ATF investigating after congressional candidate cut apart AR-15 - Polidicks

[QUOTE]VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WVEC) -- The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is investigating congressional candidate Karen Mallard after she posted a video on Facebook that shows her cutting apart an AR-15 rifle. The school teacher and Democrat is running for Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, hoping to oust Republican Congressman Scott Taylor. "So, today, we're going to destroy it," states Mallard before taking a handheld power saw to it. Several others said Mallard broke federal law by taking a legal firearm and altering it, making it into an illegal one. Many of them referred to details contained within the Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act which, in part, prohibits people (except for those permitted by the act) from having a rifle that has been "modified to an overall length of less than 26 inches."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Master Police Officer Tonya Pierce, spokeswoman for the Virginia Beach Police Department, confirmed that the rifle was in the department's possession. Pierce told 13News Now the ATF was looking into the situation. Mallard concludes her video with the promise she will fight for comprehensive gun control and states: And to those students in Florida and across our country, keep standing up and speaking truth to power. These gun owners heard you, and we're gonna stand by you.[/QUOTE] I couldn't decide where this goes, so I put it in here. My favorite part is this part: [QUOTE]Mallard said she followed legal procedure, writing in her Facebook post: And yes for all the NRA trolls out there, I finished the job according to regulation and turned it over to the police. Why are you more outraged about me taking a gun out of circulation than about our children being murdered in our schools?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/atf-investigating-after-congressional-candidate-cut-apart-ar-15/291-526898428"]Source[/URL]

She isn't going to be convicted of anything, nor should she be. She destroyed the gas system when she sawed off the front, rendering the gun almost inoperable before submitting it to the police. It would fire what was in the chamber, and nothing else. I do, however, question her story. Note the absence of any rear sight on the rifle. In its current configuration it would be borderline useless. [video=youtube;koZEGFfN7N8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koZEGFfN7N8[/video] Now it is possible, if not probable, that an optic would be on the rifle. But a scope would generally be silly, and a holographic or red dot sight would only serve a purpose on similar combat rifles, as they have no real function on any sort of hunting rifle. So either the optic should still be on the gun because it is part of the gun, or there was never an optic at all, but then why remove the irons? Meanwhile AR-15 flat tops are often sold without the rear backup sight. Her story is probably true, but I still find it odd.

[quote] Many of them referred to details contained within the Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act[/quote] The journo doesn't come off as very knowledgeable. It's the National Firearms Act, not the "Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act" lol.

[QUOTE=download;53189077]The journo doesn't come off as very knowledgeable. It's the National Firearms Act, not the "Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act" lol.[/QUOTE] I'm calling it a win that they didn't call the rifle an AK-47.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53189074]She isn't going to be convicted of anything, nor should she be. She destroyed the gas system when she sawed off the front, rendering the gun almost inoperable before submitting it to the police. It would fire what was in the chamber, and nothing else.[/QUOTE] She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony. The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it. Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.

I think context and common sense should apply here tbh. Even if she's got a skewed view of gun control she shouldn't be prosecuted for something that isn't against the spirit/purpose of the law. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189084]She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony. The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it. Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.[/QUOTE] What does that achieve in the public interest, though?

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;53189085]What does that achieve in the public interest, though?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the public is interested in having our firearms laws enforced, especially after all that's happened, wouldn't you agree?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189091]I'm pretty sure the public is interested in having our firearms laws enforced, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE] Nah, this is why police discretion exists. Understanding the spirit of a law is just as important as the text.

[QUOTE=download;53189077]The journo doesn't come off as very knowledgeable. It's the National Firearms Act, not the "Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act" lol.[/QUOTE] Apparently under Virginia law, there is an act called the "Sawed-off Shotgun and Sawed-off Rifle Act." I had no idea about this until I did some googling to figure out what the writer of the article was talking about.

[QUOTE=daschnek;53189098]Apparently under Virginia law, there is an act called the "Sawed-off Shotgun and Sawed-off Rifle Act." I had no idea about this until I did some googling to figure out what the writer of the article was talking about.[/QUOTE] Huh, the more you know I guess. Seems a bit redundant though.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53189078]I'm calling it a win that they didn't call the rifle an AK-47.[/QUOTE] But it's all about AR-15 now

you forgot your source [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189091]I'm pretty sure the public is interested in having our firearms laws enforced, especially after all that's happened, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE] that's a real cute sentiment and all but she turned in the gun so i fail to see what the issue is.

