This is very interesting.... I don't know about you, but I'd be game to aim & fire that "Obrez" with one hand, lol! If we consider the above definition, then any firearm shortened (altered) to handgun specs (intended to be fired with one hand) indeed becomes a handgun. Bundled with the "prohibited firearm" definition, it then automatically becomes a "prohibited handgun". And... since it's built prior to 1898 and satisfies the conditions of an "antique handgun" as well... it then also becomes a "prohibited antique handgun"! In other words, an antique. (if you follow the legal logic)
Please note that there's no mention in the law saying that certain provisions (articles) supersede others, in other words all of the FA's dispositions are applicable with equal priority (so no one can claim that one article of the law is more important than another). Seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?
Same here... and thanks for the very interesting intervention! You pretty much described what was on my mind and even added some other avenues to explore.
As for being over-equipped, I wish it were the case, lol!Same as you, I simply wanted to see what other collectors' take would be on something like this... as the legal concept behind the idea seems to be sound, given enough thought. Having said that, I would not be interested in possessing such a handgun-rifle and not only for it's legal implications. As a general rule, I am firmly against "Bubba"-style antiques or other collectibles, unless they're completely refinished to their original specs. In other words, a cut down 71/84 would not appeal to me, but I find the legal ramifications of what's involved to be a very interesting topic of discussion.
Like I said... debunking legal paradoxes such as these is good for democracy, as it creates awareness. After all, there's nothing worse than collective ignorance for society! (gun owners' society, in this case)
CFP guys will tell you a rifle remains a rifle no matter what you do to it. That is their official interpretation. "Debunking" their interpretation will unfortunately mean that someone has to be the guinea pig in a test case.
I'm not arguing, just pointing out that the whole subject is entertaining but also meaningless unless the status quo is challenged in court. Even then a happy outcome is far from secure.
So what I'm really saying to the young formative minds - internet speculation is one thing, reality is another. Free internet legal advice is worth as much as you paid for it. The judge won't let you off when you tell him you got bad legal advice from an internet forum discussion.
Last edited:
