10846430_373779286130078_452547952988500661_n

According to an Ohio sheriffs deputies’ MyFace page (as reported by gunssavelives.com), what you see above is a for-real pump action shotty made to look like a Super Soaker (although that pic has floated around a while). You can see the problem here, especially if you patrol a beat. Following the Tamir Rice shooting, one Ohio legislator wants to mandate that all air, pellet and BB guns be brightly colored. But what about purple Kahrs? Or pink Smiths? Or yellow Tauri? With hack jobs like that 12 gauge squirt gun, if you’re a police officer, you could be forgiven for drawing down no matter what the color of that thing that’s pointing at you is. Whether the thing above is genuine or not, should disguising a real gun as a toy be illegal (where it already isn’t)?

Recommended For You

109 Responses to Question of the Day: Should Disguising a Real Gun as a Toy be Illegal?

  1. Eh… The intent and use matter more than the thing. This vexes me not.

    Cops can’t tell a toy from a weapon at distance in any case. That’s why it’s “hands where I can see them,” not “please carefully hold up your brightly colored object.”

  2. Imagine a law mandating stereotypes not be broken lest we confuse and frighten the plebes.

    We already “forgive” cops for firing on non-threats like babies, puppies, cell phones, wallets, shadows, their own insecurities, etc… everyday so there is no purpose to such a ridiculous law other than for statists to puff out their chests and parade like they’ve done something.

  3. I think so, but I’m open to intelligent discussion to the contrary. I’d hate to “start a riot” by shooting someone holding a toy. I’ve drawn down on a few idiots with airsoft guns, but didn’t make the news because I recognized the fake guns.

    There are also cell phone guns, pipe guns, etc. I’ll take that split second to ID my target and weapon, if at all possible. A gunfight (Streamlight TLR-1s) is also helpful. YMMV.

    • As a cop, what difference would such a law make for you? You wouldnt just assume that because there was a law that a toy could never be disguised as a gun, would you? You should know better than anybody that folks don’t follow laws.

      So you’d be exactly in the same position you are in now only if the perp survived there would be one more piece of legislation to either use as a plea deal tool or to tack on another few months or years to an already figurative sentence.

      • Sure, people don’t follow laws. If they did I’d be a race car driver, anger management therapist, or a mortician.

        There’s also putting gas in a squirt gun. Intent matters a lot, of course. I’ve never been squirted with gas, but I’ve been spit on. Which is illegal, but obviously still happens.

      • Exactly. Pre-crime laws (nearly all gun control laws fall into this category) are bullsh!t. The “there should be a law” mentality is simply another distraction. Giving people a false impression that politicians do more than take and spend your money while finding new and inventive ways to restrict your rights is just another way to get elected.

    • How about the cops also have brightly colored guns with blinking lights? That way I can see who’s undercover and wearing a wire.

    • Aggravating factor to consider for someone committing a criminal offense (e.g., armed robbery with disguised firearm)? Yes.

      Stand-alone criminal offense? No.

    • Like that James Bond movie where ‘Q’ shows Bond a boom-box with an RPG concealed inside…

      ‘Q’ called it a ‘Ghetto Blaster’…

  4. As with any law, we need some research into whether this has actually been a problem that needs a law. Sounds like It may be logical, but we shouldn’t try to create a solution if there is no statistically relevant problem.

  5. We should not create laws that restrict/define color or appearance of firearms or toys.

    If someone were to make a firearm that looked like something harmless and then used it for harm in some way where the appearance contributed to harm then other laws would apply and cover the issue.

    Don’t forget that at night most people lose their ability to distinguish color. Color blindness is also more common than people assume.

    I want to make sure I can still get that Hello Kitty AR15 someday 🙂

    • Bit of a difference here. A law against guns in schools won’t stop a mass murderer, they’ve crossed the Rubicon. But if someone is found with one of these they could be charged and ‘stopped.’ I’m not saying I want the law… but then again, I can’t figure out a purpose for a super-soaker shotgun other than something nasty.

      • There are people who say the same thing about owning guns in the first place. It is not up to you to determine if someone has just cause to do something. I for one have wanted a DL44 blaster firing .22 tracers. I think it would be a blast to own shoot and show off. Managing the risk of some geek grabbing it up and playing with it is up to me.