If a regular ass citizen did this, the ATF would swoop in, shoot their dog, and arrest them. They would go to prison for ten years and be fined 250 grand. This woman is not a protected class by trying to run for VA congress. Sorry, but if you are going to spout off about the laws while knowing nothing about them, and break one of the biggest ones in the nation that has been around the longest, you really deserve what is coming to you.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about her poor safety practices with an angle grinder. Seriously wear some gloves so you don't chop your damned fingers off.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53189137]If a regular ass citizen did this, the ATF would swoop in, shoot their dog, and arrest them. They would go to prison for ten years and be fined 250 grand. This woman is not a protected class by trying to run for VA congress. Sorry, but if you are going to spout off about the laws while knowing nothing about them, and break one of the biggest ones in the nation that has been around the longest, you really deserve what is coming to you.[/QUOTE] I hope this was sarcasm. I really doubt a regular citizen after turning a gun over to the police would then after the fact have all that happen.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53189149]Honestly, I'm more concerned about her poor safety practices with an angle grinder. Seriously wear some gloves so you don't chop your damned fingers off.[/QUOTE] It's an angle grinder with a guard. Gloves won't offer you any additional protection.

Spirit of the law. Too many gun nuts trying to "gotcha!" this woman. She's right that they care more about a broken gun than children being murdered.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53189137]If a regular ass citizen did this, the ATF would swoop in, shoot their dog, and arrest them. They would go to prison for ten years and be fined 250 grand. This woman is not a protected class by trying to run for VA congress. Sorry, but if you are going to spout off about the laws while knowing nothing about them, and break one of the biggest ones in the nation that has been around the longest, you really deserve what is coming to you.[/QUOTE] Why? She did nothing with malicious intent, breaking this gun and handing the remains to the police hurts nobody. This train of thought is very petty

[QUOTE=GunFox;53189096]Nah, this is why police discretion exists. Understanding the spirit of a law is just as important as the text.[/QUOTE] The spirit of this law was to make owning or making pistols (and anything with a short barrel) as prohibitive as possible while still being constitutionally "not a ban", but the pistol part was removed and the SBR and shotgun part was left in. So she also literally broke the spirit of the law as well, since the spirit is to prohibit the possession of anything with a short barrel to begin with. It was not her intention, but intention does not absolve you of anything. It just changes the severity of the charge (an accidental murder is still manslaughter, and accidentally speeding will still get you a ticket). [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;53189125]you forgot your source [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] that's a real cute sentiment and all but she turned in the gun so i fail to see what the issue is.[/QUOTE] Turning in the gun doesn't absolve her of intentionally breaking the law in the first place. If I were to cut down the barrel of my AR15, then shoot a couple mags through it, turning it in after would not save me from being prosecuted. And thanks. I added the source. [QUOTE=V12US;53189173]Spirit of the law. Too many gun nuts trying to "gotcha!" this woman. She's right that they care more about a broken gun than children being murdered.[/QUOTE] I don't care that she broke a gun. AR15s are not rare. I care that she knowingly broke the law, one of the very laws she would be against removing. She wants to talk about how people don't care about children being murdered because people won't create new laws, yet doesn't follow existing law herself.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;53189085]I think context and common sense should apply here tbh. Even if she's got a skewed view of gun control she shouldn't be prosecuted for something that isn't against the spirit/purpose of the law.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=V12US;53189173]Spirit of the law. Too many gun nuts trying to "gotcha!" this woman. She's right that they care more about a broken gun than children being murdered.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53189252]Why? She did nothing with malicious intent, breaking this gun and handing the remains to the police hurts nobody.[/QUOTE] If I don't know the intricacies of the 1934 NFA and buy an off-the-shelf 10.5" upper for my AR lower, I have unknowingly constructed an illegal short-barreled rifle and I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I file multiple pages of application forms and submit to a 6-12 month background investigation to legally construct said SBR, but in the interim buy the parts I need to build it once I'm approved, I have accidentally committed constructive possession and if caught I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I fly from one gun-friendly state to another with a checked handgun, but on a layover through New York my second flight is cancelled and I'm forced to take possession of my baggage, I [I]will[/I] be arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun on the spot. If I [URL="http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html"]assemble the contents of a rifle kit in the wrong order[/URL] and get caught, I have illegally constructed an SBR and, again, if caught, [i]will[/i] go to prison. If I buy a rifle online while living in California, and I take possession of the rifle before realizing they sent me a 30-round magazine, I am in unlawful possession of a high-capacity magazine and if caught I [i]will[/i] go to prison. None of these are hypotheticals, [i]they've all happened[/i] to well-meaning citizens who accidentally ran afoul of draconian laws that don't care about intent. But if an anti-gun politician runs afoul of the same intent-be-damned laws that she intends to expand and inflict on the rest of us- oh, it's okay, she didn't mean it? That's fucking [B]bullshit[/B]. Nobody gets to be above the law, and if the rest of us are going to be punished for innocent violations of zero-tolerance policies, I damned well expect a politician should be too.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189257]The spirit of this law was to make owning or making pistols (and anything with a short barrel) as prohibitive as possible while still being constitutionally "not a ban", but the pistol part was removed and the SBR and shotgun part was left in. So she also literally broke the spirit of the law as well, since the spirit is to prohibit the possession of anything with a short barrel to begin with. It was not her intention, but intention does not absolve you of anything. It just changes the severity of the charge (an accidental murder is still manslaughter, and accidentally speeding will still get you a ticket).[/QUOTE] but she doesnt possess it she turned it over to the police

