR lower fit AR-15 parts it should be restricted/prohibited as a real firearm. But when you have to spend hours in a machine shop making either of them fit together it shouldn't count as the case precedent did say "with a relatively short period of time and with relative ease".
|
Preaching to the converted. I am sure a CNC mill would be considered 'relative ease' to the right (or wrong) person.
The problem is none of this garbage represents our community, which during my time has largely showed nothing but the highest level of responsibility and discretion, much like the firearms community in this country.