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

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53190665]And to get that, we both need to get rid of those on our "sides" who would seek to do harm with the legislation. For example, if you could, 100% guarantee, that licenses would never be abused, and never be used as a means of banning guns/turning people into paper criminals, then I'd more than likely be on board. But you can't, because there are people in your party who would do that [I]in a heartbeat[/I]. Or vice versa, If we created national CCW reciprocation, there's a very real chance that someone would just go to a state that didn't have stringent CCW requirements, and get one, and laugh at their state that DID have stringent requirements. We've got to write our legislation so that both sides effectively benefit, without giving massive loopholes to those who would abuse said legislation.[/QUOTE] Or you can try and get the ball rolling on licensing legislation and our democratically elected representatives can hash it out. I don't see why, even if it's hard, we shouldn't be trying for the obvious solution. Seems way too common that people use this "mistrust" of the other side as justification for doing nothing.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53190672]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] " First case you posted : Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode,:" The first case a guy lent his working rifle to another person. he prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic. Olofson also "had contact with vigilante groups" and indicated he was "part of the sovereign movement"" AHAHAH I just realized all three links were about the same case AHAAHAH Really? A guy who lends his working automatic ar 15 to a friend [B][U]while knowing [/U][/B]about the automatic option is NOWHERE the same as a public official making a video destroying a firearm and HANDING IT OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. So yeah, toxx me if she gets convicted.

[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] I get what you're saying, I just don't see it as selective enforcement, at least not in a class-based manner. I'm not saying she should be let off because she's a politician, I'm saying without any consideration for who she is or what she does, looking at just the pure facts of this case I feel like it's morally wrong to charge someone with a felony and ruin their life like that over a case like this. I agree that the law should be enforced evenly across all classes/groups, but I think within that enforcement there should be consideration for the individual case; same goes for all the examples catbarf gave of people being prosecuted for total nonsense. Judges should have looked at the circumstances of those cases, realized what was going on and thrown out the charges.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53190665] Except the ATF openly doesn't give a shit. They charged a guy who's gun malfunctioned with creating a machinegun, and openly admitted they couldn't get it to do it again, [/QUOTE] “We do not see how that information could have exculpated Olofson; section 5845(b) does not require compliance with ATF test-fire procedures in order for a weapon to qualify as a machinegun, nor must the weapon fire any particular grade of ammunition or in the prohibited fashion during the first test-fire.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53190672]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] Clearly you posted those examples to make the point that the enforcement of those laws in those example cases was wrong, no? If you think the enforcement of those laws is wrong and unjust in those cases, why would you advocate for further abuse and misuse of these laws? I really don't understand the motivation here other than being vindictive towards a politician.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190696]“We do not see how that information could have exculpated Olofson; section 5845(b) does not require compliance with ATF test-fire procedures in order for a weapon to qualify as a machinegun, nor must the weapon fire any particular grade of ammunition or in the prohibited fashion during the first test-fire.[/QUOTE] AKA they can literally designate anything a machine gun, take it away from you so you can't prove otherwise, and are not required to demonstrate themselves that it's a machine gun, then slap you with a felony. Sounds like good law enforcement.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] Good lord BDA, what the hell are you talking about? "Sickening"? That's pathetic, dude.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53190694]Except, those lovely "elected representatives" would love to use licenses as a means of effectively banning ownership. As the second a shooting happened after the license requirement going up, I could actively see the cost being set to like.. 5 grand, and require 10 witnesses, and require 500 hours of classroom time before you can get it. So if you want me to agree with licenses, it'd look like this: 1 size fits all, you don't need to get multiple licenese. No bans based on any feature, action type, calibre, or other means of action. Cost controls, a license should cost no more than a hundred bucks, and should last a minimum of 4 years. The class requirement can't be more than .. say 10 hours, and classes must be offered a minimum of 4 times a month, on various days (IE no bullshit "classes only on monday"). There's a 1 year grace period at the expiration of your license, meaning you can go get it renewed, no questions asked, no guns lost. Any modifications to the license law renders the law moot. Something like that, i'd probably support.[/QUOTE] The second amendment means a license could only legally cover acquisition, not ownership, of firearms, since tying ownership to a license that expires infringes on the right to keep and bear them, but requiring a license prior to acquisition doesn't, and frankly moves closer to having things "well-regulated."