  6. Tough question…

    Disguising a real firearm as a toy is a horrible idea but where would a law banning that lead? What about all of the Zombie green junk that’s flooded the market in the last few years? Aesthetics should play no role in the potential banning of firearms. Remember the NY/CA “safe” AR stock with the thingie that isn’t a pistol grip?

    I think it should definitely be discouraged but that the Gubment should keep it’s overreaching nose out of it. I don’t even like brightly colored guns from the manufacturer but to outlaw or restrict them seems like a worse idea.

      • No, no, no… You are mistaken. Crime is legal if you belong to a protected class and have good intentions. Or if your upbringing (which is no fauld of your own) caused you to take up crime. Crime is legal; we’re just looking at the mitigating circumstances here.

  7. Yes BUT this is a law that would need to be very carefully worded. Things like those pink .22s should be defined as painted or colored guns not “toy like” guns and therefore are legal. An anti gun politician could use a law like this to outlaw more kid friendly guns like those .22s.

    Something that is similar to what is in that picture is clearly made to deceive someone as to what it is. That can be dangerous but a pink/blue/whatever color ar is clearly an ar.

    • I was never aware that there was an approved color pallets for firearms. Seems like petty legislation. Illegal to modify a gun so it doesn’t look like a gun; understandable. Antis up in arms about a bright pink AR? Again, petty.

    • That can be dangerous but a pink/blue/whatever color ar is clearly an ar.

      Not necessarily, especially to antis who don’t know what they’re looking at in particular. Look at the SCAR. That could easily pass for a toy gun to someone that doesn’t know what they are looking at.

      • Good point. I can see where that would get confusing. Maybe instead have malicious intent be a requirement of the law. The prosecution would need to prove the person altered the apearance of the gun in order to do something illegal with it. Wouldn’t be easy to prove but it seems like that would prevent wrongful convictions.

        • But not the arrest detention court and attorney costs lost work reputation damage and general trauma of being run through the wringer for a non-crime. Not to mention such a conviction could only ever come about by pure accident or incompetence on the offenders part.

  8. I don’t really think the guy wielding that thing with the intent to harm others really cares if it’s illegal. That’s kinda what criminals do…

    • Well by that logic why make any item or action illegal at all?? Let’s just get rid of all laws because criminals don’t follow them anyway!

      I don’t think that modifying a firearm or its appearance should be illegal, but let’s use better arguments because that one is easy to poke holes in

      • I think the logical fallacy involved is thinking that someone who otherwise is willing to commit a capital offense like murder would somehow be deterred by making the possession of the weapon he intends to use a misdemeanor or a low-grade felony.

      • No, by that logic lets stop trying to make gotcha laws and pre crime laws and concentrate on effectively convicting people for what they do. Not what they might do. You have fallen gor the lie that laws are there to prevent crime. Deterrent effects are at best a happy side effect of laws but not the bassis for good laws them selves. Murder isn’t illegal because making it a crime prevents it, it’s illegal so that we may mediate the justice met out to murderers. In truth we don’t convict murderers to prevent the crime already committed we convict them so that the people them selves don’t take matters into their own hands. A fair approximation of justice and fairness goes a long ways towards keeping the peace.

  9. They should make things like murder, assault, and rape illegal. And then, when people do those things, they should be tried in court. If they’re guilty, they should be punished. If they’re found not guilty, they should be let go.

  10. The problem is what exactly constitutes a gun that looks like a toy gun? When the AR-15/M16 first came out, many said it looked like a toy. The original models DO kind of look like toys in comparison to the modern ARs. If a woman decides to paint her gun pink, does it now look like a “toy?” How is this law to be written?

  11. No. It’s the same debate about gun control laws that only the law abiding will obey. The criminals will simply ignore the law.

    Just say no to more gun control laws.

  12. “Making guns look like toys” is exactly what the antis think we’re doing when we shoot at the range all day with the big grins on our faces while nobody dies and satan fails to materialize. Just putting that out there.

  13. A law wouldn’t stop a criminal to begin with, so it seems pointless to ban making a gun look like a toy. And I think that people with air soft can make their toys look as real as they want.

    The intent and action is what matters most in a shoot/don’t shoot. If they are pointing my way or acting threatening, I’m going to respond accordingly. If they’re not, I’m not going to open fire.

    Regulating how guns look is a dangerous game, and one I’m not willing to get into. Even if I like my guns in “normal” finishes personally, I support your right to do with your property as you wish.

