Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,791
- Reactions
- 37,649
The Oregon definition could cover a wide variety of objects as firearms. What it doesn't do is define magazines as a necessary component of a firearm.I'm assuming you read the OR definition? Does it mention any "part" of a firearm as part of the definition?
DEFINITIONS: Firearm: A weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile. by the action of powder. See ORS 166.210(3).
Handgun: Any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.
Nope. It does a pretty good job with "cartridge" though. So, how can the state argue a magazine (or any other part)is not necessary for a firearm to function? The definition does not neither include nor exclude "magazine".
Trying to keep this relevant to OR law, though I am not licensed to practice law in OR, so any relevant case law is who knows what. Maybe ask an OR attorney?
"...designed..." If it had a magazine by design, than it is a necessary component, by design.
FYI, ORS 166 210(3) is just the same definition. It covers anything from a matchlock to a machine gun.
I have spent a lot of thought capital on methods of making single shot firearms. I can safely say I don't own one (excluding revolvers) that I couldn't easily make fire a single cartridge without a magazine.
There is a reason why they spent court time discussing repeating firearms. I agree a magazine is necessary to repeatedly fire a firearm without hand feeding the cartridges.