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

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189594]I could go on, but at this point it's abundantly clear: they want to make an example out of her because she advocates for gun control. I don't know what [I]you[/I] want, but here it's as simple as can be. They are licking their lips to see a "gun control advocate" get crucified, when they'd be calling this an injustice for anybody else. They want to see her crucified [I]because[/I] it's an injustice, and are reveling in the opportunity to see somebody they disagree with suffer it too in order to prove a point about how it's an injustice. You don't fight injustice with more injustice. That's sick. Anybody who supports ruining this woman's life because of her general stance on gun control, [I]especially[/I] without knowing her specific policy ideas, is fuckin' sick.[/QUOTE] The point that a lot of people are trying to make is that current laws such as the very one she is accused of flouting are responsible for other incidents where otherwise law abiding, well-intentioned firearms owners who haven't actually committed a malicious or harmful act are being arrested and charged with a felony because of these same laws which unfairly catch people out. They want this woman held to the same standard as other innocent people who get their lives wrecked by the current bullshit enforced by the ATF and the Federal courts to make a point of how bullshit it all is in the first place. What's worse is that these laws don't really do much to prevent crime since, surprise surprise, criminals who do use firearms which are legally banned just acquire them through illegal means. That is the point people are trying to make, BDA - but maybe you're not fully understanding/getting it.

[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] Virginia State law does not overrule Federal law. Unless the BATFE declares specifically that the firearm is not functional, and therefore exempt from the NFA, you are in violation of the law for possessing or manufacturing a short barreled rifle without proper BATFE approval (tax stamp) Even unserviceable firearms must be registered under the NFA, albeit, they have a tax exempt status, but you still must file an ATF Form 5 to legally possess it. Not to mention, as it's been said CIVILIANS MAY NOT LEGALLY DESTROY A FIREARM

To be clear BDA - they're trying to show that examples such as this candidate are the same kind of people who advocate for the same kind of draconian/pooly written laws as the one she is accused of breaking, with no regards for context, malicious intent or just outright common sense. I don't genuinely think she [B]deserves[/B] to be prosecuted from an ethical perspective but I understand what people are trying to say and that they're hoping this might serve as some measure of a wake up call to prevent innocent people from getting caught up in legislation that was intended (as declared by these advocates) to stop thise with malicious intentions.

I don't know about the 50 pages of this thread but lol she lacks mens rea so I doubt anything serious will happen, and it shouldn't either.

I think the biggest thing to take from this is we have yet again another person who wants to run for public office and does not even understand the laws or legislation. Simply uses excuses as to why her own actions were not illegal. She broke the law. Is it a stupid law? Yes. But still the law, it is within ATF's jurisdiction so if they want to investigate it they can. If they want to press charges they can. I think the law is stupid, but I don't feel bad for her because if she wants to run for public office she prolly should understand the law. To me it is pretty sad that people are actively defending her when under other circumstances if bubba gump did this in his backyard they would be calling for prosecution. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;53192196]I don't know about the 50 pages of this thread but lol she lacks mens rea so I doubt anything serious will happen, and it shouldn't either.[/QUOTE] Its already been stated you don't need motive for these types of crimes. Other people have been charged just for possession for less. Again, ignorance isn't an excuse. Specially with these big scary assault weapons!

[QUOTE=MR-X;53192209] Its already been stated you don't need motive for these types of crimes. Other people have been charged just for possession for less. Again, ignorance isn't an excuse. Specially with these big scary assault weapons![/QUOTE] Kinda, it depends and she'll probably attempt it at least. We are talking about the US justice system i gues