  14. Intuitively I wanted to say “yes”. But then I thought. And then I concluded: 1. It only becomes a problem if the altered weapon is used for an already-unlawful purpose (rather like gun possession in general). 2. No way you could word the law to make it reasonable and enforceable. 3. This whole biz about trying to prevent someone from committing a major crime by making some step in the preparation a relatively minor crime is generally speaking a fool’s errand–or a police-state ruse.

  15. No.

    I am of the opinion that we should focus on repealing some of the 10 million or so laws that nobody knows or remembers before we get on the lets make more laws bandwagon.

    Also, if a dude is going to put a shotgun in a toy to conceal it for its use against others, he probably doesn’t care about a law that says don’t disguise a gun as a toy. Meanwhile, all the law abiding gun owners are restricted from modifying their sporting arms with bright colors.

    Also… trying to “prevent” crime is best performed by the instillation of character, ethics, principles, and morals in the people of the united states, not laws further frustrating them and restricting them from their pursuit of happiness.

  16. Disguising a firearm as a non-firearm, that’s a no, and is I believe already not somewhere you want to be.

    Painting your firearm whatever color or colors you like, regardless of the limits of human vision and good taste? go for it.

    Just as long as there’s the distinction. Intent is a big part. Anyone who paints the end of a real firearm blaze orange is probably up to no good. The bright green Zombie Smasher special with 5 bayonets and a cupholder, that’s fine. (sort of)

    • “The bright green Zombie Smasher special with 5 bayonets and a cupholder, that’s fine.” – Not if the Zombie’s become protected species. I think that part is burried somewhere in the Amnesty Act.

    • I don’t agree. If I want a gun that is indiscernible from a trout, shoe, cell phone, keyboard or anything else why should anyone be restricted?
      We are getting into the whole “assault weapons” definition again.

      Intent is a boogeyman. it’s a legal construct government uses to accuse you of a crime before committing a crime.

      Fewer laws = mo betta

  17. There is a simple solution. Just make all LOE follow the same rules of engagement that our soldiers must follow in the sand box.
    Do not draw weapon until fired upon. So what if this results in a few hundred more dead LOE’s every year. Better that than one more dead child that was pretending a toy was a real gun and modified the toy to look like a real gun.
    And to avoid any more “hands up” lies from Al Not-So-Sharp-Ton, LOEs may not obstruct or attempt to stop anyone, regardless how much bigger they are, from getting in the first punch or taking the LOE to the ground. This way there is absolute proof the person was not surrendering. Again, if this results in a hundred or so more LOE fatalities, so be it. Better a dead cop that a dead thug.
    [SARCASM OFF]
    Do not take this seriously. But likewise, don’t be surprised if HoldinDick proposes such insane ROE for LOE.

    • Boy I would love it if our cops followed the same rules of engagement as our soldiers overseas. They already get transferred to desk jobs or paid suspension for things that would land your average grunt in Afghanistan with a prison sentence like the flashbang in the crib fiasco. That ain’t cop bashing either, it’s the truth.

      • You’re spot on – that was a repeal of laws that led to various illegal activities. Less laws – more individual responsibility, less State pampering, less hiding behind the legalese wording of the laws, less legal expenses, less excuses – less crime. But also less job security for useless people in the government.

  18. Pretty sure its already illegal to murder someone regardless of if ou use a gun, and the only effective reason I see to have a real gun looking like a toy would be to not be discovered on their way to commiting said murder or maybe buy a chance to get close without being detected. It would be near useless in a “stick up” type crime because if a crook points a Nerf looking gun at a store clerk they will probably get laughed at until lead starts flying so again, not sure what making it illegal would do. I could see the opposite happening where someone removes the orange tip of an airsoft gun to fool someone into thinking they had a real one, but what does making a real gun look fake accomplish? It doesn’t provide any tactical advantage unless you intend to use it and don’t want to get caught on your way. I guess you could post up a bunch of adolescents outside of a stash house as security that would be harder to detect by police, but in reality if I saw a bunch of people (kids or especially adults) hanging out with Nerf guns in front of a house and just holding them instead of playing with them, I would be suspicious. It wouldnt really work for transport in areas where guns are illegal either explicitly or because the owner cant legally have one, because on close inspection it would be pretty obvious so if you get stopped while transporting one and the officer does anything more than glance from a distance then you are hose, and again I would be suspicious if I saw an adult male walking around with a toy or driving around with one in the trunk like that Nerf shotgun above. I think it is like someone said above, it would really only serve as a usefull way to pile on more charges or negotiate a plea.

