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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53189777]Hardly difficult to infer your intentions when your history, including some of the posts in this thread. [/quote] But as BDA has established earlier, you need an actual statement. You can't infer intentions or positions. [quote]Gleefully talking about possible federal prison sentences over something you and everyone else in this thread knows is harmless[/quote] Gleefuly showing where someone made an idiot of themselves. Nothing in the quote that follows that says anything about a prison sentence. [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] No, it's not. The same people who want more gun control should want their laws to be enforced, shouldn't they? It's kind of pointless to call for more laws if you're just going to say "nah, let's not prosecute this time. Let's wait for the next one." [quote]Nobody believes this thread would have even been posted had it not been a Democrat anti-gunner.[/QUOTE] Just like a thread about a congressman having gay sex wouldn't be posted here unless it was a republican anti-gay marriage advocate, right? That's why this argument is stupid. And yes, it would most likely be posted had it been a republican pro-gun person, because people would using it to kick dirt on republicans and the NRA. Don't even delude yourself for a second into thinking it wouldn't. [QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53189780]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] Because it's the law. Because she shouldn't get to skate away from the law because she's a politician, or because she's ignorant of the law, or because she didn't have malicious intent, even though others have been slammed for the same thing.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189870]But as BDA has established earlier, you need an actual statement. You can't infer intentions or positions.[/QUOTE] I can and I will. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189870]Gleefuly showing where someone made an idiot of themselves. Nothing in the quote that follows that says anything about a prison sentence.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't be gleeful about any aspect of this. That's why you seem disingenious and people like catbarf and zillamaster are getting at least [I]some [/I]benefit of the doubt. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189870]No, it's not. The same people who want more gun control should want their laws to be enforced, shouldn't they? It's kind of pointless to call for more laws if you're just going to say "nah, let's not prosecute this time. Let's wait for the next one."[/QUOTE] You ignored both my points before making a strawman. Can you at least respond to the points I made before putting words in my mouth? [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189870]Just like a thread about a congressman having gay sex wouldn't be posted here unless it was a republican anti-gay marriage advocate, right? That's why this argument is stupid. And yes, it would most likely be posted had it been a republican pro-gun person, because people would using it to kick dirt on republicans and the NRA. Don't even delude yourself for a second into thinking it wouldn't. [/QUOTE] A republican anti-gay marriage advocate caught having sex with a gay escort is nothing at all like an anti-gun democrat destroying a replaceable part of her weapon and turning it over to the police. Your comparison is far more stupid than any other argument made in this thread. A republican pro-gun person carving up their AR-15 wouldn't be posted because it doesn't exist. I don't even understand how this logic works. How would it "kick dirt" on Republicans and the NRA? [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189870]Because it's the law. Because she shouldn't get to skate away from the law because she's a politician, or because she's ignorant of the law, or because she didn't have malicious intent, even though others have been slammed for the same thing.[/QUOTE] Source? People in this thread are making bold claims but refusing to back them up. From what little research I've been able to do before work it seems like "constructive possession" or "constructive intent" plays into how the ATF approaches cases like these and I don't think they are going to prosecute someone for destroying the barrel and gas tube, making the weapon inoperable, before handing it over to police. Further, what I [I]can [/I]find on SBR cases that the ATF pursues is that the person is almost always arrested or at least questioned by local police before the ATF jumps in. If the police already know she handed in the weapon for destruction it is [I]highly [/I]unlikely she is going to be prosecuted.

Every anti in here is missing the point and the pros are doing a really shit job of explaining themselves so here: She committed a felony. Intentionally or otherwise, the text of the law doesn't care. That means if a gun owner did this exact same thing, unaware of the draconian SBR laws he would be arrested, charged, and fined enough to make sure he never has a penny to his name again. The odds are pretty good that the majority anti gun response to this would be "well he should have known the law/shouldn't have owned guns/whatever." Morally, she should not be charged and neither should the example gun owner above, but laws like this should not be enforced selectively. If the example gun owner above is charged, she should be charged, too. If you do not like the prospect of the law being enforced on your candidate, you should then be able to empathize with the reason gun owners do not like this law. The idea here should be that everybody finally realizes NFA is fucking retarded, this is the reason NFA is fucking retarded, and we all work together to get rid of it. Instead everybody's hung up on exceptionalism and trying to argue why it should only apply to the enemy.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189906] That means if a gun owner did this exact same thing, unaware of the draconian SBR laws he would be arrested, charged, and fined enough to make sure he never has a penny to his name again. [/QUOTE] Do you have any prior precedent of this? Particularly precedent where they cut down the barrel then immediately handed it over to the police? [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189906] The odds are pretty good that the majority anti gun response to this would be "well he should have known the law/shouldn't have owned guns/whatever." [/QUOTE] I don't know why you say this when you have people in this thread explicitly saying that no one should be charged a felony for doing something so mundane.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53189918]Do you have any prior precedent of this? Particularly precedent where they cut down the barrel then immediately handed it over to the police?[/QUOTE] I think you can imagine it's pretty hard to websearch cases of this (and your secondary criteria has probably never happened) [QUOTE]I don't know why you say this when you have people in this thread explicitly saying that no one should be charged a felony for doing something so mundane.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the majority line here on FP. I mean majority anti gun line in the US. If it made national news, not that it would, you can imagine what news outlets would be saying about it.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189906]Every anti in here is missing the point and the pros are doing a really shit job of explaining themselves so here: She committed a felony. Intentionally or otherwise, the text of the law doesn't care. That means if a gun owner did this exact same thing, unaware of the draconian SBR laws he would be arrested, charged, and fined enough to make sure he never has a penny to his name again. The odds are pretty good that the majority anti gun response to this would be "well he should have known the law/shouldn't have owned guns/whatever." Morally, she should not be charged and neither should the example gun owner above, but laws like this should not be enforced selectively. If the example gun owner above is charged, she should be charged, too. If you do not like the prospect of the law being enforced on your candidate, you should then be able to empathize with the reason gun owners do not like this law. The idea here should be that everybody finally realizes NFA is fucking retarded, this is the reason NFA is fucking retarded, and we all work together to get rid of it. Instead everybody's hung up on exceptionalism and trying to argue why it should only apply to the enemy.[/QUOTE] Entirely agreed. Laws are laws and should be enforced. If she broke a law and illegally disposed of a gun then she should be charged. I'm pretty much completely against the second amendment, but so long as it is in the constitution then there is no moral or ethical position you can hold other than accept the situation the way it is and act accordingly.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189930]I think you can imagine it's pretty hard to websearch cases of this (and your secondary criteria has probably never happened)[/QUOTE] I don't mean to be a dick by asking for sources but I feel like if a strong line of argument is going to be an appeal to precedent, then that precedent should be established. As far as I can tell not only has such a precedent not been established, but precedent running contrary to the claims made in this case has itself been established. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189930]I'm not talking about the majority line here on FP. I mean majority anti gun line in the US. If it made national news, not that it would, you can imagine what news outlets would be saying about it.[/QUOTE] Good point to make is that you wouldn't have made national news because the people who know the intricacies of firearms law aren't interested in going after random nobodies but might be a little more motivated to send tips in about a Democrat running for congress.