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192268]The problem is, the ATF determines intent, not you. You could say all day long "it wasn't my intent to do this" but the ATF is the one who gets to actually say "you meant to do this all along". Which we can all agree is horseshit, but hey, that's the power the ATF has been given.[/QUOTE] They don't run their own courts The most they directly can do IIRC is arrest you and recommend prosecution.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192319]And then they can openly tell your defense lawyer "no you cant examine our evidence" and "we don't have to prove anything we said". Just check out some of the example cases posted in the thread, you'll see plenty of ATF "we don't have to prove anything, you're going to jail cause we say so".[/QUOTE] That's not really an ATF thing. Some places like Cali are extending regulations against that.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53192305]They don't run their own courts The most they directly can do IIRC is arrest you and recommend prosecution.[/QUOTE] Someone should probably notify them about that, because everything they can and have done proves otherwise.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192319]And then they can openly tell your defense lawyer "no you cant examine our evidence" and "we don't have to prove anything we said". Just check out some of the example cases posted in the thread, you'll see plenty of ATF "we don't have to prove anything, you're going to jail cause we say so".[/QUOTE] Stupid as this may sound, why? What motivates someone to act so harshly against someone without any intent or motive? In what way does it serve the public good to charge and sentence people who were clearly ignorant or otherwise not acting in malice? I know this is more a question which covers the US justice system in general but it still stands.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192332]Except the ATF charges you in federal courts, so Cali's laws don't mean shit against them.[/QUOTE] It's just an example that this isn't an ATF-specific problem And states act as laboratories, so it'll likely spread.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;53192333]Stupid as this may sound, why? What motivates someone to act so harshly against someone without any intent or motive? In what way does it serve the public good to charge and sentence people who were clearly ignorant or otherwise not acting in malice? I know this is more a question which covers the US justice system in general but it still stands.[/QUOTE] It doesn’t serve the interest of anyone. It’s just because the ATF itself has become a malicious entity, and lack of any oversight allows them to do whatever they damn well please. It’s an agency which has gone rogue from having absolute arbitrary power.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192345]See the problem is, the GOP doesn't see a problem, and the dems get to paint gun owners as "evil" with ATF statistics. So neither party has a particular interest in changing how the ATF does its business, because it's actively benefiting both parties for them to do what they do.[/QUOTE] Well again this isn't really an ATF-specific problem, but part of a broader issue with how our regulatory agencies are allowed to function. Basically being able to wield a lot of power, and do a lot of things, without oversight. It does, somewhat indirectly, anger the democrats since the general trend of overcriminalization, and broad poorly directed laws hurts people like the poor and racial minorities a lot.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53191978]Its important to note, that the ATF requires the lower receiver to be TORCH CUT and CRUSHED for it to be classified as "destroyed". (In the case of AR-15 style weapons) I didn't see her torch cut it, and I doubt she has the tools to crush it. So no, she didn't "finish the job" either. In fact, they specifically say "you can't use a saw/angle grinder to destroy a gun" because of how easy it is to just.. weld back together.[/QUOTE] Actually, afaik it just needs to be torch cut. Like this; [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/doIAIlz.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=phygon;53192593]Actually, afaik it just needs to be torch cut. Like this; [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/doIAIlz.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] And once again as I've said, that can only be done by an FFL holders or the ATF.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53192773]And once again as I've said, that can only be done by an FFL holders or the ATF.[/QUOTE] I was responding to the "smashed and cut" comment. Although, I've been searching for a short bit to find if it's illegal for civilians to destroy firearms, and it seems like the answer across the board is "No, not as long as it is destroyed to the point where it can no longer be defined legally as a firearm". Do you have a source?

IIRC you have to notify the ATF that you're destroying the firearm.

It's kinda fucked how she took her husbands gun and destroyed it because she didnt like it

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53192814]It's kinda fucked how she took her husbands gun and destroyed it because she didnt like it[/QUOTE] It's even double stupid now that you say this, because this was another persons firearm for one, and secondly he allowed his wife to do this, so they both are by definition breaking the law by not having it done properly, and having a third party(his wife) destroy it.