Obviously nobody is arguing that she should be treated differently, but rather that nobody should be treated this way. If the intent is to break the gun, never use it again, and then immediately hand it over to the police - how could you possibly argue that she should be imprisoned for it? The law is being taken too literally if this honestly is all it takes to be imprisoned. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189257]It was not her intention, but intention does not absolve you of anything. It just changes the severity of the charge (an accidental murder is still manslaughter, and accidentally speeding will still get you a ticket)[/QUOTE] Except: - nobody was hurt - nobody was endangered - the gun was never operated - the gun was handed to the police It's just absolute nonsense to argue in favor of arrest for something like this. I can sort of understand a fine for negligence, but then again it was immediately and voluntarily handed to the police which imo completely nulls any ground for serious punishment.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189258]If I don't know the intricacies of the 1934 NFA and buy an off-the-shelf 10.5" upper for my AR lower, I have unknowingly constructed an illegal short-barreled rifle and I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I file multiple pages of application forms and submit to a 6-12 month background investigation to legally construct said SBR, but in the interim buy the parts I need to build it once I'm approved, I have accidentally committed constructive possession and if caught I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I fly from one gun-friendly state to another with a checked handgun, but on a layover through New York my second flight is cancelled and I'm forced to take possession of my baggage, I [I]will[/I] be arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun on the spot. If I [URL="http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html"]assemble the contents of a rifle kit in the wrong order[/URL] and get caught, I have illegally constructed an SBR and, again, if caught, [i]will[/i] go to prison. If I buy a rifle online while living in California, and I take possession of the rifle before realizing they sent me a 30-round magazine, I am in unlawful possession of a high-capacity magazine and if caught I [i]will[/i] go to prison. None of these are hypotheticals, [i]they've all happened[/i] to well-meaning citizens who accidentally ran afoul of draconian laws that don't care about intent. But if an anti-gun politician runs afoul of the same intent-be-damned laws that she intends to expand and inflict on the rest of us- oh, it's okay, she didn't mean it? That's fucking [B]bullshit[/B]. Nobody gets to be above the law, and if the rest of us are going to be punished for innocent violations of zero-tolerance policies, I damned well expect a politician should be too.[/QUOTE] how about no one goes to prison over dumb shit like that

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;53189280]Obviously nobody is arguing that she should be treated differently, but rather that nobody should be treated this way. If the intent is to break the gun, never use it again, and then immediately hand it over to the police - how could you possibly argue that she should be imprisoned for it? The law is being taken too literally if this honestly is all it takes to be imprisoned. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Except: - nobody was hurt - nobody was endangered - the gun was never operated - the gun was handed to the police It's just absolute nonsense to argue in favor of arrest for something like this. I can sort of understand a fine for negligence, but then again it was immediately and voluntarily handed to the police which imo completely nulls any ground for serious punishment.[/QUOTE] Cool. So does this mean that you would support repealing of the 1934 National Firearms Act?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53189306]Cool. So does this mean that you would support repealing of the 1934 National Firearms Act?[/QUOTE] What does this mean in the context of my post? Could you rephrase and elaborate?