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190686]" First case you posted : Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode,:" The first case a guy lent his working rifle to another person. he prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic. Olofson also "had contact with vigilante groups" and indicated he was "part of the sovereign movement"" AHAHAH I just realized all three links were about the same case AHAAHAH Really? A guy who lends his working automatic ar 15 to a friend [B][U]while knowing [/U][/B]about the automatic option is NOWHERE the same as a public official making a video destroying a firearm and HANDING IT OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. So yeah, toxx me if she gets convicted.[/QUOTE] Kienicki was apparently paid by the ATF for his testimony. That "third mode" as you called it was the Safe/Fire switch being able to be nudged past where it should go to. Yes, all three links are of the same case because I wanted to present as much info as possible. The presence of M-16 spec parts in an AR-15 mean absolutely nothing without a auto-sear. I've seen an AR-15 with basically every M-16 part aside from an auto-sear. It does not fire more than one bullet per trigger pull.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190686]" First case you posted : Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode,:" The first case a guy lent his working rifle to another person. he prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic. Olofson also "had contact with vigilante groups" and indicated he was "part of the sovereign movement"" AHAHAH I just realized all three links were about the same case AHAAHAH Really? A guy who lends his working automatic ar 15 to a friend [B][U]while knowing [/U][/B]about the automatic option is NOWHERE the same as a public official making a video destroying a firearm and HANDING IT OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. So yeah, toxx me if she gets convicted.[/QUOTE] I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Are you confusing me with someone else? Tell me why what she did doesn't satisfy the mens rea requirement, if someone buying parts with the intent to follow the law and wait until their SBR application is approved somehow does. Or taking possession of a 30rd magazine that was mistakenly sent to you. Or getting diverted to an airport in New York, being forced to take possession of a checked firearm, and being arrested on the spot. Explain to me how any of those represent greater deliberate intent to violate the law than this case. [QUOTE=srobins;53190697]Clearly you posted those examples to make the point that the enforcement of those laws in those example cases was wrong, no? If you think the enforcement of those laws is wrong and unjust in those cases, why would you advocate for further abuse and misuse of these laws? I really don't understand the motivation here other than being vindictive towards a politician.[/QUOTE] Yes, I consider it an unjust law. I also consider it the law, unjust or not, and expect it to be enforced equally and fairly to all people. If this is the wakeup call to Democrats that hey, maybe the NFA actually is stupidly over-restrictive and punishes well-meaning people unnecessarily, then I expect them to repeal or amend it. [I]Not[/I] to let her go because 'oh, she didn't mean it' and then allow the law to continue to be prosecuted against other people who didn't mean it. One of these options is recognizing a law as unjust and taking steps to restore justice for everyone. The other is recognizing a law as unjust, then selectively granting exemptions so it doesn't affect anyone who the ATF feels like being nice to. That isn't justice. [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;53190733]The second amendment means a license could only legally cover acquisition, not ownership, of firearms, since tying ownership to a license that expires infringes on the right to keep and bear them, but requiring a license prior to acquisition doesn't, and frankly moves closer to having things "well-regulated."[/QUOTE] I suspect any law that said 'you can own guns, you just can't come into possession of them without a license' would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. That was pretty much exactly what Heller v DC was about.

[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] You're right - don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying the law was justified or that politicians should be exempt (and for the record I'm not in favour of this kind of lobbying against firearms personally) - I was just saying this is a case in point on why spirit/context are important. The fact there are officials out there who willingly go out of their way to prosecute people via examples such as those you've given is fucking disgusting and there's no justification behind it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189084]She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony. The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it. Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.[/QUOTE] Yeah, she should become a [I]felon[/I] for [I]destroying her property and then immediately surrendering it to the authorities in a legal manner.[/I] Do you know what being a felon entails, punishment-wise? [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] Come on dude, you're intelligent and have good debate skills, you don't need to dip into an emotional appeal like that. [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189523]Can you prove people wanting that? Because most people here want the law enforced equally.[/QUOTE] Laws should not be enforced unilaterally. That's how you get shit like The Code of Hammurabi.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53190652]Yeah noo... go google mens rea, In fact everyone here needs to understand mens rea. [/QUOTE] You need to understand that there are crimes where Mens Rea is not applicable. Violations of the NFA are among them. The BATFE is under no obligation to prove intent, only that you are in violation of the law. (In case you were wondering, criminal sexual actions are also not Mens Rea crimes) These crimes fall under the [i]Strict Liability[/i] category of the Model Penal Code

[QUOTE=Kigen;53190627][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] 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. [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] They didnt just prove that he transferred it, they proved that he knowingly transferred it (i.e: whether or not he made it, he knew what it was) The knowledge aspect is important for everyone saying that this lady is/would be found guilty if she was a "regular citizen" (spoiler, she is a regular citizen....)