    The real implication though, is how do they regulate it, does it mean like the above example where you hack a toy and insert a real gun, or does it mean painting a gun a non standard color, like I dunno a pink 22lr for my daughter, or duracoating her frst AR purple (like that 10 year old competitive shooter), or maybe my son wants a Superman Themed shotgun like FPS Russia’s Mossberg 500? And if I want to put my shotgun inside of a Nerf gun for the theatrical/ comedic effect who the hell cares, as long as Im not using it to murder people or commit crime?

    Shall not be infringed… seems pretty clear to me

  19. Hmmm.
    Getting the granddaughter a chipmunk that’s purple (her favorite color). But it’ll be in the safe unless we are at the range.
    Another law? No.
    Just say no.

  20. I am of the opinion that there should be no gun laws. There should only be laws against hurting people with guns.

    Perhaps one could receive a longer sentence for hurting someone with a toy gun. I don’t agree with a flat out ban on the action of modifying guns.

  21. Is it legal to conceal carry a shotgun. The above picture is just that. There are no good intentions for disguising a firearm as a toy. It should be illegal. As MDA would say “for the children.”

    • Concealing a rifle or shotgun in a rifle case is legal in Texas and this is just another form of concealing, however there are enough laws that entrap otherwise law abiding citizens we do not need to risk people getting arrested due to poor wording in a law.

      • Concealing a rifle or shotgun PERIOD is legal in Texas, at least conceptually. If you can manage to do it. The laws simply do not address specifically how a long gun may or may not be carried. Long guns are, however, included in statutes that regulate all firearms, such as the one that states no firearm can be carried in a manner calculated to cause alarm, or the one that states no firearm can be carried into a polling place.

    • Is it concealed if you place the shotgun inside of this piece of plastic?

      http://www.bullpupunlimited.com/

      What’s the difference other than color? The simple fact is that color as a means to differentiate real firearms from toys is practically useless. People need to calm down and not let the state get involved with additional regulations that will have unintended consequences.

  22. NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

    Besides what would be their criteria? Is a John Deere motif Sig 226 like the one that FXHummel has qualify? It’s ridiculous. you’re ‘asking’ your govt SERVANTS permission in quantifying what constitutes as a gun or a toy gun.

    It’s idiotic presumption and a proposed delegation of Powers these govt pukes don’t even have to begin with.

    NO.

  23. I was just thinking about how what we need in this country is more laws. I’m sure the criminals will get right on board with any new common sense gun law that gets made. /s

    I wonder how long it would be before someone got arrested or shot because the hot pink grips on their otherwise stock Beretta “made it look like a toy”. Or what about my gold tiger stripe Deagle?

    • Dang, I think he’s talking about the purple grips on my 1911 and .38 revolver… both of which were lost in the tragic… aw, you all know the rest.

  24. No, I don’t think so. If that happens, then the next step (or a concurrent one, frankly) would likely be to make it illegal to make a non-firearm recreational object (I’m mostly referring to airsoft guns, and it feels a bit wrong to refer to them as “toys”) look like a firearm. In which case, pretty much every serious Airsoft player would be criminals. And following that law would completely kill the mil-sim feeling that’s so enjoyable. What with everyone rocking bright pink M4s or whatever

  25. No, there should be no law preventing “real” firearms from looking like “toys”. The motivation for such a law is preventing police officers from shooting children with toys. Guess what? The answer for that problem (police officers shooting children with toys) is to train the police officers properly.

    The real problem is police rolling up in terrorist combat mode when they get a “kid with a gun” call. First of all, a “kid with a gun” call could be totally bogus. (Child could be holding an object that isn’t a firearm at all.) Second, the “kid with a gun” could be holding a toy and playing. Third, there are many scenarios where a “kid with a gun” can be an entirely legal activity. For example the kid could be legally hunting or legally carrying a real firearm to a legal hunting location or to a friend’s home. All of these apply to “man/woman with a gun” calls as well.

    What police should do is arrive on scene and assess the person of interest before engaging the person of interest. Do that religiously and virtually all of our problems go away.

