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

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189704]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.[/QUOTE] This is completely, factually wrong and I don't think you know what you're talking about. Removing material from a gun to shorten barrel length is legally considered construction of an SBR. The gun wasn't broken, either. The gas block was removed, but the gun would have still fired, just not in semi-automatic. It would have required a manual bolt cycle for every shot but the thing still would have fired. Short-barreled bolt-action rifles are just as illegal as short-barreled ARs are and the creation of this weapon should be prosecuted in accordance with that, as long as we're enforcing firearms laws consistently. (I'm personally not sure why SBR laws exist at all - concealment never struck me as a good excuse for them - but if we want to enforce our current laws, we should prosecute the creation of this rifle.) [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Additionally, there's precedent for intent not really mattering with SBR laws. As someone has already explained, people have been jailed before for unintentionally assembling a rifle in the wrong order, leaving it in SBR configuration for a short period of time.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;53190502]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.[/QUOTE] Some would argue that's what happened to David Olofson. I haven't read enough about it to really formulate an opinion on whether it's the truth or whether he really intended to construct a full-auto AR15.

Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. Just like saying you didn't know what the speed limit was so you decided to drive 103 in a 55. She should be charged as anyone else would. And then maybe, just maybe, we could work on some actual policy to fix this dumb crap.

i had the wrong page open rip

[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] Same reason why you don't need to be a certified doctor to make legislation about or regarding medicine, hospitals or any part of the health care system?

[QUOTE=elowin;53190564]Same reason why you don't need to be a certified doctor to make legislation about or regarding medicine, hospitals or any part of the health care system?[/QUOTE] You should at least know the basics of medicinal practice, though. This woman does not seem to know the fundamental basics of firearm law and is taking a stance on it.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;53189329]Maybe, maybe not. But they'll be charged, fined, weapon related items confiscated with no refund or return, and it will be flagged on their records [I]forever.[/I] [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [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] Unfamiliar with what? You mean the one random law in America that goes against pretty much everything America stands for (private property and gun ownership rights both are thrown out the window if you cant modify your own item).

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53190546](I'm personally not sure why SBR laws exist at all - concealment never struck me as a good excuse for them - but if we want to enforce our current laws, we should prosecute the creation of this rifle.)[/QUOTE] The NFA was originally going to include pistols. The idea was to add a $200 tax stamp on top of a $15 pistol (a large sum of money back then) so that, while it wasn't a ban, it would be prohibitively expensive for people to get. Someone brought up the point that someone could buy a shotgun or rifle and just saw off the barrel, making a pistol without paying the tax stamp, so they added in the wording for the SBRs and shotguns. In the final version, pistols were removed from the NFA, but the wording about SBRs and sawn off shotguns was never removed.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189258]If I don't know the intricacies of the 1934 NFA and buy an off-the-shelf 10.5" upper for my AR lower, I have unknowingly constructed an illegal short-barreled rifle and I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I file multiple pages of application forms and submit to a 6-12 month background investigation to legally construct said SBR, but in the interim buy the parts I need to build it once I'm approved, I have accidentally committed constructive possession and if caught I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I fly from one gun-friendly state to another with a checked handgun, but on a layover through New York my second flight is cancelled and I'm forced to take possession of my baggage, I [I]will[/I] be arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun on the spot. If I [URL="http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html"]assemble the contents of a rifle kit in the wrong order[/URL] and get caught, I have illegally constructed an SBR and, again, if caught, [i]will[/i] go to prison. If I buy a rifle online while living in California, and I take possession of the rifle before realizing they sent me a 30-round magazine, I am in unlawful possession of a high-capacity magazine and if caught I [i]will[/i] go to prison. None of these are hypotheticals, [i]they've all happened[/i] to well-meaning citizens who accidentally ran afoul of draconian laws that don't care about intent. But if an anti-gun politician runs afoul of the same intent-be-damned laws that she intends to expand and inflict on the rest of us- oh, it's okay, she didn't mean it? That's fucking [B]bullshit[/B]. Nobody gets to be above the law, and if the rest of us are going to be punished for innocent violations of zero-tolerance policies, I damned well expect a politician should be too.[/QUOTE] I understand the principle of what you're saying, but I still have to disagree. I don't think vindictively enforcing nonsense technicalities in law against [I]another[/I] undeserving target just to make a point is valid. Yes, it's total bullshit that regular citizens get shafted like this, but I don't think punishing another "innocent" person, politician or not, is productive or right. We can have a discussion about the ridiculousness of gun law and the disproportionate enforcement of those laws without trying to ruin more people's lives for innocent mistakes that bear no threat to our society.

Interesting that a common pro-gun argument is that any new gun control laws on the books will be used to "take away our guns" but these types of fucked up laws have been on the books for years...and yet we still have guns.

I feel like the only real argument I've seen in this thread for her to get arrested is just "other people get in trouble too!". Is that our new standard for what is right and wrong? Like, instead of wanting to fix our ridiculous legal system, we're just out for blood in making sure as many people as possible are completely fucked over by a moronic law that shouldn't exist in the first place?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53190583]Interesting that a common pro-gun argument is that any new gun control laws on the books will be used to "take away our guns" but these types of fucked up laws have been on the books for years...and yet we still have guns.[/QUOTE] This is such a baffling post honestly. Nobody sane says "ALL GUN CONTROL MEASURES ARE EVIL," certainly nobody here, so "interesting" indeed. What's really interesting is the lengths you will go to to avoid having to compromise with gun owners on anything, even on the removal of laws you seem to think are stupid.

Let me break this down. Break the law = suffer the consequences. It does not matter if you do not know the law or if you intended to break the law. "I'm sorry, I did not INTEND to kill that person" is not going to get you acquitted of manslaughter

[QUOTE=srobins;53190584]I feel like the only real argument I've seen in this thread for her to get arrested is just "other people get in trouble too!". Is that our new standard for what is right and wrong? Like, instead of wanting to fix our ridiculous legal system, we're just out for blood in making sure as many people as possible are completely fucked over by a moronic law that shouldn't exist in the first place?[/QUOTE] Nobody wants to jail her "instead of" fixing the law. The point is this woman pushes laws like this without understanding the consequences, happened to run afoul of them, and is now facing consequences, and some people want her to be exempt from a law that they're happy to prosecute gun owners under. We all think the law is stupid but you can't insist on enforcing it on one political group only. Either enforce it equally on both or remove it. We want to remove it. So should you.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190590]This is such a baffling post honestly. Nobody sane says "ALL GUN CONTROL MEASURES ARE EVIL," certainly nobody here, so "interesting" indeed. What's really interesting is the lengths you will go to to avoid having to compromise with gun owners on anything, even on the removal of laws you seem to think are stupid.[/QUOTE] Baffling that you are capable of reading my mind. Where did I once state I was not interested in compromise? If anything, that's the anti-thesis of my position.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53190600]Baffling that you are capable of reading my mind. Where did I once state I was not interested in compromise? If anything, that's the anti-thesis of my position.[/QUOTE] Yet instead of offering any valuable input you still characterize this issue as "us vs them" instead of seeking common ground. You continually whine that you want compromise but refuse to treat gun owners as fellow fucking humans in your "debating."

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53190576]Unfamiliar with what? You mean the one random law in America that goes against pretty much everything America stands for (private property and gun ownership rights both are thrown out the window if you cant modify your own item).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53190583]Interesting that a common pro-gun argument is that any new gun control laws on the books will be used to "take away our guns" but these types of fucked up laws have been on the books for years...and yet we still have guns.[/QUOTE] Interesting that the anti-gun argument is that this law harms people with no evil intentions or lacks the knowledge of the law and therefore should have prosecution minimized, specifically when this politician did it but never spoke up about other cases accidental or not, so unequal enforcement. And yet they want to add more bullshit laws on top of it, made by people who don't understand the technicalities of firearms laws and the way firearms operate, that will indefinitely lead to more scenario's like this one or an average joe getting a no-knock at 2am.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190598]Nobody wants to jail her "instead of" fixing the law. The point is this woman pushes laws like this without understanding the consequences, happened to run afoul of them, and is now facing consequences, and some people want her to be exempt from a law that they're happy to prosecute gun owners under. We all think the law is stupid but you can't insist on enforcing it on one political group only. Either enforce it equally on both or remove it. We want to remove it. So should you.[/QUOTE] I'm [I]not[/I] insisting on enforcing it on any political group. I'm saying nobody, politician or not, under these circumstances should be prosecuted under this law because it's clearly not in the spirit of the law. Even if she is technically creating a short-barrel rifle, it seems pretty evident (especially by her turning the gun in immediately after creation) that this wasn't her intent. She's someone ignorant about this gun law who cut the barrel off in an act of destruction. Prosecuting [I]anybody[/I] for that is moronic to me and the only argument I see for her being prosecuted wrongly under this law is that "other people were wrongly prosecuted so we need to even it out!"

[QUOTE=srobins;53190584]I feel like the only real argument I've seen in this thread for her to get arrested is just "other people get in trouble too!". Is that our new standard for what is right and wrong? Like, instead of wanting to fix our ridiculous legal system, we're just out for blood in making sure as many people as possible are completely fucked over by a moronic law that shouldn't exist in the first place?[/QUOTE] Oh do you have a link to her campaigning to have this law removed?

[QUOTE=srobins;53190612]I'm [I]not[/I] insisting on enforcing it on any political group. I'm saying nobody, politician or not, under these circumstances should be prosecuted under this law because it's clearly not in the spirit of the law. Even if she is technically creating a short-barrel rifle, it seems pretty evident (especially by her turning the gun in immediately after creation) that this wasn't her intent. She's someone ignorant about this gun law who cut the barrel off in an act of destruction. Prosecuting [I]anybody[/I] for that is moronic to me and the only argument I see for her being prosecuted wrongly under this law is that "other people were wrongly prosecuted so we need to even it out!"[/QUOTE] Sorry, I know you aren't. I'm crossing wires here, been very sick and having trouble focusing. What I'm trying to say is as long as one group is subject to prosecution for a crime, everyone else should be too. Which should be the motivation for everyone to band together and deal with the stupid law. Like, if we go about making exceptions for stuff like this, the law becomes very selectively enforced, and most people aren't going to be moved to do anything about it because it doesn't affect them due to discretionary exceptions. But when a draconian law is enforced equitably everyone will have cause to join forces against it.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190602]Yet instead of offering any valuable input you still characterize this issue as "us vs them" instead of seeking common ground. You continually whine that you want compromise but refuse to treat gun owners as fellow fucking humans in your "debating."[/QUOTE] How am I doing us vs them if you're not? I've seen you literally refer to anti-gunners as "anti" and then go on in the post to refer to "us" as in pro-gunners. I simply recognize the two positions, I am neither pro-gun or anti-gun. I am neither us, or them. I want ALL OF US (pro's and anti's) to work with each other and not have any expectation that the other side has ulterior motives. I want true cohesion, because if you can't trust your other side, even if you're right in distrusting them, then that is a bad faith attempt at working together.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53190572]You should at least know the basics of medicinal practice, though. This woman does not seem to know the fundamental basics of firearm law and is taking a stance on it.[/QUOTE] Legislators really don't need to know how things like various surgeries or drugs work to deal with laws about those topics. It'd be preferable, but it's not their field of expertise so they won't be expected to know it. They should however be deferring to experts in the field in question when working out laws for said field. Multiple experts, who can provide a more simplified but correct view of a topic (and not just fire their drugs expert when they say "hey maybe weed isn't too bad" like the fucking Tories did over here). You shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of a firearms mechanisms to write legislation about it if the legislation is actually decent. The arbitrary bans of various accessories or whatever that the US employs (because actually restricting firearms is apparently not even a thought people can entertain without being traitors going by some 2A advocates I've spoken to) are mostly shit because of this. They're arbitrary because the electorate want something done, but nobody can actually do anything meaningful thanks to partisanship and constitutional kerfuffles. So fuck it, hammer through something without talking to anyone to at least make it look like you've done your job.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53190619]How am I doing us vs them if you're not? I've seen you literally refer to anti-gunners as "anti" and then go on in the post to refer to "us" as in pro-gunners. I simply recognize the two positions, I am neither pro-gun or anti-gun. I am neither us, or them. I want ALL OF US (pro's and anti's) to work with each other and not have any expectation that the other side has ulterior motives. I want true cohesion, because if you can't trust your other side, even if you're right, then that is a bad faith attempt at working together.[/QUOTE] What else do you want me to say? "The Honourable Men and Women Whomst Are Opposed to The Civilian Ownership of Firearms, Via The Implementation Of Laws, Small or Large in Breadth"? What is wrong with the term "anti" as a shortening for "anti gunner"? It has no negative connotation. If someone is opposed to firearms ownership, they are anti. If someone is in favor, they are pro. I'm not trying to put The Honourable Men and Women Whomst Are Opposed to The Civilian Ownership of Firearms, Via The Implementation Of Laws, Small or Large in Breadth behind bars for their hobbies and opinions. Any ill will I bear is directed at specific individuals who refuse to engage on an intelligent level and I dislike equally people on both sides who refuse to treat the people they're discussing with well.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;53190502]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.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson[/url] [url]https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/us-v-olofson-cliff-notes-version.375570/[/url] [url]http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97116/[/url] [quote]"It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against David R. Olofson, of Berlin, Wis. "It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because '[T]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun.' [/quote] If the disconnector malfunctions in an AR-15 it causes a condition in which the hammer follows the bolt as it loads a new round if you still have the trigger pulled. This typically is very dangerous condition as it can cause the bullet to fire before the bolt has closed. It most cases it results in a sporadic burst fire type situation each time the trigger is pulled. The following was suppressed from being presented to the jury at trial. And the 7th Circuit upheld it for whatever reason. [quote]With respect to his request for the ATF's correspondence with the manufacturer of his AR-15 concerning the use of M-16 parts in early AR-15 rifles, the defendant contends that evidence was exculpatory because it was relevant to his knowledge of whether or not his AR-15 was a machinegun.   The district court denied Olofson's request on the first day of trial.   At the sentencing hearing, the court revisited the issue;  the court inspected a document in camera, stated that it was not exculpatory, and placed it under seal.   We subsequently ordered that document to be unsealed.   [b]That evidence is a 1983 letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of the AR-15 in which the ATF advised the company that the installation of certain M-16 parts in AR-15 receivers may permit the weapon to fire automatically even though an automatic sear is not present.[/b]   We agree with the district court that the document is not exculpatory:  [b][u]it has no bearing on Olofson's knowledge of whether his AR-15 was a machinegun[/u][/b]. The letter has no impeachment value either.   Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the production of that evidence.[/quote] [url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html[/url] Note that they did not charge him with manufacture of a machine gun, just transfer. Because they couldn't prove he made it. But they could prove he transferred the gun.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190617]Sorry, I know you aren't. I'm crossing wires here, been very sick and having trouble focusing. What I'm trying to say is as long as one group is subject to prosecution for a crime, everyone else should be too. Which should be the motivation for everyone to band together and deal with the stupid law. Like, if we go about making exceptions for stuff like this, the law becomes very selectively enforced, and most people aren't going to be moved to do anything about it because it doesn't affect them due to discretionary exceptions. But when a draconian law is enforced equitably everyone will have cause to join forces against it.[/QUOTE] My main issue here is she doesn't appear to be cooperative in changing the law. Her facebook post is her insisting she did nothing wrong. [quote]And yes for all the NRA trolls out there, I finished the job according to regulation and turned it over to the police. Why are you more outraged about me taking a gun out of circulation than about our children being murdered in our schools?[/quote] There doesn't appear to be any desire by her to change this law. If she wants it to remain in place, she should be judged by it the same as anyone else.

