The firearm thread

[Indiana_Jones]

Give it a go mate, sure beats being a phone jockey for the council

-Indy

[Drunken Monkey]

The bipod is not a firearm. It is an "accessory" or an "acoutrement".

Legal hypothetical:

The bipod is not a firearm, but an accessory as it attaches to a firearm, but is not necessarily required by the firearm for operation, in much the same way as a scope, torch, red-dot, etc...

A firearm, therefore, is made up of the following major components:
Bolt + trigger assembly
Barrel
Stock
Magazine (if present)

Of these, barrels, stock and (with some debate) magazines can be bought and sold without a firearms license if sold as an individual item.

Only a bolt + trigger assembly requires a license to be traded (IIRC), seeing as these are absolutely necessary to fire the projectile.*

When does a firearm component become an accessory?

What else defines "it". For example, the Ruger 10/22 in soft air P-90 stock project I linked to earlier - the item is still a Ruger 10/22, just with a different 'stock'.

Does this mean a stock is an accessory, as it can be changed and technically isn't required for the operation of the firearm?

If so, on what logical grounds would one have to create a piece of legislation that regulates a type of firearm by the stock it has (specifically a free standing pistol grip as being a key component to an MSSA)?

*notwithstanding although dangerous, a projectile fired without a barrel does not have sufficient pressure to accelerate to a deadly speed.

[sAsLEX]

But not inside the territorial waters, I bet.

We have areas in NZ

http://www.linz.govt.nz/docs/hydro/n...nnual/nz05.pdf

Explains it better than I can.

Have had to divert international airlines before.

[pritch]

We have areas in NZ

But sadly a lot less than we did. Every year the High School cadets here used to fire artillery out to sea from the local rifle range. Now that range isn't even deemed safe for rifles. Not even the poofy, plasticky, poor apologies for a rifle, that the services use now.

Never mind, I'm off to the range to play with my latest toy tomorrow. Well, it is a .22 but it isn't particularly toy like. Solidly made actually, almost too much so. I'll need to do some dry firing.

[sAsLEX]

But sadly a lot less than we did. Every year the High School cadets here used to fire artillery out to sea from the local rifle range. Now that range isn't even deemed safe for rifles. Not even the poofy, plasticky, poor apologies for a rifle, that the services use now.

Never mind, I'm off to the range to play with my latest toy tomorrow. Well, it is a .22 but it isn't particularly toy like. Solidly made actually, almost too much so. I'll need to do some dry firing.

I was in that unit!

Its not the plastic that is the problem, it is the calibre!

What's the .22?

[Swoop]

A firearm, therefore, is made up of the following major components:
Bolt + trigger assembly
Barrel
Stock
Magazine (if present)

Only a bolt + trigger assembly requires a license to be traded (IIRC), seeing as these are absolutely necessary to fire the projectile.

The only component that "makes" a firearm is the piece that has the serial number on it, i.e. the receiver.
All the other parts do not need to be registered (if required).

Have had this discussion with others including an AO.

[Drunken Monkey]

The only component that "makes" a firearm is the piece that has the serial number on it, i.e. the receiver.
All the other parts do not need to be registered (if required).

Have had this discussion with others including an AO.

Mere semantics, that wasn't the point of the post.

[Wolf]

Legal hypothetical:

The bipod is not a firearm, but an accessory as it attaches to a firearm, but is not necessarily required by the firearm for operation, in much the same way as a scope, torch, red-dot, etc...

A firearm, therefore, is made up of the following major components:
Bolt + trigger assembly
Barrel
Stock
Magazine (if present)

Of these, barrels, stock and (with some debate) magazines can be bought and sold without a firearms license if sold as an individual item.

Only a bolt + trigger assembly requires a license to be traded (IIRC), seeing as these are absolutely necessary to fire the projectile.*

When does a firearm component become an accessory?

What else defines "it". For example, the Ruger 10/22 in soft air P-90 stock project I linked to earlier - the item is still a Ruger 10/22, just with a different 'stock'.

Does this mean a stock is an accessory, as it can be changed and technically isn't required for the operation of the firearm?

If so, on what logical grounds would one have to create a piece of legislation that regulates a type of firearm by the stock it has (specifically a free standing pistol grip as being a key component to an MSSA)?

*notwithstanding although dangerous, a projectile fired without a barrel does not have sufficient pressure to accelerate to a deadly speed.

A firearm is made up of:
Lock, Stock and Barrel.

Some means of causing it to discharge, some means of holding it and some means of starting the projectile off in the general direction you want it to go.

