July 28th, 2006 05:10 PM
I have a friend that has a broomhandle. He was reading the ATF page and now has a question.
It is illegal to have a smooth bore pistol, right? Well, the barrel of this broomhandle has been shot out, no lands or grooves to be had/seen. It looks as if it never had them in fact.
Is this pistol legal or illegal? He didn't get it to shoot it, just to look at it (yes, he is "one of those" , collector, not a shooter). He doesn't want to get it rebarreled (or a sleeve put in) because that would take away it's historical value and he sure in the heck doesn't want to have to turn it in.
Since it's a C&R type gun, is it exempt from the rules?
July 28th, 2006 05:23 PM
I think some oldest Lugers show same wear - I'd have thought it was OK due to age and type and probably history. It has not we assume been reamed or modified to make it as described.
I daresay critical metallurgical analysis might even be able to prove past rifling existence - bit like the way missing SN's can be viewed.
That tho is pure gut feeling.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
July 28th, 2006 05:23 PM
Not "exempt", but not an issue, either. As long as the gun has not been lapped/bored smooth, it is simply a hard-used C&R showpiece. This is mostly an action/intent question: you can own a Sten kit, and a dummy receiver, but if you own a mil-spec receiver tube, and an unmodified FA Sten kit, you'll have some hard questions to answer.
If he's really concerned, he should write the ATFE local Tech Branch, and get a letter of clarification to keep in the safe.
July 28th, 2006 09:18 PM
The question ultimately will likely be answered by a couple step rubric:
- Was the firearm *manufactured* with a smooth barrel? (In the case of a broomhandle, no)
- Was the firearm intentionally modified with the intent to create a smoothbore (in the case of one simply shot out, again, no)?
If you answer no honestly to both questions, I wouldn't worry about it in the slightest.
C&R guns are not exempt from the other rules unless specifically mentioned - it's why you can have a stock with the broomhandle, for instance, and not with a Glock 17, and not have to pay the tax stamp or jump through the hoops.
Driver carries less than $45 worth of remorse.
July 29th, 2006 11:32 AM
What he said +1 you have to build or modify not just wear out.
Originally Posted by rfurtkamp
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
July 31st, 2006 01:04 PM
Thanks for the replies. We took it to a metalologist (sp) that I know and under a very high power microscope you could "see" the lands and grooves. Since he works for the state he signed a document saying that yes the gun did have lands and grooves but they are hard to see with the naked eye.
After we did that we got to "see" the entire gun under the scope. You'd be amazed at what that thing will pick up that you don't see.
By OneBad135i in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 03:24 PM
By Scrvoy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 4th, 2008, 09:05 AM
By MadDog in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: February 1st, 2008, 09:47 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors