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

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189614]Like i said before. 5 minutes of googling would have taken this from a crime, to an antigun stunt. I've had to do it, anyone building or properly destroying guns has to do it, so why does the politician get a free pass?[/QUOTE] So they should be tried for felony because they deactivated a gun wrong? Spirit of the law isn't to ruin peoples lives because they didn't google how to deactivate a gun properly. And you couldn't help but mention the antigun stunt thing? Literally transparent in your true motivation here. Furthermore try extending this "ABSOLUTE RULE OF LAW AS WRITTEN REGARDLESS OF SPIRIT OR INTENTION" attitude to other stuff and see where it takes you - better hope you've never made a mistake in your life - only there isn't a bunch of angry internet gimps advocating for you being punished to the fullest extent for that time you were speeding or the time you drank under age or that time you downloaded something illegally. This is absolutely about politics.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189629]There's nothing hypocritical whatsoever about 'these laws shouldn't exist the way they do, but as long as they do exist, they should be applied equally to everyone'. Yes, it would be an injustice if it happened to a gun owner. It's an injustice when it happens to a gun control advocate. It's an even [i]greater[/i] injustice if that unjust law is selectively enforced as a political tool, used to imprison law-abiding citizens but granting exceptions to politicians who aren't the intended target. If we're going to be subject to these laws, you damn well bet we expect everyone else to be too, until those laws are rightfully changed or repealed. After going on about how it's wrong for us to infer a politician's position based on their clear policy statements, you sure are doing a complete asspull about what we actually believe.[/QUOTE] You yourself stated that you want to see her imprisoned because she is a gun control advocate, as a wake-up call to gun control advocates. You yourself have failed, repeatedly, to actually demonstrate that she supports the specific policies you're criticizing. I agree with you about the nature of the laws, but fail to see how you're making the leap from, "nobody should suffer these injust laws," to "[U]she[/U] should suffer these unjust laws, because she is a gun control advocate -- even though I have no idea whether or not she actually supports the specific injustices I'm criticizing." You're switching tracks from arguing against the laws, to arguing that they should be enforced, for no other reason than [i]who[/I] is going to be victimized by them. That's the goddamn problem, dude. If this were a gun hobbyist, you can damn well be sure I wouldn't be arguing to see him hit with felony charges and prison time over this. Why are you?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53189609]Inferred from: 1) his political stance specifically what there is to gain from having a gun control democrat challenger to a republican arrested 2) the nonsensical position he's adopted, complete disregard for spirit of law and common sense Sure he/you have not outright stated it; but it's not in your interest to do so since, if you're only doing it from petty partisan spite, it would invalidate your stance somewhat[/QUOTE] Well, according to BDA, if I haven't clearly stated my intentions, you can't infer them.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189650]Well, according to BDA, if I haven't clearly stated my intentions, you can't infer them.[/QUOTE] You have clearly stated your intentions, though, so your catty quip is moot.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189638] The law is applied unevenly, either get rid of it or apply it evenly. [/quote] In the ideal world, laws would be black and white like this. We don't live in that ideal world, we (as in us 2 people) probably never will . This is why you got judicial interpretation. You have to go off intention (intended meaning of the law and intention of the perp) and spirit of the law. [quote]The only difference between me, and her, is the fact that she's running for congress and I'm not.[/QUOTE] No the difference is also that you are trying to produce a gun with the intention of it being usable.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189658] Her gun was still usable, and by ATF definition, still a firearm. Even though she turned it in to the police, the entire time it was in her possession, it was a legal firearm.[/QUOTE] Pathetic. Desperate to get rid of gun control politican by any means necessary. Pro gun peeps deserve better advocates than this.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53189670]Pathetic. Desperate to get rid of gun control politican by any means necessary. Pro gun peeps deserve better advocates than this.[/QUOTE] Okay what is pathetic here? I know you're going for some bizarre emotional jab because you want to seem like the local intellectual, but instead it makes you out as an ass. Knock it off. He is not "desperate" to get rid of a gun control politician. We are not "desperate" to have someone gone because of their political stance. We are instead frustrated that people are defending someone flagrantly breaking the law, and that it is unfair that she (a politician, not due to her views) simply gets an "investigation" rather than out-and-out arrest, something that regular citizens are hit with. The problem lies in that, the instant people spoke out against her doing this, it was interpreted as some weird, politically-motivated gang-up. In reality, it's that unfair laws are being enforced unfairly.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;53189085] What does that achieve in the public interest, though?[/QUOTE] One really legalistic zinger to get this filthy gun murdering libtard off the streets. Gun lives matter too you know. That said, it is the law and an investigation is perfectly warranted because like, technically she did break the law. It's what happens as a result of the investigation that matters, since intent does matter to a decent degree in the justice system, unfortunately it seems for some of you who appear to be frothing at the mouth about the whole ordeal.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189685]Okay what is pathetic here? I know you're going for some bizarre emotional jab because you want to seem like the local intellectual, but instead it makes you out as an ass. Knock it off. He is not "desperate" to get rid of a gun control politician. We are not "desperate" to have someone gone because of their political stance. We are instead frustrated that people are defending someone flagrantly breaking the law, and that it is unfair that she (a politician, not due to her views) simply gets an "investigation" rather than out-and-out arrest, something that regular citizens are hit with. The problem lies in that, the instant people spoke out against her doing this, it was interpreted as some weird, politically-motivated gang-up. In reality, it's that unfair laws are being enforced unfairly.[/QUOTE] First off, to come back to my original point in this thread: she [B]has not[/B] "flagrantly broken the law." She did not construct a short barreled rifle, she broke a long barreled rifle. Contrary to the defense of people who want to see her burn, intent [B]does[/B] matter in a legal sense. As an example: Trump firing James Comey because he didn't like his performance is not a crime. Trump firing James Comey because of "that Russia" stuff [I]is.[/I] If it can be reasonably demonstrated that she was not trying to construct a short barreled rifle, which it easily can, then she is not in violation of law. Furthermore, she took the appropriate step of turning over the rifle to the police rather than maintain possession of it, as keeping the rifle [I]after[/I] the act of destruction [U]could[/U] have been a violation of the law, as it might demonstrate the her apparent intent was dishonest. Second: it's being interpereted as some "weird, politically-motivated gang up" because nearly every single person in this thread to have demanded her prosecution did so in tandem with mentioning her "hypocrisy," a "double standard," with a self-admitted desire make an example of her to the Democrats, etc. "If [I]we[/I] have to suffer, so does she" [B][U]is[/U][/B] a weird political gang-up. If your default position of, "nobody should be prosecuted for such inane and unjust laws" changes to, "she [I]should[/I] be prosecuted, because she supports gun control, and deserves to see the potential consequences of her political views," then how can you possibly say you're not a hypocrite?

I don't want people charged with crimes because of their political affiliations, I want people charged with crimes when they [I]BREAK THE LAW.[/I] Why is that so hard to understand? I don't get it

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189696]I mean, it doesn't serve the public interest to charge people who are making legal SBR's with "constructive intent" because they haven't gotten the tax stamp yet either. After all, they're jumping through the legal hoops, just because they have the parts doesn't mean they're going to put the thing together before they get the stamp. And yet, that's EXACTLY what they can be charged with. Which is bullshit, is it not? Its only a paper crime, is it not? After all, they're going through the steps to own it legally, why would they do that if they were an actual criminal? Across the board, its fucking bullshit, a thousand times its fucking bullshit. But BECAUSE of the way the ATF runs itself, that's how it goes. A proper reform would make basically remove "constructive intent" from the legal language, that way this doesn't happen again, to anti gun people, or pro gun people. A compromise that we (should) be able to agree on, no?[/QUOTE] So because you don't like how strict some parts of the law can be, we should be as rigid and legalistic as possible to this lady because with no malicious intent, she did something dumb, turned it into the police to make a good decision, and of course is being investigated properly to prove all is as it says it is? I'm not sure I understand your rant here in the context of this specific news story. I get that you might not like current implementations of law, but imposing what might possibly be excessively harsh punishments on other people for doing something that is also technically illegal isn't really how you change laws to benefit you. There's a reason that teenagers don't get life in prison for getting caught smoking a joint here in 2018. We've hopefully mostly moved past harsh legalism as a society.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;53189591]Man, gun nuts are some fragile people. It's embarrassing.[/QUOTE] I figure it's compensation for babydick syndrome. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;53189591]Man, gun nuts are some fragile people. It's embarrassing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=V12US;53189726]I figure it's compensation for babydick syndrome.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the input??? Like legit what does that add here. We know you aren’t going to participate in the conversation so why even post

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189721]Ideally we'd remove the language that made this a felony in the first place, so that neither side is affected by it in the future. By getting rid of the atf's ability to determine "intent", and by laying out out in legal terms (IE those building a legal SBR are safe from being prosecuted with "intent", because of course they intent do build the gun, you just can't prove that they "intend" to do it before the stamp arrives", and those who are deactivating/destroying a gun can't be charged, because their "intent" is destruction of the weapon, not making an illegal SBR). This is a rare instance where we could benefit both "sides" of the argument, and it would be foolish for us to not step up and reform a law that's bullshit ACROSS THE BOARD.[/QUOTE] Ahh, see this makes more sense now. However I do think that having parts without having the paper work in order is a fine line if we are to talk the specifics of what you're wanting here. I'd wager an exception for "complete kit" of parts for a SRB conversion would be justifiable as no malicious intent, but in the unlikely event that a person under investigation or something is caught with a building full of conversion parts, I wouldn't say that it's unlikely that their plans are less than legal with a full workshop of these parts, etc. Law is hard because you have to think of edge cases like that. I do agree that reform wouldn't be bad, just that we'd have to do it in a way that doesn't relax on crime, since illegal firearms are something we should strive to avoid if guns are to be as close to freely allowed in society as possible.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189654]You have clearly stated your intentions, though, so your catty quip is moot.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about this post: [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189257]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] It's in reference to this: [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] Or more specifically, how she wants to paint anyone who says that she did something illegal as someone who doesn't care about children. Instead of admitting that she did something wrong, and owning up to it, she doubles down and insults everyone who points it out that she made a mistake. And I do care that she broke existing law, and that it shows that she is not qualified for the job, especially in regards to firearm legislation. But her being unqualified to write law doesn't mean that she needs to be locked up, and locking her up is not a solution to get her out of the race by any means. Her breaking the law is why she needs to be locked up, pro gun or anti gun. I have to follow it, so does she. I'm actually insulted that you would go ahead and just assume that I want her jailed because of her opinions rather than being able to both disagree with her opinions and still want her to face consequences of a law that she broke, and that both can exist at the same time. [QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53189722]So because you don't like how strict some parts of the law can be, we should be as rigid and legalistic as possible to this lady because with no malicious intent, she did something dumb, turned it into the police to make a good decision, and of course is being investigated properly to prove all is as it says it is? I'm not sure I understand your rant here in the context of this specific news story. I get that you might not like current implementations of law, but imposing what might possibly be excessively harsh punishments on other people for doing something that is also technically illegal isn't really how you change laws to benefit you. There's a reason that teenagers don't get life in prison for getting caught smoking a joint here in 2018. We've hopefully mostly moved past harsh legalism as a society.[/QUOTE] Because if the law is going to be strictly applied to some, it should be strictly applied to all.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189709]I don't want people charged with crimes because of their political affiliations, I want people charged with crimes when they [I]BREAK THE LAW.[/I] Why is that so hard to understand? I don't get it[/QUOTE] "Either everybody is subject to the law, or nobody is," is a statement we can both agree with. What's hard to understand is why your default position of believing that [I]nobody[/I] should be subject to this law shifts to [I]everybody[/I] should be subject to this law depending on [I]who[/I] is currently on the block. What's also hard to understand is your apparent refusal to accept that intent [U]does[/U] matter in a legal sense, and that there's clear evidence here that her intent was to [I]destroy[/I] a rifle, not [I]alter[/I] one. Furthermore, turning over the destroyed rifle to police after the attempted destruction only further establishes her intent, whereas keeping possession of the rifle would have likely put her in more legal jeopardy.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189741]Thanks for the input??? Like legit what does that add here. We know you aren’t going to participate in the conversation so why even post[/QUOTE] You're welcome. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189745]"Either everybody is subject to the law, or nobody is," is a statement we can both agree with. What's hard to understand is why your default position of believing that [I]nobody[/I] should be subject to this law shifts to [I]everybody[/I] should be subject to this law depending on [I]who[/I] is currently on the block. What's also hard to understand is your apparent refusal to accept that intent [U]does[/U] matter in a legal sense, and that there's clear evidence here that her intent was to [I]destroy[/I] a rifle, not [I]alter[/I] one. Furthermore, turning over the destroyed rifle to police after the attempted destruction only further establishes her intent, whereas keeping possession of the rifle would have likely put her in more legal jeopardy.[/QUOTE] I can see where some confusion lies. Let me try and restate this The law should apply to everyone. Nobody should be outside of it. However, the law in question is arbitrary and poorly worded, and should thus be taken to the table and modified so it no longer punishes those for interpretations of intent. In the meantime, however, it is the law. Thus, should be enforced.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189744] Because if the law is going to be strictly applied to some, it should be strictly applied to all.[/QUOTE] You ever punch another kid on the playground as a kid? Because if so I'm recommending assault and battery charges. Ever smoked a fag before the legal age in your country? Yeah, well that's technically an illegal drug for you so guess you're getting drug charges. See my point? Legalism isn't a universal answer, maybe take a page from ilikecorn's book because he's pretty reasonable about this I think.