In my view, this is a great example of something pros and antis could agree on and push through so both sides can demonstrate willingness to cooperate and make the country better and safer. NFA is pointless and only really serves to criminalize people who don't know its ins and outs - let's get rid of it together. I've said for a long time knocking out NFA would be a great way to curry support for less draconian controls from apprehensive pro-gunners, because it's one of the biggest thorns in our collective side and now antis have a firsthand understanding of why it's so stupid.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189954]In my view, this is a great example of something pros and antis could agree on and push through so both sides can demonstrate willingness to cooperate and make the country better and safer. NFA is pointless and only really serves to criminalize people who don't know its ins and outs - let's get rid of it together. I've said for a long time knocking out NFA would be a great way to curry support for less draconian controls from apprehensive pro-gunners, because it's one of the biggest thorns in our collective side and now antis have a firsthand understanding of why it's so stupid.[/QUOTE] For my part I've explicitly called for the NFA and Hughes amendment to be repealed.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53189952]I don't mean to be a dick by asking for sources but I feel like if a strong line of argument is going to be an appeal to precedent, then that precedent should be established. As far as I can tell not only has such a precedent not been established, but precedent running contrary to the claims made in this case has itself been established.[/QUOTE] I can only offer anecdotes and I don't really like to build arguments off anecdotes. I know a couple people with felony SBR charges. They both did the same thing: built an SBR unaware of the law, took it to a gun range, got flagged, arrested, charged, and jailed. But again, that's anecdotal. I can't find news articles about it happening to cite, and without that, my word is just my word. [QUOTE]Good point to make is that you wouldn't have made national news because the people who know the intricacies of firearms law aren't interested in going after random nobodies but might be a little more motivated to send tips in about a Democrat running for congress.[/QUOTE] The ATF is very interested in going after random nobodies, though. For example, backwoods hillbillies slamfiring their M1s/Mini 14s by tying a shoe string to the bolt handle. That trick has been around since the 40s and the ATF deemed it manufacturing a machine gun. How much good do you reckon that did for anyone?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189963]I can only offer anecdotes and I don't really like to build arguments off anecdotes. I know a couple people with felony SBR charges. They both did the same thing: built an SBR unaware of the law, took it to a gun range, got flagged, arrested, charged, and jailed. But again, that's anecdotal. I can't find news articles about it happening to cite, and without that, my word is just my word.[/QUOTE] Based on your post history I don't really have any reason to doubt you and your story doesn't differ too significantly from cases like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson"]United States. Olofson[/URL] (flagged at gun range, arrested, charged, jailed) but did any of those SBR builds make the firearm effectively useless because it damaged the barrel and gas system? Putting someone in jail because they put stuff on their gun or their gun has a shorter barrel is dumb, but it's slightly less dumb then putting someone in jail because they mated an upper receiver with a non-functional barrel and gas tube to a lower. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189963]The ATF is very interested in going after random nobodies, though. For example, backwoods hillbillies slamfiring their M1s/Mini 14s by tying a shoe string to the bolt handle. That trick has been around since the 40s and the ATF deemed it manufacturing a machine gun. How much good do you reckon that did for anyone?[/QUOTE] I've seen the letter but as far as I can tell there have been no prosecutions for it. Even if they did, it obviously does no good for anyone, and I really can't help but repeat what I've already stated, that no one should be prosecuted with a felony for this, regardless of who they are. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Blind Lulu;53189986]To be honest I have a feeling these laws exist just so the ATF can get a chance to catch and fuck over gun owners. That's pretty much the reason she gets away with it.[/QUOTE] If precedent matters as much as the people here say it does, she is probably going to get away with it because she already turned it in to the police.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53189998]Based on your post history I don't really have any reason to doubt you and your story doesn't differ too significantly from cases like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson"]United States. Olofson[/URL] (flagged at gun range, arrested, charged, jailed) but did any of those SBR builds make the firearm effectively useless because it damaged the barrel and gas system? Putting someone in jail because they put stuff on their gun or their gun has a shorter barrel is dumb, but it's slightly less dumb then putting someone in jail because they mated an upper receiver with a non-functional barrel and gas tube to a lower.[/QUOTE] That doesn't render the firearm inoperable. It just means you can't fire it semi-automatic. You can still single fire it by manually cycling it. The barrel was not destroyed.

Uhh I can tell you that if I build my Sten, whether it works or not has no bearing on the law considering it an SBR/machine gun. I don't think that specific point actually matters. If it can be 'readily made to function' then it's a firearm, and if the part they consider the barrel is too short, then it's an SBR. Plus an AR-15 with no gas system isn't nonfunctional, it's just essentially a bolt action. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] ^ yeah that

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190013]Uhh I can tell you that if I build my Sten, whether it works or not has no bearing on the law considering it an SBR/machine gun. I don't think that specific point actually matters. If it can be 'readily made to function' then it's a firearm, and if the part they consider the barrel is too short, then it's an SBR. Plus an AR-15 with no gas system isn't nonfunctional, it's just essentially a bolt action. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] ^ yeah that[/QUOTE] I understand the law, I'm not saying its legal or illegal. I'm referencing prosecutorial discretion [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] When I say nonfunctional I meant for semi-automatic fire, not incapable of firing at all.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53190046]I understand the law, I'm not saying its legal or illegal. I'm referencing prosecutorial discretion [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] When I say nonfunctional I meant for semi-automatic fire, not incapable of firing at all.[/QUOTE] A rifle doesn't need to be semi-auto to be an SBR, so that's irrelevant.

The ATF is notorious for taking lawful civilians to court over technicalities while actual criminals buy and sell illegal weapons on the black market.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53189963]I can only offer anecdotes and I don't really like to build arguments off anecdotes. I know a couple people with felony SBR charges. They both did the same thing: built an SBR unaware of the law, took it to a gun range, got flagged, arrested, charged, and jailed. But again, that's anecdotal. I can't find news articles about it happening to cite, and without that, my word is just my word.[/QUOTE] "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is basically a universal maxim in american criminal law, it's not restricted to gun related charges. It's criminal law in general. It's not the exception, it's the rule. There's like 3 or 4 highly specific circumstances where it can serve as a defense (eg, when you file taxes you have to be willfully be filing in violation of IRS code to be held liable, a mistake isn't sufficient), due to the structure of the statute / regulation in question.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;53190075]"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is basically a universal maxim in american criminal law, it's not restricted to gun related charges. It's criminal law in general. There's like 3 or 4 highly specific circumstances where it can serve as a defense (eg, when you file taxes you have to be willfully be filing in violation of IRS code to be held liable, a mistake isn't sufficient)[/QUOTE] Yes, that's exactly what's at issue here.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190079]Yes, that's exactly what's at issue here.[/QUOTE] I fail to see why that's an issue? You're expected to know the laws of the society you live in - especially when you know that the subject is highly regulated like firearms. Business owners don't get to weasel out of sanction because "oh I didn't know I had to do that" - people who drive illegal vehicles on public roads don't get to weasel out by saying "oh officer I didn't know I couldn't ride my lawn mower on the interstate" - etc., etc., ad nauseum. Why should guns be any different?

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;53190090]I fail to see why that's an issue? You're expected to know the laws of the society you live in - especially when you know that the subject is highly regulated like firearms. Business owners don't get to weasel out of sanction because "oh I didn't know I had to do that" - people who drive illegal vehicles on public roads don't get to weasel out by saying "oh officer I didn't know I couldn't ride my lawn mower on the interstate" - etc., etc., ad nauseum. Why should guns be any different?[/QUOTE] Have you read any of my posts in this thread? Or anyone else's for that matter? e: Actually do you know what this thread is about?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190099]Have you read any of my posts in this thread? Or anyone else's for that matter?[/QUOTE] yes, and most posters have a significant misunderstanding of criminal law and how it functions. Intent is necessary, but "intent to break the law" is not. Saying that being unaware of a law should exculpate you goes against hundreds of years worth of american law. Most are focusing on how not applying this law to her would be "not enforcing it" when in reality there's a substantive difference between (1) a person who intends to modify their weapon in a way that is unwittingly in violation of the NFA and (2) a person who intends to destroy their weapon in a way that is unwittingly in violation of the NFA. Those are two separate acts. The intent is different. The NFA is not a strict liability statute and consequently mens rea is important, so everyone in here going "intent doesn't matter!" is legally wrong, and everyone who's arguing that being unaware of the law is arguing a point that's counter to the overwhelming majority of American jurisprudence on the subject.

