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

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189325]There is an established precedent in the law for discretion in prosecution[/QUOTE] And when that 'discretion' is 'politicians get a free pass, ordinary peons get slammed by the letter of the law' you bet we're going to complain about it. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189325]just because she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles. That's now how the law works lol[/QUOTE] But if I'm unfamiliar with the arbitrary nature of the NFA I go to prison, because that's how the law works for the rest of us. Also nice whataboutism about Trump. What if I'm upset about Trump but don't feel a need to toss in my two cents to a sea of like-minded posts?

[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]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] That's an argument you're free to make, and it's a good one. Again, though, breaking a rifle the wrong way is not a crime that any rational judge would impose a sentence for.

[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. 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] Way to create a double standard. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and does not hold up in court. Also, I really don't get why you even said that first line. That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stop trying to slander people.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189345]And when that 'discretion' is 'politicians get a free pass, ordinary peons get slammed by the letter of the law' you bet we're going to complain about it. But if I'm unfamiliar with the arbitrary nature of the NFA I go to prison, because that's how the law works for the rest of us. Also nice whataboutism about Trump. What if I'm upset about Trump but don't feel a need to toss in my two cents to a sea of like-minded posts?[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying that politicians should get a "Free Pass," they're saying that [I]nobody[/I] should or would be prosecuted under these specific circumstances. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53189348]Way to create a double standard. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and does not hold up in court. Also, I really don't get why you even said that first line. That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stop trying to slander people.[/QUOTE] Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, but intent [I]is[/I]. She wasn't trying to create a short-barreled rifle, she was trying to destroy a rifle. That's really all there is to it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189349][I]nobody[/I] should or would be prosecuted under these specific circumstances.[/QUOTE] And I'm saying that's demonstrably bullshit when people [b]have[/b] been prosecuted under equally innocent, well-meaning circumstances. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189349]Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, but intent is. She wasn't trying to create a short-barreled rifle, she was trying to destroy a rifle. [/quote] He wasn't trying to smuggle a firearm into New York, he was trying to leave the state with it. He wasn't trying to create a short-barreled rifle, he was trying to assemble his lawfully-owned Contender. He wasn't trying to possess a thirty-round magazine, he was trying to legally own an otherwise legal weapon. All of these have been prosecuted so I am utterly failing to see the distinction you are trying to draw. Well-meaning citizens get fucked over by overly narrow interpretations of intent all the time, if we're going to be consistent about it then she should be prosecuted too. If an anti-gun politician getting slapped with the same idiocy they inflict on everyone else is what it takes for non-gun-owners to realize how stupidly gun control laws are written, then great, but you're inventing distinctions where none exist.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189349] Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, but intent [I]is[/I]. She wasn't trying to create a short-barreled rifle, she was trying to destroy a rifle. That's really all there is to it.[/QUOTE] Your intent went out the window a long time ago. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]Mens rea[/url] is part of very few laws these days since its hard for the prosecution to prove mens rea. Someone left drugs in your car and the cops find it? You're going to jail. Someone accidentally crosses the invisible boundaries that make up state lines with a firearm (that is illegal in that state)? You're most likely facing felony charges. (ex. New Jersey is particularly bad about this. [url=https://www.ammoland.com/2014/04/virginia-gun-owner-being-unfairly-prosecuted-in-nj-for-accidentally-bringing-a-gun-into-the-state/]1[/url] [url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150403_Christie_pardons_Phila__mom_snagged_by_N_J__gun_law.html]2[/url] [url=http://abc7ny.com/news/marine-facing-mandatory-prison-for-gun-charge-has-sentence-commuted/1873957/]3[/url] [url=http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/01/police_hopeful_seeks_christie_pardon_after_legally-owned_gun_turns_him_into_a_convict.html]4[/url], etc) Intent went out the window long ago. And mainly due to politicians like this woman.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189370]And I'm saying that's demonstrably bullshit when people [b]have[/b] been prosecuted under equally innocent, well-meaning circumstances. He wasn't trying to smuggle a firearm into New York, he was trying to leave the state with it. He wasn't trying to create a short-barreled rifle, he was trying to assemble his lawfully-owned Contender. He wasn't trying to possess a thirty-round magazine, he was trying to legally own an otherwise legal weapon. All of these have been prosecuted so I am utterly failing to see the distinction you are trying to draw. Well-meaning citizens get fucked over by overly narrow interpretations of intent all the time, if we're going to be consistent about it then she should be prosecuted too. If an anti-gun politician getting slapped with the same idiocy they inflict on everyone else is what it takes for non-gun-owners to realize how stupidly gun control laws are written, then great, but you're inventing distinctions where none exist.[/QUOTE] None of these examples are relevant. You're still confusing intent with ignorance. If crossing the state line with a firearm is illegal, and you cross the state line with that firearm without realizing that it is illegal, you could still potentially be prosecuted. If you happen to live on one side of the state line, however, and you accidentally catapult your weapon over the state line when you set it on a seesaw and then trip onto the other end of it, you're going to be fucking fine. If having a thirty round magazine is illegal, and you purchase a thirty round magazine for your otherwise legal weapon, you have committed a crime. If having a thirty round magazine is illegal, and one is shipped to you by accident because some dealer got an address mixed up, you're going to be fucking fine. If creating a short barreled rifle is illegal, and you intentionally assemble a short-barreled rifle, you have violated the law. If you slam your rifle against a rock because you want to destroy it, and the barrel snaps off at a short length, you're going to be fucking fine. Trying to destroy a weapon is not illegal. If, in the act of destroying your weapon, it temporarily and accidentally violates a legal technicality in barrel length, you're going to be fucking fine.

