In State v. Baldwin, 34 N.C. App. 307, 237 S.E.2d 881 (1977), the defendant also was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of G.S. 14-415.1, id. at 308, 237 S.E.2d at 881. Arguing the State was required to prove the weapon was operable in order to sustain a conviction under the statute, id., the defendant cited cases from other jurisdictions construing similar statutes as intimating that "guns incapable of being fired were not 'firearms' within the meaning of those statutes," id. at 309, 237 S.E.2d at 882 (citing Commonwealth v. Layton, 452 Pa. 495, 307 A.2d 843, 844 (Pa. 1973) (statute "obviously intended to cover only objects which could cause violence by firing a shot")). This Court distinguished the cited authorities by noting there was "uncontroverted evidence in each case that the guns . . . were inoperable," id., whereas in the case under consideration there had been no evidence of inoperability, id. In the absence of evidence of inoperability, we held the case was properly submitted to the jury. Id.; see also Layton, 307 A.2d at 844 (absent evidence of inoperability, fact finder may "infer operability from an object which looks like, feels like, sounds like or is like, a firearm").