  26. Not unless you use it in a crime, where I would be ok with an extra charge tacked on for concealing the weapon or something similar.

    As always, it doesn’t matter what people do to their guns, it matters what they do with their guns.

  27. Well, it seems to me that the very purpose of California laws concerning modern home defense rifles was written specifically to make them look like something other than what they are.
    There should be no law that governs how a gun “looks”, whether it be making an AR look like a .30/30 or preventing the same from looking like a super-soaker. Also, the practice of doing either is a bad idea.

  28. Add one more vote for no, seems to me that a good prosecutor could use a disguised gun as part of showing intent. You know, for the actual crime that might be committed with said gun.

  29. NO.

    There is not one single additional infringement that is acceptable to add to the already unacceptable list. We are in far more need of removing the ridiculous number of crippling laws in general but especially when it comes to an incredible number of unconstitutional firearm laws.

  30. Such a law is not intended to deter crime, and let’s fact it, most laws have no such intent and they certainly have no such effect.

    The purpose of making brightly-colored firearms illegal is to add a charge that’s easy to prove, since mere possession of such a gun would be a crime.

    Okay, I understand. I get it. But I also get that every firearm law WILL be abused by the hoplophobes and statists that enforce those laws, no matter how well-intentioned the laws may be. So no. No more laws. Not one. Enough.

  31. No. This is no different from the anti’s banning particular classes of guns on the basis of cosmetic “evil features” like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, or “shoulder things that go up.” We cannot, as members of the gun culture, support bans on the cosmetic features we don’t care about, then turn around and whine about the ones we do care about. There’s fundamentally no difference between a standard AR-15, one that’s been stripped of it’s post-94 evil features, and one that’s painted pink and/or covered in fur to make it look like Cookie Monster.

    If you use any of those aforementioned guns in a crime, the crime is the concern, not the appearance of the weapon.

    As for unilaterally declaring – as some commentators have done – that there’s only ill-intent behind owning a shotgun that looks like a Super Soaker: bunk. The anti’s say exactly the same about those who would own a high-capacity magazine clip full of cop killer bullets. Let’s not be falling into their trap, m’kay?

    • This is an interesting point and I’m not sure. I initially thought that AOW applied to any gun that was disguised to look like something other than a gun, but from the ATF website an AOW is (among other things): “Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;”

      I guess that’s how they apply it to, cane guns, wallet guns, the MP5K briefcase, pen guns, etc. If you made an AR15 look like a guitar would it apply? What if you made a 1919 look like a doghouse?

  32. No. We need fewer laws. Everybody needs to stop passing or agreeing that adding laws is a good idea.

    All we are doing is empowering government. Every tool you give government will be used against the citizenry.

    This touches the “assault gun” definition. See how well that’s going?

    • So, according to your apparent logic, a pistol grip is part of the disguise, a plastic buttstock, a plastic handguard, large lettering, bright or subdued colors (any color that can be found in the WalMart toy section)… Did I miss anything? Preston, I see that you are on a city council somewhere and need that landmark legislation that will have your name on it…

  33. No.

    I could see a sentencing enhancement for “disguising a gun actively being used in crime.” but disguising the firearm itself should not be “a crime”; because realistically what’s the difference then between putting a coat over it to hide it – and wedging/super-gluing it into a supersoaker?

  34. Not as long as you treat it no different than your other firearms. I keep the guns I’m not using for practice or HD locked in the safe.

  35. Sure. Make it a felony, mandatory ten years, for PARENTs of kids who color over them, for letting them go outside with them, as child endangerment.

    CA gungrabbers already passed ANOTHER law that adds more flourescent markings. Like, thats REALLY going to stop the twelve year olds, and the junior gang boy who knocks off a 7/11 with the realistic looking 1911, who simply rattle can spray over the markings.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB199

    More feel good regulation of the object, rather than holding people responsible, under existing laws.
    Guess who the author is…

    The only real purpose is to distract the LIVs from failure in Sacramento to go REAL work…and avoid gazing upon the Democrats legacy, balance the budget through tricks and off-the-books deception (hey, Gov Moonbeam? Where ARE those GAAP compliant current liability numbers, as current year expenses againt revenue, for future medical benefits for state and municipal CALPERS retirees? y’know, that were due, BY LAW to be reported, like a business does, back in 2011? Can you say…DETROIT?)