[QUOTE=phygon;53190928]Yeah, she should become a [I]felon[/I] for [I]destroying her property and then immediately surrendering it to the authorities in a legal manner.[/I] Do you know what being a felon entails, punishment-wise? [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] Come on dude, you're intelligent and have good debate skills, you don't need to dip into an emotional appeal like that. [editline]10th March 2018[/editline] Laws should not be enforced unilaterally. That's how you get shit like The Code of Hammurabi.[/QUOTE] Except she didn't destroy her property in regards to how a firearm is supposed to be legally destroyed. Civilians cannot legally destroy firearms for that matter, only FFL holders and the ATF can do that. Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it. Just because she turned it into authorities doesn't absolve her of creating an illegal SBR. You are talking about one of the most regulated things in the United States here. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Flameon;53190969]They didnt just prove that he transferred it, they proved that he knowingly transferred it (i.e: whether or not he made it, he knew what it was) The knowledge aspect is important for everyone saying that this lady is/would be found guilty if she was a "regular citizen" (spoiler, she is a regular citizen....)[/QUOTE] And as I said that would just prove her ignorance of the laws that we already have on the books. If you're trying to regulate something it's probably best to at least know of what laws are already on the book.

[QUOTE=phygon;53190928]Yeah, she should become a [I]felon[/I] for [I]destroying her property and then immediately surrendering it to the authorities in a legal manner.[/I] Do you know what being a felon entails, punishment-wise? [/QUOTE] Indeed, it is quite a punishment to be given out in this instance. It's a real shame, then, that people like her created these laws in the first place. If they hadn't done that, she wouldn't have violated a law. Unfortunately, it is the law. If they're not going to get rid of it, I expect them to enforce it. To do otherwise based simply on the fact that the person who did it is a politician is to be corrupt.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53190974]Except she didn't destroy her property in regards to how a firearm is supposed to be legally destroyed. Civilians cannot legally destroy firearms for that matter, only FFL holders and the ATF can do that. Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it. Just because she turned it into authorities doesn't absolve her of creating an illegal SBR. You are talking about one of the most regulated things in the United States here. [/QUOTE] That's fine. I understand that. Her getting registered as a felon from a law put in place to prevent modification of weapons to make them more dangerous would still be a massive miscarriage of justice. [QUOTE=geel9;53191007]Indeed, it is quite a punishment to be given out in this instance. It's a real shame, then, that people like her created these laws in the first place. If they hadn't done that, she wouldn't have violated a law. Unfortunately, it is the law. If they're not going to get rid of it, I expect them to enforce it. To do otherwise based simply on the fact that the person who did it is a politician is to be corrupt.[/QUOTE] Not based on her position as a politician. Based on the circumstances. Literally not a single legal document in this country that I am aware of (including the constitution) is meant to be taken 100% literally, inflexible, and at face value; this includes laws. Should she be convicted of a felony? I personally don't think so, but that would be up for a judge to decide; however, given the [I]context[/I] of the law, the chance that she would get registered as a Felon is very low.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] I know its been said, but this is embarrassing. I'm not even a gun owner but nothing that has been said by their side is unreasonable to me. She committed a felony, AND FILMED IT, whether intentional or not. Selectively enforcing the law is not justifiable. Enforce them equally or get rid of the law. Full stop.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53190837] I suspect any law that said 'you can own guns, you just can't come into possession of them without a license' would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. That was pretty much exactly what Heller v DC was about.[/QUOTE] Heller V DC was about DC's blanket ban on handguns. It was, for all intents and purposes, impossible to get a handgun in DC, Chicago, or NYC before Heller. A shall-issue license doesn't make it impossible, and is already the law in Illinois, with the FOID, and that hasn't been struck down, which does set a degree of precedent.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]So then the answer is no, you have no idea what her specific policy points are, and just want to see her life ruined because of her [I]general[/I] stance on gun control because you're vindictive and petty. You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] This probably counts as flaming. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Backseat moderation" - GunFox))[/highlight]

Why should I bother being angry at the potentially unjust treatment she might face when she clearly wouldn't give me or anyone else the same consideration? Her statement "I didn't do anything wrong shut up" makes it abundantly clear that she is either completely ignorant of or unconcerned with what the law is or how it's been enforced. If you're going to call for emotionally driven reactionary policy, don't expect me to feel sorry for you when emotionally driven reactionary policy bites you in the ass.

[QUOTE=phygon;53190928]Yeah, she should become a [I]felon[/I] for [I]destroying her property and then immediately surrendering it to the authorities in a legal manner.[/I] [/QUOTE] She literally didn't "destroy her property" as the ATF defines it, though. Why is this so hard to get straight? Even though she made the gun manually operated, the NFA applies to single shot firearms as well. A single shot break action rifle with a barrel less than 16" is still illegal unless you get that tax stamp.

tbh I would've been more tolerant of her if she just own it up and admit she broke the law accidentally, though that would still make her an idiot for advocating for more of said laws while knowing nothing about it. However the way that she refuse to even acknowledge she did something wrong just make her seem arrogant to me.

