"Intent" question

[rogue14]

Assume everyone in the example are all legally allowed to possess a suppressor.

If one person has a "can" (I'm going to use that phrase going forward because I'm a lazy typer..), and it's a QD style.

The second person doesn't own a can, but would like to use the first persons can, of course always only in their presence, abiding by all laws/regulations, etc...

If the second person installs the necessary QD muzzle device on their firearm, would that constitute intent to transfer?

I keep arguing in circles in my head and need a breakout opinion please!

Thanks.

[fishman]

The police have been notified and are on their way. Have fun in prison.


Nah youre fine. It shows intent to do something legal. No crime.

[John A.]

The second person doesn't own a can, but would like to use the first persons can, of course always only in their presence, abiding by all laws/regulations

If all laws are being followed, what law are you breaking?

Transfer of ownership does not take place in your scenario.

[poikilotrm]

If the second person installs the necessary QD muzzle device on their firearm, would that constitute intent to transfer?

There are cans that mount straight to regular flash hiders, and a whole bunch that mount to threaded barrels. If your assumption was true, then almost every rifle out there would be illegal, or the owners could all be charged with intent. The only state I know of where a threaded barrel is illegal is California.

You're fine. So is your buddy.

[rogue14]

OK, thanks to all for the replies.

That all makes better sense than the nonsense circling the drain in my head!

[T-Rex]

The only state I know of where a threaded barrel is illegal is California.

In CT, a threaded barrel on a pistol, Mfr'd after the 93 ban, would make it an Assault Weapon.

[doubloon]

...
In CT, a threaded barrel on a pistol, Mfr'd after the 93 ban, would make it an Assault Weapon.