    Or to say, reduce useless bureaucracy and overhead, reform regulatory abuse thats driving small AND large business out of state, along with taxpaying jobs, trim the growing entitlements, or police the MASSIVE benefits fraud underway now, in particular by illegal immigrants…

    Nah….lets legislate toys…or ask the Governor to take executive action…Hey, Yes means Yes, and you lose due process…but, I digress…

  36. I’m normally not in favor of new gun laws, but if it will clear my local gun shops of that hideous Sig P238 in “purple pearl,” count me in.

  37. Don’t see how it could be written, unless it applied to more than the color (i.e. materially changing the appearance to appear like a specific toy like a water gun).

    I don’t think that photo is making the rounds to push for a new law- it’s to try and convince people not to point toy guns at cops (or anyone not playing, for that matter) because nowadays you can’t tell the difference right away.

  38. Nope. There’s no reason for it compelling enough, and if I want my AR in pink, cream, and aqua our some other set of colors that may be construed as “toy-like”, it’s my right and I wouldn’t give this up. Police need to exercise more caution before pulling the trigger.

  39. How about not pointing any weapon at someone other than in self defense. I don’t care if someone chooses to carry a cap gun, if you encounter an LEO, put the weapon down on the ground, and follow instructions, it’s not the time for a pissing contest. Do I think real guns should that look like toys be illegal? Hell no, I have a pink Hello Kitty AR15 on my “buy list” cause they are just so cute and since have no intention of using for already illegal purposes, it no ones business what my weapons look like. A pink Hello Kitty VW Bug would be OK too, but not illegal and automobiles kill more people than weapons so whole thing is a non-issue. in my humble opinion. l

  40. Having read through the majority of comments posted above this one, I have seen absolutely no reason to make such a law. In fact I have seen no reason to be having this discussion. I agree with whoever said we should be focused on repealing as many of the millions of useless laws on the books as possible instead of having this discussion.

    Ever seen one of those Kits that dresses a Ruger 10/22 to look like a German MG 42? Talk about creating an identity crisis….

    • Before the “tragic boating accident” of course, I “had” a 10/22 in a stock which made it look like an FN PS90.

  41. No laws. However expect the worst if you do this to your shotgun. Black rifles, shotguns or pistols. Or stainless, wood or blued. And I think the CC guns are goofy if you brightly color them. Whatever-me and mine won’t have rainbow guns.

  42. “..Should Disguising a Real Gun as a Toy be Illegal?”

    No. That is a silly suggestion. That is like asking if putting a Porche body on a volkswagon frame should be illegal?

    How about we make shooting people illegal. Then it doesn’t matter what the gun looks like because it is the action that becomes illegal instead of the tool.

  43. what about cane guns (I think they exist, somewhere)? Illegal, no, but i would like mandatory Federal penalties for intentional commission of violent crimes with a gun…so many of the gun-carrying criminals seem to serve a few years and are back on the street to re-offend. Once one proves one will use a gun to hurt an innocent person, you need to do some serious long jail time.

  44. If the creator of that 12ga Super Soaker used shells filled with water, it could still technically be considered a “water gun”.

  45. I have no problem with real looking toys but it should be illegal to disguise a real gun as a toy (wild colors do not count). The ONLY reason one would make a shotgun look like a super soaker is to 1. hope nobody notices you have a gun because you are not allowed to have one, or, are in a place where they are not allowed (o.k., that may be a separate argument there) 2. you want to sneak up on someone to kill them. It is like altering your license plate. You don’t do it because you think it is cool, you do it to get away with a crime.

    • Great intention. Now, think of the consequences. Any plastic part that also happens to look like a part of a toy gun in Walmart will now be illegal. And you really think that criminals will be stopped dead in their tracks because of this law? Great!

    • “…The ONLY reason one would make a shotgun look like a super soaker”

      In your opinion.

      We have Art Basel down here in my part of Florida and those artists do a lot things with other things that one wouldn’t think was reasonable, logical, or even possible. Is it art? I don’t think so but I’m not buying it anyway so I am pretty sure the artist cares SFA about my opinion.

      Would I make any of my firearms look like a toy? No. I don’t have that kind of time or interest.

      Would someone else? Obviously yes because there is a picture of the end result.

      And since the pictures don’t include that little police ruler or case number in the corner of them there must be some use that doesn’t include your limited options of sneaking up on someone or carrying where not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *