Lol you can 3d print a gun in my state, stick it down your waist band, and go about your day, and you are legally good to go no law broken no paperwork needed. You could even walk in a bank with it -- As long as you don't plan on opening an account, then you need zee papers as that is too dangerous.
Also the silencer doesn't have to be made by an FFL as the article states. If you pay $200 for the tax stamp you can legally make it yourself.
johng · 3h ago
I've heard that the timeline to get the stamps for suppressors is less now but it used to take sometimes a year to a year and a half to get the stamp.
It would be a form 1, there is no transfer in this case.
dmonitor · 3h ago
Not a fan of the way the headline is written The gun hasn't been proven to be his. It could've very easily been planted when the police confiscated his bag.
conartist6 · 2h ago
The article proved it was his gun (beyond my personal sense of reasonable doubt) by showing that he had practiced firing that specific weapon and was used to unique quirks that only that specific weapon would have (needing to tap the slide between shots)
I guess this only proves that the weapon is real, but thankfully my opinion isn't worth shit in a court of law.
antonymoose · 1h ago
There’s nothing special about clearing a failure-to-eject or a failure-to-feed, these are incredibly standard things to know and practice on a handgun.
You could hand a non-noob shooter any magazine bed semi-automatic handgun and get similar behavior.
fennecbutt · 2h ago
You're right especially since they sprinkle "allegedly" throughout the article to cover their asses already.
Whilst I agree with the issues he was concerned about, I do not support his supposed actions but he should be treated fairly, innocent until proven guilty as we all have the right to.
However, having been on juries myself (in the UK), I know for sure that the justice system is deeply flawed and juries are heavily biased and bully each other into a result. The white woman is still good, the black man is still bad. Even if they don't say it out loud.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
It is almost like the legal system isn't the arbiter of objective fact (which is what journalists endeavor to report).
ty6853 · 2h ago
Yes but if your facts are found to be wrong regarding elements of a crime you could lose everything and spend the rest of your life in an impossible to crawl out of financial hole (see Alex Jones or Ammon Bundy).
Therefore when discussing facts regarding a crime it is best to be vague rather than state it objectively.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
Seems like it's a reason to verify facts and qualify them when you can't.
Luckily for Jones and Bundy, any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.
ty6853 · 2h ago
I think that was the point of this particular thread, that we don't appear to have any real confidence wired.com could verify this was Luigi's gun.
>any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.
In both cases they lost everything because it was found they misreported the facts of a crime or alleged crimes.
cosmicgadget · 51m ago
"Misreported" is certainly one way to phrase it.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
I don't like the direction headlines have gone in recent years but this one isn't horrible.
That is, the headline doesn't make any assertions about the (alleged) murder, simply that he owned a ghost gun.
Also the silencer doesn't have to be made by an FFL as the article states. If you pay $200 for the tax stamp you can legally make it yourself.
I guess this only proves that the weapon is real, but thankfully my opinion isn't worth shit in a court of law.
You could hand a non-noob shooter any magazine bed semi-automatic handgun and get similar behavior.
Whilst I agree with the issues he was concerned about, I do not support his supposed actions but he should be treated fairly, innocent until proven guilty as we all have the right to.
However, having been on juries myself (in the UK), I know for sure that the justice system is deeply flawed and juries are heavily biased and bully each other into a result. The white woman is still good, the black man is still bad. Even if they don't say it out loud.
Therefore when discussing facts regarding a crime it is best to be vague rather than state it objectively.
Luckily for Jones and Bundy, any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.
>any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.
In both cases they lost everything because it was found they misreported the facts of a crime or alleged crimes.
That is, the headline doesn't make any assertions about the (alleged) murder, simply that he owned a ghost gun.