It'd be cool to see this much outrage over things that had a heavier impact on society than a woman sawing up a gun incorrectly and handing it over to the police. Instead people are calling for her entire life to be ruined with felony charges.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53189371]Your intent went out the window a long time ago. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]Mens rea[/url] is part of very few laws these days since its hard for the prosecution to prove mens rea. Someone left drugs in your car and the cops find it? You're going to jail. Someone accidentally crosses the invisible boundaries that make up state lines with a firearm (that is illegal in that state)? You're most likely facing felony charges. (ex. New Jersey is particularly bad about this. [url=https://www.ammoland.com/2014/04/virginia-gun-owner-being-unfairly-prosecuted-in-nj-for-accidentally-bringing-a-gun-into-the-state/]1[/url] [url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150403_Christie_pardons_Phila__mom_snagged_by_N_J__gun_law.html]2[/url], etc) Intent went out the window long ago. And mainly due to politicians like this woman.[/QUOTE] Except, in this case, there's video documentation of exactly what happened. If there were video evidence of [I]somebody else[/I] putting drugs into your car, you're not going to be prosecuted lol

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189390]Except, in this case, there's video documentation of exactly what happened. If there were video evidence of [I]somebody else[/I] putting drugs into your car, you're not going to prosecuted lol[/QUOTE] You only have video of her stated intent (which again does not apply to the law itself). Though it is clearly video evidence of her technically committing a felony under state and federal law. I'm sure that they won't prosecute her. But it is a case of double standards. You have to know full well people like her fully support prosecuting all those people in the New Jersey cases. Even though they lacked intent. Who knows how many other are sitting in prison not having a voice to the media to get the NJ Governor to pardon/commute their "crimes." [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Tigster;53189389]It'd be cool to see this much outrage over things that had a heavier impact on society than a woman sawing up a gun incorrectly and handing it over to the police. Instead people are calling for her entire life to be ruined with felony charges.[/QUOTE] She is calling for more gun laws when she clearly doesn't even know the laws already on the books. And again, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse before the courts. The average citizen would be in jail facing felony charges. It happens all the time in this country. Cutting through the gas tube doesn't make the gun inoperative. That gun can still fire what is in the chamber. It basically acts like a straight pull (UK method to get around their insane gun laws).

At the end of the day, someone like her should not be pushing forward firearms legislation if they clearly have no understanding of the current laws.