OK, so more stuff about how the law doesn't apply to the person you agree with but it applies to everyone else. Which again, is what's at issue here. She broke the law. If you want to stack charges against gun owners for breaking the same law, she should be held accountable too. Or we can all agree NFA is stupid and take the same side instead of arguing legal technicalities.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189788]Except, since the ATF gets to decide intent, not her, they could very well charge her with constructive intent, and she will go to jail over this bullshit. Were she a not a politician, they most certainly WOULD charge her with intent (if they hadn't already). Better to just get rid of the ATF's ability to determine intent entirely, and write that shit down in our legal code, rather than continue letting them arbitrarily enforce the law.[/QUOTE] Dude, I have worked with the ATF on cases. They literally tell us to fuck off for anything short of an arms dealer. It is a lot like how the secret service is tasked with investigating counterfeit bills. We found thousands of dollars in counterfeits one time and they went "eh, call us when you get above a quarter million". The feds don't bother enforcing the piddly shit laws basically anywhere. Federal enforcement doesn't move unless their case is rock solid with a petty bow on top. The ATF is filled with assholes, no doubt. It is also filled with assholes who have better things to do than care about what you do in your garage. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;53190121]yes, and most posters have a significant misunderstanding of criminal law and how it functions. Intent is necessary, but "intent to break the law" is not. Saying that being unaware of a law should exculpate you goes against hundreds of years worth of american law. Most are focusing on how not applying this law to her would be "not enforcing it" when in reality there's a substantive difference between (1) a person who intends to modify their weapon in a way that is unwittingly in violation of the NFA and (2) a person who intends to destroy their weapon in a way that is unwittingly in violation of the NFA. Those are two separate acts. The intent is different. The NFA is not a strict liability statute and consequently mens rea is important, so everyone in here going "intent doesn't matter!" is legally wrong, and everyone who's arguing that being unaware of the law is arguing a point that's counter to the overwhelming majority of American jurisprudence on the subject.[/QUOTE] Nah, that is a misinterpretation. You started off good and brought up a good point, but intent works a little differently than that. She intended to saw off the barrel. That was her "intent" and she did it. Which would be a technical violation. Had she been working with a table saw and shit went sideways and the blade flew across the room and chopped the barrel off her rifle, then she would be absolved because she did not intentionally perform that action. This is an issue for police discretion.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53190144]Nah, that is a misinterpretation. You started off good and brought up a good point, but intent works a little differently than that. She intended to saw off the barrel. That was her "intent" and she did it. Which would be a technical violation. Had she been working with a table saw and shit went sideways and the blade flew across the room and chopped the barrel off her rifle, then she would be absolved because she did not intentionally perform that action. This is an issue for police discretion.[/QUOTE] yeah, you're right on that point, I was pulled too far back into motive. The act was sawing and it was intentional. I've been focusing less on the alteration itself and more on the post-alteration, ie whether there was intent to possess a weapon in violation of the NFA given that she turned it into the police. But both altering/making and possessing are violations of NFA, so she'd be in technical violation of the former.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53189788]Except, since the ATF gets to decide intent, not her, they could very well charge her with constructive intent, and she will go to jail over this bullshit. Were she a not a politician, they most certainly WOULD charge her with intent (if they hadn't already). Better to just get rid of the ATF's ability to determine intent entirely, and write that shit down in our legal code, rather than continue letting them arbitrarily enforce the law.[/QUOTE] The ATF have bigger fish to fry than someone attempting to deface a firearm and then turning it into the police. You keep asserting that everyday citizens would get hit for something like this and only politicians are spared. But show me a single example where something like this has happened? Where the person destroys the gun (as a protest AGAINST THE GUN mind you) and then turns it in and gets arrested? Your entire point is specious because you assume she is some politician with deep connections, and thats whats gonna save her from getting arrested. But she isn't a politician, she is RUNNING to be one. She is an everyday citizen and a public school teacher. So what political ties are protecting her?

[QUOTE=GunFox;53190144]Dude, I have worked with the ATF on cases. They literally tell us to fuck off for anything short of an arms dealer. It is a lot like how the secret service is tasked with investigating counterfeit bills. We found thousands of dollars in counterfeits one time and they went "eh, call us when you get above a quarter million". The feds don't bother enforcing the piddly shit laws basically anywhere. Federal enforcement doesn't move unless their case is rock solid with a petty bow on top. The ATF is filled with assholes, no doubt. It is also filled with assholes who have better things to do than care about what you do in your garage.[/QUOTE] Having worked with ATF as well, I'm going to have to disagree: Everything in ilikecorn's post is correct, save perhaps the certainty that any other person would immediately be charged. They may have better things to do than go after every garage hobbyist, but if they have a reason ([I]any[/I] reason) to take interest in you, they will abuse their discretion on intent to screw you. We're talking about the agency that, in the course of an investigation into the sale of handgun barrels, decided for whatever reason to [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276693/"]fuck over a legitimate machine gun collector[/URL] through abuse of their ability to prosecute intent. They claimed constructive possession on parts which had a legal use (on a fully registered machine gun), then modified a semi-auto M14 to full-auto and claimed he was in possession of an unregistered machine gun. This is the same agency that had an undercover agent approach Randy Weaver, ask him to cut a shotgun barrel to a marked line, and deliberately didn't tell him that doing so would be a quarter-inch shy of the federal requirement and would be creating an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. They did this deliberately, so they could threaten him with a charge of constructing a SBS, and coerce him into working as an informant for them. The result was Ruby Ridge. Do they go after every garage hobbyist? Absolutely not. Might they go after someone in a prominent video online to make an example of them? Possibly. And if they had literally any other reason to take interest in the hypothetical SBR-maker, they wouldn't pass up the opportunity to file that charge, either as punishment or leverage. Counting on federal law enforcement having bigger fish to fry is not a good defense against overreach. I'd much rather rectify the laws to remove this unnecessary ambiguity.

[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. 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] Intent has still gotten people in trouble with the NFA and put in jail. If your gun malfunctions and it goes unintentionally full auto you can (and people have) peen prosecuted under the NFA. The law is pretty clear cut. If you assemble a rifle with a barrel less than 16" you are creating an SBR, there is no mention on intent within the law. Even though she cut the gas system it is still in effect a short barrel single shot rifle, something that any other person would need to fill out a Form 1, submit fingerprints and photographs to, pay a $200 tax on, and wait 7-9 months to be approved lest they find themselves in hot water. Hell if we want to talk spirit of the law things like the Franklin Armory Reformation or Arm Braces would never had existed. The laws however are very clear cut, and define exactly what is and what isn't, which is why things like that can exist and why she should be prosecuted for assembling an illegal SBR. As many people have said any average guy would have an ATF agent at their door by now. Above all else this proves she doesn't have any clue as to what laws we already have on the books.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53190481]If your gun malfunctions and it goes unintentionally full auto you can (and people have) peen prosecuted under the NFA. [/QUOTE] Out of curiosity do have any sources for this claim? I'm not calling you a liar or anything but plenty of people in this thread have said "X has happened before!" and then provided no evidence when pressed.

What she did was illegal, if you look at it at a purely black and white context. She DID cut it down into a short barrel rifle. Even if she destroyed the gas system that cycles rounds every shot, turning it into a very shitty bolt action, that's still a SBR. And as the saying goes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (Though I would argue it fucking should be with so many laws that all vary from city to city, county to county, state to state) Now is it in the spirit of the law? Probably not, but I find when it comes to firearms and these types of charges, the system doesn't give a shit

Wow this thread turned into a dumpster fire real fast. But getting back on topic. [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. 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] 1. Oh come on man. People have posted her position on guns. If she's against gun ownership in general but particularly hates semi-automatic weapons (assault weapons) enough to cut one in half on video, I [B]highly[/B] doubt she's going to suddenly be 100% OK with the idea of people being able to own the same weapons but just a few inches shorter. 2. The law is stupid and nobody should be charged for it. Get rid of the stupid law. Just don't decide to keep the law and selectively enforce it. 3. Her intent was to cut the weapon, and she made a conscious decision to cut it at the barrel. It doesn't matter that she intended to destroy the rest of the weapon or turn it in after the fact. Her intentional action resulted in the creation of an SBR. In fact destroying the rest of the weapon probably would have added another felony on top of that one. This is how stupid the enforcement of that law usually is, and it's not supposed to make any logical sense. It shouldn't happen at all, but it is the precedent set forth by the ATF. The ideal outcome of this would be that everyone realizes how fucking stupid the law is and gets rid of it while nullifying her charges. What will probably end up happening is the ATF arbitrarily makes an exception and then flip flops on the issue like it always does because lol politics.