More outrage from our resident gun nuts over this than the treason in the White House. She destroyed the gun and handed it over to the cops for a political stunt. You're free to think that's as stupid as you like, but prosecuting over that would be absolutely ridiculous and you know it. There is an established precedent in the law for discretion in prosecution, and whatever technicalities she may have technically violated were done so with no intention whatsoever of creating a banned class of weapon. She wasn't trying to create a "short barreled rifle," she was trying to create a [I]broken[/I] rifle. The weapon was destroyed, sloppily, and immediately given to police for proper destruction. You can't "Gotcha!" somebody with the law for not destroying the gun effectively just because she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles. That's now how the law works lol

[QUOTE=TheHydra;53189299]how about no one goes to prison over dumb shit like that[/QUOTE] Maybe, maybe not. But they'll be charged, fined, weapon related items confiscated with no refund or return, and it will be flagged on their records [I]forever.[/I] [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189325]More outrage from our resident gun nuts over this than the treason in the White House. She destroyed the gun and handed it over to the cops for a political stunt. Your free to think that's as stupid as you like, but prosecuting over that would be absolutely ridiculous and you know it. There is an established precedent in the law for discretion in prosecution, and whatever technicalities she may have technically violated were done so with no intention whatsoever of creating a banned class of weapon. The weapon was destroyed, sloppily, and immediately given to police for proper destruction. [B]You can't "Gotcha!" somebody with the law for not destroying the gun effectively just because she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles. That's now how the law works lol[/B][/QUOTE] [I]if she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles why the hell is she allowed to legislate for or against them. [/I]moreso, if she's unfamiliar with firearms law enough that she wouldn't know she is at the very least [I]riding the line of a felony[/I], why is she allowed to legislate against them and why didn't anybody in that house know them either.

[QUOTE=download;53189077]The journo doesn't come off as very knowledgeable. It's the National Firearms Act, not the "Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act" lol.[/QUOTE] Many states have a copy of the NFA in state law. What they're referring to is a Virginia law against creating SBRs. [url]https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/virginia/va-code/virginia_code_title_18-2_chapter_7_article_6[/url] But the ATF only enforce federal law. Also, for those arguing about her not being arrested and charged she would undoubtedly want the government to come and arrest you if you failed to follow the laws she makes. Regardless of your intent. This happens in New York for instance. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xs_jrnmwoU[/media] Not aware of the law? Lack [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]Mens rea[/url]? Well, you are still going to jail and will face a felony charge. The government might be kind and allow you to plea down to a misdemeanor, if they're feeling nice. Now this lady will probably get a pass since it was a political stunt. But again, don't be surprised when she calls for your imprisonment if you unknowingly violate some gun law.

What I notice is that if it's a gun person that did this (sawed off a barrel) on social media, they would instantly be decried and most likely imprisoned. Now that it is an anti gun person willfully breaking the law, all of a sudden the anti gun side changes its narrative to, "But why should anyone get in trouble for this?" Either she broke a law explicitly, or she didn't. She totally did. Just because you turn it in to a police station doesn't mean that the act didn't happen. Now, what I find funny is that pro gun people have been saying to abolish and/or update the NFA for years and years, and always been rebuked. However, now that anti gun people see how asinine it is with its crazy and outdated definitions, maybe they'll start seeing our point.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;53189329] [I]if she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles why the hell is she allowed to legislate for or against them.[/I][/QUOTE] It's important that you realize that this is an entirely different argument. We don't have to agree with her statement or accept her as a competent legislator to disagree with the idea of this leading to her arrest. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53189335]What I notice is that if it's a gun person that did this (sawed off a barrel) on social media, they would instantly be decried and most likely imprisoned. Now that it is an anti gun person willfully breaking the law, all of a sudden the anti gun side changes its narrative to, "But why should anyone get in trouble for this?" Either she broke a law explicitly, or she didn't. She totally did. Just because you turn it in to a police station doesn't mean that the act didn't happen. Now, what I find funny is that pro gun people have been saying to abolish and/or update the NFA for years and years, and always been rebuked. However, now that anti gun people see how asinine it is with its crazy and outdated definitions, maybe they'll start seeing our point.[/QUOTE] Intent matters. I don't care who does it, if it's done in ignorance rather than malice, and the heckin police gets the thing anyways, it doesn't matter. If someone does this knowingly with the intent to keep it or even use it, that's a different thing altogether.