Honestly, it's fine if you think that the laws on this are too restrictive. You're free to think that, free to argue it, and you may even have some good points on things. If that's what you want to argue, then argue it. Trying to ruin this woman's life with some "Gotcha!" bullshit just because you don't like her policy, though? That's just sad.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189387]You're still confusing intent with ignorance. If crossing the state line with a firearm is illegal, and you cross the state line with that firearm without realizing that it is illegal, you could still potentially be prosecuted.[/QUOTE] If you chop the barrel off a rifle without realizing that it is illegal, you could still potentially be prosecuted? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189387]If having a thirty round magazine is illegal, and one is shipped to you by accident because some dealer got an address mixed up, you're going to be fucking fine.[/QUOTE] How many times am I going to have to say 'these are real things that people have actually been prosecuted for' before you stop trying to invalidate real-world examples with 'psh, nah, you'll be fine'? People have been prosecuted for accidentally, unintentionally coming into possession of illegal magazines. People have been prosecuted for accidentally, unintentionally constructing an SBR in the process of building a legal rifle. People have been prosecuted for accidentally, unintentionally possessing firearms illegally while traveling, despite following all posted procedures for legally traveling with a firearm. None of these demonstrated intent to commit an act that would be against the law. Nobody intended to buy a thirty-round magazine, or build an SBR, or take guns into New York. These cases were not mere ignorance of the law, they had no intent to commit an action that would be against the law. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189387]Trying to destroy a weapon is not illegal. If, in the act of destroying your weapon, it temporarily and accidentally violates a legal technicality in barrel length, you're going to be fucking fine.[/QUOTE] You might have a point if the [URL="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-2/download"]official ATF guidance on the NFA[/URL] didn't repeatedly stress that deliberately destroying a weapon is not enough to make it not an NFA item. Some choice quotes: [quote]It is important to remember that rendering a firearm unserviceable does not remove it from the definition of an NFA firearm.[/quote] [quote]Note: a machinegun receiver that is not properly destroyed may still be classified as a machinegun[/quote] The NFA was specifically written as a zero-tolerance law where mere ownership of an illegal NFA firearm that was not destroyed to ATF standards is prosecuted as a felony. It was such a real issue that they had an amnesty in 1986 [I]specifically[/I] because of the number of well-meaning citizens with deactivated, non-functional relic machine guns who by the NFA's strict policies were violating the law. There's plenty of precedent here. These gun laws are, and always have been, entirely unconcerned with intent.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189387]None of these examples are relevant. You're still confusing intent with ignorance. If crossing the state line with a firearm is illegal, and you cross the state line with that firearm without realizing that it is illegal, you could still potentially be prosecuted. If you happen to live on one side of the state line, however, and you accidentally catapult your weapon over the state line when you set it on a seesaw and then trip onto the other end of it, you're going to be fucking fine. If having a thirty round magazine is illegal, and you purchase a thirty round magazine for your otherwise legal weapon, you have committed a crime. If having a thirty round magazine is illegal, and one is shipped to you by accident because some dealer got an address mixed up, you're going to be fucking fine. If creating a short barreled rifle is illegal, and you intentionally assemble a short-barreled rifle, you have violated the law. If you slam your rifle against a rock because you want to destroy it, and the barrel snaps off at a short length, you're going to be fucking fine. Trying to destroy a weapon is not illegal. If, in the act of destroying your weapon, it temporarily and accidentally violates a legal technicality in barrel length, you're going to be fucking fine.[/QUOTE] Except all of the examples catbarf provided [I]have[/I] happened. These are not hypotheticals, people have actually been charged because their plane got diverted to a state where their gun was not legal and people have been charged because someone made a mistake and shipped a rifle with a non-compliant magazine.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53189371]Your intent went out the window a long time ago. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]Mens rea[/url] is part of very few laws these days since its hard for the prosecution to prove mens rea.[/quote] resident fp law student here trying to dispel legal misinformation and misunderstanding! a.) Intent hasn't gone anywhere. [B]Mens rea needs to be proven in every criminal charge with the exception of strict liability charges[/B]. Strict liability charges are typically minor infractions like parking tickets and only punishable by fines. The only serious strict liability criminal offense under the Model Penal Code (which is not itself a formal legal code, but is enshrined in many state systems) is statutory rape. A variety of states also don't require mens rea for drunk driving offenses. That's pretty much it. Everything else requires both actus reus and mens rea. [quote]Someone left drugs in your car and the cops find it? You're going to jail.[/quote] Depends. Did you know they were there? If not, you've got a mistake of fact, exculpating in a court of law. If you knew they were there, yep, you are unless you turn them in or call the police. [quote]Someone accidentally crosses the invisible boundaries that make up state lines with a firearm (that is illegal in that state)? You're most likely facing felony charges. (ex. New Jersey is particularly bad about this. [url=https://www.ammoland.com/2014/04/virginia-gun-owner-being-unfairly-prosecuted-in-nj-for-accidentally-bringing-a-gun-into-the-state/]1[/url] [url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150403_Christie_pardons_Phila__mom_snagged_by_N_J__gun_law.html]2[/url], etc)[/quote] Again, depends. Is it that you've got a mistake of law or a mistake of fact? If you knowingly entered another state with that gun or took possession of it within it, then you've got mens rea. Mistakes of law are not a legal criminal defense. You are assumed to know the law. Otherwise people could just go "aw gee I didn't [I]know[/I] murder was illegal!" [this is obviously an extreme example but it illustrates the point]. [quote]Intent went out the window long ago. And mainly due to politicians like this woman.[/QUOTE] aaand incorrect. Even if you're trying to argue that possession is a crime without mens rea, you're wrong. If you knowingly/purposely possess an item, that's mens rea. Now if you're mistaken as to what that item is - say for instance, you have a grenade but think it's a prop because you bought it at a prop store, etc, then you've got a defense.