[QUOTE=felix the cat;53190596]Let me break this down. Break the law = suffer the consequences. It does not matter if you do not know the law or if you intended to break the law. "I'm sorry, I did not INTEND to kill that person" is not going to get you acquitted of manslaughter[/QUOTE] Yeah noo... go google mens rea, In fact everyone here needs to understand mens rea. If someone breaks into a abandonded cabin in the middle of the woods to seek shelter from blizzard are they going to be charged with a crime? Nope. Did they commit a crime breaking in? Yep, but its a good thing we have things called justifications and excuses in the legal system. [QUOTE=Cliff2;53190647]My main issue here is she doesn't appear to be cooperative in changing the law. Her facebook post is her insisting she did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] Noones officially saying she did anything wrong, of course shes being investigated. TOXX ME IF SHE GETS CONVICTED.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190652]Yeah noo... go google mens rea, In fact everyone here needs to understand mens rea. If someone breaks into a abandonded cabin in the middle of the woods to seek shelter from blizzard are they going to be charged with a crime? Nope. Did they commit a crime breaking in? Yep, but its a good thing we have things called justifications and excuses in the legal system.[/QUOTE] The act of creating a short barreled rifle is illegal. It doesn't matter why you did it. There is no exception. Welcome to firearms laws, where your rights don't matter and you go to jail if you accidentally reassemble your gun incorrectly. [QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190652]Noones officially saying she did anything wrong, of course shes being investigated. TOXX ME IF SHE GETS CONVICTED.[/QUOTE] Hoo boy, toxxing an account nobody's ever heard of with 55 posts. You're brave.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53190657]The act of creating a short barreled rifle is illegal. It doesn't matter why you did it. There is no exception. Welcome to firearms laws, where your rights don't matter and you go to jail if you accidentally reassemble your gun incorrectly.[/QUOTE] Except it does matter and thats why she hasn't been charged.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190659]Except it does matter and thats why she hasn't been charged.[/QUOTE] Please explain to me the mens rea in literally any of the examples I have provided of other people being prosecuted for accidentally creating SBRs. She deliberately shortened the barrel on a firearm, producing a rifle with a barrel under 16". In the eyes of the ATF, there's your mens rea, and they have plenty of historical precedent for doing exactly that. Plenty of other people have been prosecuted for accidentally constructing a short-barreled rifle while trying to do something completely unrelated (see: Contender case), why would she get a free pass because she didn't mean it?

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;53190502]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.[/QUOTE] I'm at work right now. I'll provide examples when I get home from work this evening. Example. [url]http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289181/[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Olofson[/url] The person in question built himself an AR-15 using surplus M16 guts. That in of itself does not make it a machinegun, as the lower needs to be drilled and the auto sear installed for it to actually go full auto. The safety flipped to the third position because it was surplus, but without an auto sear all that would accomplish is block the hammer catch which would prevent the hammer from cocking thus dudding the rifle. The gentleman lent the firearm to a friend who had it fire a three round burst then jammed. He was charged and convicted, and the Supreme Court refused to hear his case.