The politician is advocating to add more onto this strict law which have already ruined the lives of many law-abiding citizens. However when said politician broke the laws, it suddenly appears that these laws are too strict and should not apply to her, which would 'ruin her life', so instead of actually addressing how ridiculous the laws are, people should just let this pass and while allowing her add more onto said law. Right?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189748]Yes, but if said person has applied for the stamp, it stands to reason that they're not going to assemble it without said stamp, correct? Of course if you found a guy with all the parts, and no stamp in process, then "constructive intent" would be an applicable charge.[/QUOTE] Yes I would agree with that point. If the application is in, then there's nothing malicious going on. At worst a denial of the stamp from that point forward should only mean they might want to make sure you didn't just do it anyway, and possibly ask nicely in the denial letter not to go forward with the build until all the paper work is clear, maybe a request to hand over the parts if the justification for denial is strong enough. But no, they shouldn't be arrested or charged with any crime imo.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53189757]You ever punch another kid on the playground as a kid? Because if so I'm recommending assault and battery charges. Ever smoked a fag before the legal age in your country? Yeah, well that's technically an illegal drug for you so guess you're getting drug charges. See my point? Legalism isn't a universal answer, maybe take a page from ilikecorn's book because he's pretty reasonable about this I think.[/QUOTE] I DON'T WANT them to be this strict. I want the NFA relaxed so shit like this doesn't happen. But until our legislators fix it, this is what we have to work with. It IS set up in such a way that it's being applied strictly. So therefore, until it gets fixed, we need to keep the standard set.

[QUOTE=jason3232;53189760]The politician is advocating to add more onto this strict law which have already ruined the lives of many law-abiding citizens. However when said politician broke the laws, it suddenly appears that these laws are too strict and should not apply to her, which would 'ruin her life', so instead of actually addressing how ridiculous the laws are, people should just let this pass and while allowing her add more onto said law. Right?[/QUOTE] Maybe because if you apply basic logic to the situation you'd realise that one can oppose a person's political stances and still defend them from being punished by a stupid law? Which they haven't been yet because they're just under investigation still, important fact there. Just because I personally don't want to see this lady in a federal prison for being harmlessly stupid, doesn't mean I support her platform.

There's no conflict between wanting a proper gun control and wanting this person getting persecuted to be honest, I would say she getting persecuted would even show how stupid the current laws are.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189650]Well, according to BDA, if I haven't clearly stated my intentions, you can't infer them.[/QUOTE] Hardly difficult to infer your intentions when your history, including some of the posts in this thread. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189064] My favorite part is this part: [/QUOTE] Gleefully talking about possible federal prison sentences over something you and everyone else in this thread knows is harmless [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] This is disingenuous on both counts because its firearms laws that you disagree with it and almost certainly believe criminalize things that shouldn't be criminalized and don't put an undue burden on public health or safety, and because this video has nothing to do with "all that's happened". I can't think of many shootings that have been committed with an in operational, vaguely AR-15 shaped piece of metal and plastic. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189744] I'm actually insulted that you would go ahead and just assume that I want her jailed because of her opinions rather than being able to both disagree with her opinions and still want her to face consequences of a law that she broke, and that both can exist at the same time.[/QUOTE] Nobody believes this thread would have even been posted had it not been a Democrat anti-gunner.