If these dumb asses are going to keep destroying their rifles, why aren't they doing it properly as per the ATF?

[QUOTE=Kigen;53189398]You only have video of her stated intent (which again does not apply to the law itself). Though it is clearly video evidence of her technically committing a felony under state and federal law. I'm sure that they won't prosecute her. But it is a case of double standards. You have to know full well people like her fully support prosecuting all those people in the New Jersey cases. Even though they lacked intent. Who knows how many other are sitting in prison not having a voice to the media to get the NJ Governor to pardon/commute their "crimes." [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] She is calling for more gun laws when she clearly doesn't even know the laws already on the books. And again, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse before the courts. The average citizen would be in jail facing felony charges. It happens all the time in this country. Cutting through the gas tube doesn't make the gun inoperative. That gun can still fire what is in the chamber. It basically acts like a straight pull (UK method to get around their insane gun laws).[/QUOTE] Thanks for demonstrating my point. Again, you realize full well that nothing whatsoever in this case points to her having any intent of creating a short barreled rifle, and that prosecuting her just because the gun broke in a certain way would be absolutely ridiculous. You just want to see her life ruined because you don't like her policy and think she is a hypocrite. That's "Gotcha" bullshit, and it's pathetic. If you don't like her policy, argue against her policy. If you think the laws you're trying to crucify her under are hugely over-restrictive, then argue that they're over-restrictive.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189404]Honestly, it's fine if you think that the laws on this are too restrictive. You're free to think that, free to argue it, and you may even have some good points on things. If that's what you want to argue, then argue it. Trying to ruin this woman's life with some "Gotcha!" bullshit just because you don't like her policy, though? That's just sad.[/QUOTE] We're trying to point out the hypocrisies here. She clearly wants others to face prison time because she doesn't like guns. So what a lot of anti-gun legislation does these days is create paper criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners. You cannot sit here and believe that she wouldn't support prosecuting someone who accidentally creates a SBR by lets say accidentally buying a upper to an AR-15 that is just a half inch too short.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53189398]You only have video of her stated intent (which again does not apply to the law itself). Though it is clearly video evidence of her technically committing a felony under state and federal law. I'm sure that they won't prosecute her. But it is a case of double standards. You have to know full well people like her fully support prosecuting all those people in the New Jersey cases. Even though they lacked intent. Who knows how many other are sitting in prison not having a voice to the media to get the NJ Governor to pardon/commute their "crimes." [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] She is calling for more gun laws when she clearly doesn't even know the laws already on the books. And again, ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse before the courts. The average citizen would be in jail facing felony charges. It happens all the time in this country. Cutting through the gas tube doesn't make the gun inoperative. That gun can still fire what is in the chamber. It basically acts like a straight pull (UK method to get around their insane gun laws).[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about her intent, or her politics, you bringing it up in this context makes it seem like her legislative ideas but are feeding into your reasoning for pushing for a felony for her, rather than strict interpretation of the spirit and letter. If the average man was misguided in his publicity attempt, turned the weapon in and cooperates with the authorities in the investigation, do you really think he would get convicted of a felony, or do you think the investigation would happen like it is now, and when they inform her of the law, warn her not to do it again, and ensure that the weapon has truly been turned in, they would decide against literally ruining her life. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Kigen;53189418]We're trying to point out the hypocrisies here. She clearly wants others to face prison time because she doesn't like guns. So what a lot of anti-gun legislation does these days is create paper criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners. You cannot sit here and believe that she wouldn't support prosecuting someone who accidentally creates a SBR by lets say accidentally buying a upper to an AR-15 that is just a half inch too short.[/QUOTE] You're not pointing out hypocrisy in isolation, you want to punish it with a felony charge to make you feel better