It's pretty screwed without any one of them. While you could probably fire my CZ .22 without the stock (the trigger being part of the receiver assembly affixed to the barrel), I really wouldn't want to try and I wouldn't bet on hitting anything.

[Drunken Monkey]

A firearm is made up of:
Lock, Stock and Barrel.

Some means of causing it to discharge, some means of holding it and some means of starting the projectile off in the general direction you want it to go.

It's pretty screwed without any one of them. While you could probably fire my CZ .22 without the stock (the trigger being part of the receiver assembly affixed to the barrel), I really wouldn't want to try and I wouldn't bet on hitting anything.

Then going by your definition, why don't I need to supply a firearms license when pruchasing a stock (or barrel)?

Do I need to rephrase the question?

[jono035]

The problem is that the answer is: Whatever the law says it is.

Logic may or may not enter the equation. In the case of the law, generally it is the upper receiver body as far as I know but could also be extended to be whatever the hell the AO says at the time, given the way these things tend to be handled.

Edit: That is in terms of what part makes a firearm a firearm. As for what consists a firearm and what consists an accessory, I'd say anything mounted to the gun that wasn't required for 'normal' operation, wherein that normal operation is considered as being a common form of operation within the law.

I.e. barrel, receiver, trigger group and stock all firearm, mounting rails, bipods, scopes, suppressors all accessories. Magazines would be part of the firearm when assembled into the firearm, an accessory if they're in your pocket.

[sAsLEX]

I.e. barrel, receiver, trigger group and stock all firearm, mounting rails, bipods, scopes, suppressors all accessories. Magazines would be part of the firearm when assembled into the firearm, an accessory if they're in your pocket.

but to use a rifle you need to be able to aim it so wouldn't the sighting device be integral to the rifle in terms of definition?

[jono035]

but to use a rifle you need to be able to aim it so wouldn't the sighting device be integral to the rifle in terms of definition?

Depends on your intent. Scope, accessory, iron sights are part of the rifle.

[Drunken Monkey]

The problem is that the answer is: Whatever the law says it is.

Logic may or may not enter the equation. ...

We know that, hence hypothetical legal question.

Specifically, how the definition impacts the purchase/sale of firearms and/or their individual components = what is controlled, what isn't controlled. Why would something be ok in one configuration, but not another (e.g. hi-cap mags for Ruger 77/22 vs 10/22), then further impact on use/misuse of the described items, such as pinching my finger in the bipod of the M-14. Swoop was adamant that it was an accessory (I'm inclined to agree), but, where does one draw the line and why.
Is the bipod an accessory because it may be removed, then traded without license? Or is it a case of because it may be traded without a license it is therefor an accessory?
How about stocks? Fitted to one configuration = illegal, fitted to another = legal, just in the same house, but not fitted = case law says (potentially) illegal -> if it's a hi capacity magazine. How about if it's at your mate's house? Legal, as long you don't visit with your firearm??

[jono035]

We know that, hence hypothetical legal question.

Specifically, how the definition impacts the purchase/sale of firearms and/or their individual components = what is controlled, what isn't controlled. Why would something be ok in one configuration, but not another (e.g. hi-cap mags for Ruger 77/22 vs 10/22), then further impact on use/misuse of the described items, such as pinching my finger in the bipod of the M-14. Swoop was adamant that it was an accessory (I'm inclined to agree), but, where does one draw the line and why.
Is the bipod an accessory because it may be removed, then traded without license? Or is it a case of because it may be traded without a license it is therefor an accessory?
How about stocks? Fitted to one configuration = illegal, fitted to another = legal, just in the same house, but not fitted = case law says (potentially) illegal -> if it's a hi capacity magazine. How about if it's at your mate's house? Legal, as long you don't visit with your firearm??

And my point still stands. I was commenting about how people are using logic and reasoning here in order to determine what consists a firearm or not. I was saying that, from a legal point of view, none of that matters.


As to what items are required to have a firearms license to possess/trade then as far as I am aware, it is only the actual receiver itself. You'd need to consult someone with a far better knowledge of the body of common law with respect to firearms to get a definitive answer. Obviously stock and barrel are out. I've bought/sold trigger components on trademe without requiring a license but that doesn't mean much.

From memory I recall the definitive answer to this question being the receiver itself, mostly due to the fact that it is generally the part that is serial numbered. I think I recall someone asking this question at the safety course actually.

[Swoop]

As to what items are required to have a firearms license to possess/trade then as far as I am aware, it is only the actual receiver itself.

... and the ammunition...