[QUOTE=felix the cat;53190958]You need to understand that there are crimes where Mens Rea is not applicable. Violations of the NFA are among them. The BATFE is under no obligation to prove intent, only that you are in violation of the law. (In case you were wondering, criminal sexual actions are also not Mens Rea crimes) These crimes fall under the [i]Strict Liability[/i] category of the Model Penal Code[/QUOTE] " Consequently, the National Firearms Act does not create a crime of strict liability as to all its elements. It is no help in deciding what level of intent must be proved as " [url]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/601/case.html[/url] She didn't break the law. "What article does not prohibit. Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit or interfere with the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for scientific purposes, the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle possessed in compliance with federal law or the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle not usable as a firing weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament, or keepsake. " [url]https://www.scribd.com/document/373342271/Virginia-Firearms-Statutes-and-Codes#from_embed[/url] For the people saying its still usable [QUOTE]Mallard said she followed legal procedure, writing in her Facebook post: And yes for all the NRA trolls out there, I finished the job according to regulation and turned it over to the police. Why are you more outraged about me taking a gun out of circulation than about our children being murdered in our schools?[/QUOTE]

lock her up. She broke federal law. just turn the gun in if you wanted to make a statement.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53191346]" Consequently, the National Firearms Act does not create a crime of strict liability as to all its elements. It is no help in deciding what level of intent must be proved as " [url]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/601/case.html[/url] She didn't break the law. "What article does not prohibit. Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit or interfere with the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle for scientific purposes, the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle possessed in compliance with federal law or the possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun or "sawed-off" rifle not usable as a firing weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament, or keepsake. " [url]https://www.scribd.com/document/373342271/Virginia-Firearms-Statutes-and-Codes#from_embed[/url] For the people saying its still usable[/QUOTE] What part about civilians can't destroy guns do you not understand? By that rational I can go build machine guns willy nilly and so long as I destroy them myself then hand it over whats left to the police it's ok. If she "finished the job according to regulation" she'd have no reason to turn it into the police, as the dealer she would have needed to go to would have had to register the firearm as destroyed in their books which would be the end of it. If she did "finish the job to regulation" herself she would be breaking another law, as she unlawfully destroyed a firearm. It doesn't matter if the firearm is operable anymore or not. She created a short barrel rifle without filling out a Form 1 and paying a $200 tax or having an 07 Manufactures License with a Type 2 SOT and having paid an excise tax on it. It was still plenty usable after she cut the barrel off, and would have constituted a functional firearm all the same.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53189306]Cool. So does this mean that you would support repealing of the 1934 National Firearms Act?[/QUOTE] I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how [I]easy[/I] it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics) were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are. At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. Whaddya say?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53191635]I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how [I]easy[/I] it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics) were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are. At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. Whaddya say?[/QUOTE] Not only no, but fuck no. Semiautomatic firearms have existed for over a hundred years. They are not the problem. Millions upon millions upon millions exist in this country. It's like you ignored every other statistic ever handed to you on a platter in the countless other gun control threads. That would give the government far too much power, give the ATF extreme control, essentially lead to a gun ban, and be wildly unconstitutional. And no, this is not me not willing to compromise, because that's not a fucking compromise at all.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53191635]I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how [I]easy[/I] it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics) were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are. At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. [B]Whaddya say?[/B][/QUOTE] You aren't saying something illogical using logic (Ex: *Lets ban pistols!*), you're just being purposefully antagonistic because of your self perceived righteousness on the matter, straight up. You don't listen to gun owners, their input on the matter, or the actual fucking statistics that are publicly sourced. [url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12[/url] I mean holy god damn ever loving fuck look at all of those murders by pistols alone, in every state. Yet lets worry about rifles? How the fuck can gun owners take people like you seriously when you're saying ban this and that when the things you want banned aren't the things causing the majority of gun deaths? How would your regulation of semi-auto rifles like they were their full auto equivalent do anything to deaths caused by pistols?

I don't know if she should be charged or convicted for this, I don't know terribly enough about the laws here. That's for law enforcement and the courts to decide. I think that gun control laws may be a good idea, among other measures. It just can't be one or the other. That said, if a lawmaker doesn't understand gun laws to the point where this may be an issue to begin with, I don't trust her to pass effective measures on the matter. Conviction or not, I don't see why we should trust her on the platform when she doesn't understand the laws. She might miss important laws that need to be overturned, or pass ones that fail to take important minutiae into account. Passing stricter gun laws may be a good idea. Just, maybe made by people who know what they're doing instead.