[QUOTE=Tigster;53189421]I'm not talking about her intent, or her politics, you bringing it up in this context makes it seem like her legislative ideas but are feeding into your reasoning for pushing for a felony for her, rather than strict interpretation of the spirit and letter. If the average man was misguided in his publicity attempt, turned the weapon in and cooperates with the authorities in the investigation, do you really think he would get convicted of a felony, or do you think the investigation would happen like it is now, and when they inform her of the law, warn her not to do it again, and ensure that the weapon has truly been turned in, they would decide against literally ruining her life. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] You're not pointing out hypocrisy in isolation, you want to punish it with a felony charge to make you feel better[/QUOTE] I'm not pushing for her to be charged. I am pointing out hypocrisies. Again, look to the New Jersey cases. Accidentally entering NJ with a firearm they consider illegal is grounds for them to throw the book at you. [QUOTE=Tigster;53189421] You're not pointing out hypocrisy in isolation, you want to punish it with a felony charge to make you feel better[/QUOTE] You are assuming I want her charged. I don't, I just want people to realize how retarded current gun laws already are.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189417]... to her having any intent of creating a short barreled rifle ...[/QUOTE] There was no intent to commit a crime when you get diverted to LaGuardia but that hasn't stopped them.

-auto merge fail-

[QUOTE=download;53189426]There was no intent to commit a crime when you get diverted to LaGuardia but that hasn't stopped them.[/QUOTE] Don't forget those poor fuckers that are driving through NJ and get pulled over for something trivial and get tossed in jail for having a firearm in the car that is unloaded and in a case

[QUOTE=download;53189426]There was no intent to commit a crime when you get diverted to LaGuardia but that hasn't stopped them.[/QUOTE] Yes there is. It may not be intent in the colloquial sense, but you did intentionally take possession of the firearm, which satisfies the intentional aspect of the charge. Now if we're going to talk about why it's a little ridiculous to charge somebody on that for being put into a position that's out of their control, then sure, that's something. I'm not really sure what that person's recourse would have been. But, to say that there is no intent is legally incorrect. Maybe they could've asked the airline to hold on to their baggage? Not sure, because then technically that would be placing the airline in the position of holding illegal goods. But I don't know the law too well around that exact situation. Interesting question though, I don't really think it would fall under any of the traditional defenses.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53189418]We're trying to point out the hypocrisies here. She clearly wants others to face prison time because she doesn't like guns[...] You cannot sit here and believe that she wouldn't support prosecuting someone who accidentally creates a SBR by lets say accidentally buying a upper to an AR-15 that is just a half inch too short.[/QUOTE] I don't know [I]what[/I] the hell her personal policy on this is. I've never heard of this woman before, and have no idea what her voting record or stated policy is. Do you? Do you have links to her policy or record on this, or are you just making an assumption because it would be convenient for your point if it were true? [quote]So what a lot of anti-gun legislation does these days is create paper criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners.p[/quote] Okay, so then why would you want to see somebody else have her life ruined by this? If you believe that the law is ridiculously over-restrictive, and designed to make "paper criminals," why are you arguing in favor of another "victim" of it? All you've done is demonstrate my point again: you don't give a shit about the law, you just want to see a random politician you don't like have her life ruined because she doesn't like guns. That is pathetic.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189436]I don't know [I]what[/I] the hell her personal policy on this is. I've never heard of this woman before, and have no idea what her voting record or stated policy is. D you? Do you have links to her policy or record on this, or are you just making an assumption because it would be convenient for your point if it were true? Okay, so then why would you want to see somebody else have her life ruined by this? If you believe that the law is ridiculously over-restrictive, and designed to make "paper criminals," why are you arguing in favor of another "victim" of it? All you've done is demonstrate my point again: you don't give a shit about the law, you just want to see a random politician you don't like have her life ruined because she doesn't like guns. That is pathetic.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kigen;53189425] You are assuming I want her charged. I don't, I just want people to realize how retarded current gun laws already are.[/QUOTE] Also, [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1595564&p=53189409&viewfull=1#post53189409[/url]