It's a silly, hacky, political stunt but if you honestly think a grown woman should be put behind bars over this, you're out of your mind.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53192842]It's a silly, hacky, political stunt but if you honestly think a grown woman should be put behind bars over this, you're out of your mind.[/QUOTE] Grown men and women are put behind bars often for things as small as this, just because you might agree with her doesn't mean that she's beyond the law. It shows how fucked gun regulations are nowadays.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53192850]Grown men and women are put behind bars often for things as small as this, just because you might agree with her doesn't mean that she's beyond the law. It shows how fucked gun regulations are nowadays.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with her policies, actually, before I'm smeared as some know-nothing liberal. I just have this radical opinion where I don't support the enforcement of shitty or unjust laws, instead of supporting its widespread enforcement no matter what over some arbitrary sense of "fairness." It seems more to me that people are calling for her to be put in jail out of petty, ideological spite because they disagree with her politically.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53192856]I don't agree with her policies, actually, before I'm smeared as some know-nothing liberal. I just have this radical opinion where I don't support the enforcement of shitty or unjust laws, instead of supporting it's unilateral enforcement no matter what over some arbitrary sense of "fairness." It seems more to me that people are calling for her to be put in jail out of spite because they disagree with her politically.[/QUOTE] look up Randy Weaver, his entire family was murdered by the ATF at Ruby Ridge after he was tricked by an ATF informant into cutting a shotgun barrel just a 1/4th of an inch shorter than legal a right wing guy gets put into prison and his entire family murdered because he was tricked into breaking a law, a democrat breaks a law because she's too stupid to read the gun control laws that she's promoting but she should be let go scot free?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53192865]look up Randy Weaver, his entire family was murdered by the ATF at Ruby Ridge after he was tricked by an ATF informant into cutting a shotgun barrel just a 1/4th of an inch shorter than legal a right wing guy gets put into prison and his entire family murdered because he was tricked into breaking a law, a democrat breaks a law because she's too stupid to read the gun control laws that she's promoting but she should be let go scot free?[/QUOTE] "Fair's fair, you both have to be mauled by blind legislation and have your lives ruined" What a simple way to view things.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53192850]Grown men and women are put behind bars often for things as small as this, [B]just because you might agree with her doesn't mean that she's beyond the law[/B]. It shows how fucked gun regulations are nowadays.[/QUOTE] This same strawman has been made five or six times which even for Facepunch is rather impressive. [QUOTE=Svinnik;53192865]look up Randy Weaver, his entire family was murdered by the ATF at Ruby Ridge after he was tricked by an ATF informant into cutting a shotgun barrel just a 1/4th of an inch shorter than legal a right wing guy gets put into prison and his entire family murdered because he was tricked into breaking a law, a democrat breaks a law because she's too stupid to read the gun control laws that she's promoting but she should be let go scot free?[/QUOTE] Do you want her to go to prison and her entire family murdered? Is it possible to believe that other people aren't as blinded by partisan hackery as you seem to be? [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192858] I don't want her put behind bars, but the irony isn't lost on me that an antigun politician didn't know the laws already on the books regarding guns. Ideally we'd rewrite them entirely, so that the NFA isn't a giant "gotcha" from the fed.[/QUOTE] This. I don't think she should go to jail for this because I don't think anyone should go to jail for this because the powers the NFA gives the ATF to enforce are broad, poorly defined, and have little evidence of serving the public good. I disagree with every gun-related opinion she holds. I just don't think someone should go to prison for cutting the barrel off a rifle and giving it to the cops.

[QUOTE=phygon;53192873]"Fair's fair, you both have to be mauled by blind legislation and have your lives ruined" What a simple way to view things.[/QUOTE] This woman was advocating even tighter gun control, she wouldn't have any mercy if it was anyone but her that messed up in such a way.

[QUOTE=phygon;53192783]I was responding to the "smashed and cut" comment. Although, I've been searching for a short bit to find if it's illegal for civilians to destroy firearms, and it seems like the answer across the board is "No, not as long as it is destroyed to the point where it can no longer be defined legally as a firearm". Do you have a source?[/QUOTE] If you want to read a few hundred pages of ATF regulation be my guest, but here's a summary of how to legally and properly dispose of a firearm: [url]https://orchidadvisors.com/best-practices-in-firearm-destruction-and-scrapping/[/url]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53192894]This woman was advocating even tighter gun control, she wouldn't have any mercy if it was anyone but her that messed up in such a way.[/QUOTE] You're guessing. Tighter gun control =/= "fucking over undeserving people". People that want tighter gun control don't want to randomly screw folks over, they want it because they legitimately believe that it will reduce the number of guns, and ergo the number of gun/general violence. I personally don't believe that most regulations would do this, but they aren't doing it to screw over conservatives.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53192903]If you want to read a few hundred pages of ATF regulation be my guest, but here's a summary of how to legally and properly dispose of a firearm: [url]https://orchidadvisors.com/best-practices-in-firearm-destruction-and-scrapping/[/url][/QUOTE] That looks like a third-party guide for those that are licensed sellers; it does not seem to imply that it is somehow illegal for private citizens to destroy their own firearms.

[QUOTE=phygon;53192915]You're guessing. Tighter gun control =/= "fucking over undeserving people". People that want tighter gun control don't want to randomly screw folks over, they want it because they legitimately believe that it will reduce the number of guns, and ergo the number of gun/general violence. I personally don't believe that most regulations would do this, but they aren't doing it to screw over conservatives.[/QUOTE] I know there are people out there who genuinely want to help things, but I don't believe they're the ones going on TV and saying that gun owners support child murder; or the ones in Congress who draw up yet another Assault Weapons Ban and then shed crocodile tears when it inevitably fails. The people who want actual reform are not the ones leading the gun control movement.