[QUOTE=jason3232;53189760]The politician is advocating to add more onto this strict law which have already ruined the lives of many law-abiding citizens. However when said politician broke the laws, it suddenly appears that these laws are too strict and should not apply to her, which would 'ruin her life', so instead of actually addressing how ridiculous the laws are, people should just let this pass and while allowing her add more onto said law. Right?[/QUOTE] 1) Not one single person in this thread has even remotely demonstrated that the law you want her prosecuted under is one that she supports. 2) By continuously asserting that there is a "double standard," and a "hyprocrisy," and that she should be prosecuted even though you believe the laws unjust, you only further discredit this charade that your desire to see her prosecuted has anything to do with a respect for the rule of law. Either you believe this law is unjust and that people should not prosecuted for simple technicalities, or you don't. If your "respect" for the equality of law changes based on who you believe is currently on the wrong side of it: [I]you're[/I] the hypocrite. 3) Again, intent [U]does[/U] matter in a legal sense. This video is evidence of innocence, not guilt. Nobody is saying that the laws are "suddenly too strict," but that even if they [I]are[/I] too strict, she does not appear to have violated them.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189766]I DON'T WANT them to be this strict. I want the NFA relaxed so shit like this doesn't happen. But until our legislators fix it, this is what we have to work with. It IS set up in such a way that it's being applied strictly. So therefore, until it gets fixed, we need to keep the standard set.[/QUOTE] So instead of being the change we want to see now, we should just keep the status quo a little bit longer to do what exactly? You expect to wake up one morning and just bam, shit's legal, laws relaxed, one and done? "I think the law is too harsh but I want this lady punished as harshly as the law says because ???" ??? Do you realise how long the reform on marijuana laws has been going on? They didn't just throw truck loads of teenagers in prison for life up until whenever places started legalising it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189745]"Either everybody is subject to the law, or nobody is," is a statement we can both agree with. What's hard to understand is why your default position of believing that [I]nobody[/I] should be subject to this law shifts to [I]everybody[/I] should be subject to this law depending on [I]who[/I] is currently on the block.[/QUOTE] 'Either everybody is subject to the law, or nobody is' is a complete statement. It does not need to be broken down into one or the other. My position is that nobody should be subject to an unjust law, but if the legal system is going to make at least some people subject to it, then everyone should be subject to it, [I]especially[/I] when selective enforcement is occurring for political reasons. I don't want to see anti-drug politicians getting away with owning weed just because they're friends with the cops, even though I believe in principle that weed should be legal. Is that a 'political gang-up'? If I don't want to give Sen. Joe Hypocrite a free pass so he can go back to writing laws that turn ordinary people into felons, I'm the asshole here? You appear to be saying that I can't criticize New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/nyregion/chris-christie-beach-new-jersey-budget.html"]closing the beach to everyone but his family[/URL], because my belief is that the beach should be open to everyone. He should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. I want the beach to be open, but if it's not open to the public, it shouldn't be open to him either. It's not a 'political gang-up'. It's an internally consistent position. I don't see what's so hard about this or why you're trying to twist it into revenge fantasy. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189778]1) Not one single person in this thread has even remotely demonstrated that the law you want her prosecuted under is one that she supports.[/QUOTE] Give me a break, this is grasping at straws. We've conclusively shown that she supports the mainstream Democrat talking points on assault weapons, and specifically banning bump stocks. You mean to tell me that we don't [I]really[/I] know whether or not she wants to repeal the law banning the actual machine guns that bump stocks are meant to simulate? Find me a single Democratic politician who has expressed a desire to repeal the NFA and I'll concede the point. Otherwise it is reasonable to infer that her political position is the party line as she expresses, and isn't secretly hiding a desire to repeal legislation where the mere idea of weakening it (see: push for deregulation of suppressors) gets Democrats screaming about dead children. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189778]3) Again, intent [U]does[/U] matter in a legal sense. This video is evidence of innocence, not guilt.[/QUOTE] Intent has never mattered in the prosecution of this particular law. We've been over this. The ATF says 'you intended to cut the barrel', and that's that. If the ATF decides in this case that her intent was honest so she shouldn't be prosecuted, it will be a direct contradiction of all prior precedent on the issue. It'll let people say 'look, the law works fine, it's those evil gun people twisting it' and we'll be right back to guys going to prison for innocent mistakes because they didn't have the benefit of public pressure on their side. Hell, if both sides can agree that this is so obviously an unjust law, the best case would be for it to be prosecuted, go to court, and get thrown out by a federal judge, setting a new precedent and overturning the ATF's ludicrous assessment of intent. I'd be perfectly happy with that outcome.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;53189480]So in this case she'd be culpable because she intentionally turned the rifle into a short barrel?[/QUOTE] She could be culpable, but that doesn't mean that she would be charged, especially considering the context. It depends. She might have a mistake of fact in that she didn't know she was making it a short barrelled weapon, she may have thought that she was cutting into the receiver and outright making it inoperable - that certainly seems to be her intent. To hold her to account on this would be outside the scope of what the legislature intended the law to be used for, so even if she were brought to trial, by my eye it's unlikely that she would be convicted.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189802] If the ATF decides in this case that her intent was honest so she shouldn't be prosecuted, it will be a direct contradiction of all prior precedent on the issue. It'll let people say 'look, the law works fine, it's those evil gun people twisting it' and we'll be right back to guys going to prison for innocent mistakes because they didn't have the benefit of public pressure on their side.[/QUOTE] The public pressure is [I]against [/I]her, not for her. The only reason the ATF is investigating is because all the people who knows that what she did is technically illegal sent in tips because she is an anti-gun Democrat, unlike all the other regular joes who carved up their weapons. Out of interest though, do you (or anyone else) have any instances of someone cutting their AR-15 upper into uselessness before turning the whole assembly over to the police and getting arrested by the ATF?