[QUOTE=Tigster;53189421]You're not pointing out hypocrisy in isolation, you want to punish it with a felony charge to make you feel better[/QUOTE] Exactly this. It's sad. Argue against the policy all you like. You might even have some good points to bring up. This little act ya'll are putting on, though? Petty.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189404]Trying to ruin this woman's life with some "Gotcha!" bullshit just because you don't like her policy, though? That's just sad.[/QUOTE] What's sad is that this kind of shit is [I]already[/I] ruining the lives of well-meaning citizens every day, but gun control advocates do not care at all. Then when someone on their side trips up and runs afoul of the same idiotic laws, and people suggest that those laws should apply to them equally, you and others call it a 'gotcha'. Oh, yes, it's a 'gotcha', silly us. It would be [I]ridiculous[/I] to prosecute someone for such an inconsequential, well-meaning offense- unless they're an actual gun owner, then we throw the book at them and nobody seems to mind. If gun control advocates seemed to care about the overly strict nature of gun laws like the NFA then yes, I'd call it petty and agree that discretion is needed. But if they're going to support these laws as they stand and as they're enforced, then it's only fair that they experience the excessive and unfair nature of those laws for themselves. Maybe if they actually book her, then it would be the wakeup call that gun laws in this country need comprehensive reform- but we all know that isn't going to happen, because laws are for little people.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189446]What's sad is that this kind of shit is [I]already[/I] ruining the lives of well-meaning citizens every day, but gun control advocates do not care at all. Then when someone on their side trips up and runs afoul of the same idiotic laws, and people suggest that those laws should apply to them equally, you and others call it a 'gotcha'. Oh, yes, it's a 'gotcha', silly us. It would be [I]ridiculous[/I] to prosecute someone for such an inconsequential, well-meaning offense- unless they're an actual gun owner, then we throw the book at them and nobody seems to mind.[/QUOTE] Again: do you have any sources whatsoever of this woman stating that she wants the specific policies you're criticizing to be ruthlessly enforced, or are you constructing a strawman against her because you know that she [I]generally[/I] doesn't like guns, and you would find it personally satisfying to see somebody you have political differences with have their life ruined? You do understand that being an advocate for gun control does not mean that you advocate [I]any and all[/I] forms of gun control, right? If you do [B]not[/B] actually know this woman's record on this, and do not know her policy relating to the specific laws or enforcement policies you're criticizing, then I'd direct your attention to this: [quote]If gun control advocates seemed to care about the overly strict nature of gun laws like the NFA then yes, I'd call it petty and agree that discretion is needed. But if they're going to support these laws as they stand and as they're enforced, then it's only fair that they experience the excessive and unfair nature of those laws for themselves. Maybe if they actually book her, then it would be the wakeup call that gun laws in this country need comprehensive reform- but we all know that isn't going to happen, because laws are for little people.[/quote] By your own admission: you want to see this woman's life destroyed because she wants to see gun control, despite not knowing any specifics about her policy on the nature or enforcement of that gun control. You want to see her life destroyed to stick it to a generalized strawman group of politicians who she may or may not even agree with. You want a living, breathing, human being to have her life fucking [B][U]ruined[/U][/B], because there exist members of the political class she generally identifies with who support overly restrictive laws, despite having no idea whatsoever whether or not [I]she[/I] actually supports those same policies? That isn't just pathetic: it's fucking sick, and you should be ashamed of yourself if that's where you're coming from with this.

[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] Welcome to USA firearms laws. This is one of the many reasons why everyone hates the ATF.