LawrenceA wrote:That is a prickly subject and very open to interpretation.
I suggest that you contact weapons licensing and ask. The fact you have not seems to indicate that what you are considering is not clear cut.
Firstly you cannot manufacture a firearm (Note a major component is a firearm by law), also you cannot make repairs as a business but in theory can make parts and repairs for yourself as long as it does not materially alter the weapon.
Just think sawn off shotgun versus fitting a Boyd's stock.
However I think that shortening a barrel within the legal limit would be fine.
I would suggest you need to consider the finished product and intent versus the parts involved. If the finished product is for your use and would be able to be purchased as modified from your local shop then it is likely OK.
Seriously just ask the people who make the decision.
DON"T do something stupid for all our sakes!
Wm.Traynor wrote:I'm stumped! I cannot find anything on Qld Weapons Licencing, in Enough Gun's search engine or on the web. Googling gives me other states. So, I am getting the runaround.
I want to know if I can make parts for a rifle to improve them in certain ways. Can anyone point me to the relevant legislation or even the whole legislation and I will go through it all myself, 'til I find something. The reason I want to do it myself, is to save money on a gunsmith.
Farmerpete wrote:Br i was sure I read something in the qld regs about not being allowed to manufacture a "major firearm part" from memory (its sketchy at times) the description was if the gun wouldn't function (fire a bullet) without it, it was a major firearm part. Again this is all from memory so forgive me if I'm wrong.
The definition is very broad
MY interpretation of this is that since the gun wouldn't fire without pretty much any part of the action or trigger group missing then all parts apart from the stock and maybe the barrel (at a stretch) and maybe the bolt handle couldn't be manufactured. But that's only MY interpretation and I'm certainly no lawyer
bladeracer wrote:I'm working on a new bullpup, but it's going slow.
Building it around an MDT LSS chassis this time so a lot less fabrication. Basically just a pistol grip mount under the fore end, a butt plate, a barrel shroud to mount sights, and extending the trigger mechanism.
Wm.Traynor wrote:bladeracer wrote:I'm working on a new bullpup, but it's going slow.
Building it around an MDT LSS chassis this time so a lot less fabrication. Basically just a pistol grip mount under the fore end, a butt plate, a barrel shroud to mount sights, and extending the trigger mechanism.
rc42's concern that I don't have the necessary tools and skills is well founded. All I have is a hacksaw, a fairly heavy hammer, an electric drill a vice and some files. So, I fully expect bladeracer's project to be much handsomer than mine but that's OK. It just has to work and until it is completed, we will have his to ogle
Wm.Traynor wrote:I thought that I posted the Bad News referred to in the new heading but it seems to be missing, so here it is again, below.
Section 62 of the Weapons Act 1990 says that I must not posses a firearm, the construction or action of which has been modified. To do so I need a reasonable excuse and there is the hitch because I need to see a lawyer, which costs $$$. It's that or take it to an armourer=more bucks. I originally explained to them that the idea of DIY was to avoid expense but that has fallen on deaf ears. The improvements expected were also pointed out with like treatment.
So that is that.
Wm.Traynor wrote:bladeracer,
That specific question was not asked. It was pointed out that I could do it cheaper than aftermarket and the deficiencies of the OEM was also noted. The officer remarked that what was described appeared to require the "services of a qualified and approved armourer". In fact, he recommended it.
Wm.Traynor wrote:bladeracer
Yes. All of that. But I did not say they were using their common sense. Quite apart from that, the officer might have been in an obstructive frame of mind; making it difficult deliberately.
rc42 wrote:A written response from WLB will always be ultra conservative as if something goes wrong the officer may be called to read his letter aloud in court and justify every point in it showing how clear and legally justified they each were.
In terms of modifications that would result in prosecutions you'd have to be changing serialized parts, shortening barrels, changing bolt actions into lever actions or making a lever release or straight pull into a semi or full auto. Changing or adjusting the stock, glass bedding, fitting slings, bipods, scopes, trigger guards, lighter triggers or just about any third party add-on you can think of is not going to be a concern during any inspection.
From the point of view of the quality and neatness of any modifications, the more professional it looks the better but as long as you're happy with it go for it, at the end of the day any damaged part can be replaced if you want it back to 'as new' condition.