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

It is not illegal for a private citizen to destroy their own firearm. The ATF even publishes how to do it. [url]https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction[/url]

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53192938]It is not illegal for a private citizen to destroy their own firearm. The ATF even publishes how to do it. [url]https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction[/url][/QUOTE] That's for legally importing 'machine guns'.

[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] What? So what if that happened to someone else...? I get wanting her to be punished for consistency's sake, but seriously actually wanting it and especially harsh sentences is fucked. Where are your ideological principles of gun rights/freedom if you get to suspend them because you want the pain of misjustice to continue?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53192942]Come on dude, even the URL says "machine gun destruction", and that guide is written for FFL's who are importing "machine guns", and have to destroy them and rebuild them as "not machine guns".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Edit: I reached out to the ATF and they responded with this. After some research and confirming with our folks at the Firearms Technology Branch in West Virginia, I was able to find the following: Approved methods of destruction are by melting, crushing or 3 vertical cuts with a torch which removes a ¼ inch of metal for each cut through the receiver. Also attached is the pictorial guide to in reference to an AR-15 receiver. Any of these methods would remove the item from being classified as a “firearm” Possibly abandon it to local ATF office for destruction.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Colt-AR15-M16.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/02/20/gun-owner-makes-illegal-sbr/[/url] Be as pedantic as you want it is not illegal to destroy ones own firearm. If you can find a law that says it is post it.

[QUOTE=phygon;53192918]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] Now That I'm home from work, where I do this stuff daily, lets elaborate. It is a felony to deface a firearms serial number: [quote= Federal Law]It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (k), (o).[/quote] [url]https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Summary%20of%20Federal%20Firearms%20Laws%20-%202010.pdf[/url] [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922[/url] Typically the destruction of the receiver also entails the destruction of the serial number, which would constitute a felony. But what if you just carefully touch cut around the serial number? Well you're left with a chunk of gun that is legally still a firearm, something that became very important juts prior to the Huges amendment in 1986. Tons of people scrambled to register dewatted machine guns from WWII to get them on the registry. Its considered a unservicable firearm, which is still considered a firearm however in the case of what would normally be considered an NFA weapon it can be sold without NFA tax. [QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53192938]It is not illegal for a private citizen to destroy their own firearm. The ATF even publishes how to do it. [url]https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction[/url][/QUOTE] That is literally a guide for importers as to what the legal requirements are for them to import parts kits from outside the country [QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53192944][IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Colt-AR15-M16.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/02/20/gun-owner-makes-illegal-sbr/[/url] Be as pedantic as you want it is not illegal to destroy ones own firearm. If you can find a law that says it is post it.[/QUOTE] Thats a picture as to how an FFL holder can legally destroy an NFA item. The only time a normal person gets an out is if their receiver grenades on them due to catastrophic malfunction, which in the case of NFA items requires a written letter along with the associated form to inform them of the damage. They are typically then instructed to bring the remains of the receiver to an ATF drop box, and the serial number is removed from the NFA registry. All of it comes down to the law mentioned above, and if you think about it that all makes sense. If its illegal to deface a serial number, why would it then be legal to have civilians be able to destroy their own guns? That would defeat the whole point of having a serial number on the firearm because then I could simply use it in a crime, crush it in a press, and since its "no longer a gun" remove any trace of the serial number. There are reasons why FFL's have to follow specific rules when destroying a firearm, that serial number is a lot more important that what a lot of folks like to believe. The whole point is so that there is a paper trail that continuously follows the gun, from its inception until its demise. Does that always happen? Of course not, but in the eyes of the law its supposed to. In that way when a firearm is destroyed it is accounted for either by an FFL or the ATF (through a law enforcement agency acting on its behalf).

the firearm is the lower receiver. She simply cut the barrel length. That firearm could easily be fired again. She just did a bad bubba job and ruined the gas system to. Throw a new one on and you got yourself an invisible ghost automatic WMD.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53192882]This same strawman has been made five or six times which even for Facepunch is rather impressive. [/QUOTE] How is it a straw man? Either the law treats her the same as it treats everyone else, or if she gets an exception then that's tacitly putting her above the law. If Congress bails her out by reforming the law to ensure that this kind of stupidity never happens to anyone in the future, I'm all for that. I don't want to see her punished, I want to see the law enforced equally as it's supposed to be.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53193067]How is it a straw man? Either the law treats her the same as it treats everyone else, or if she gets an exception then that's tacitly putting her above the law. If Congress bails her out by reforming the law to ensure that this kind of stupidity never happens to anyone in the future, I'm all for that. I don't want to see her punished, I want to see the law enforced equally as it's supposed to be.[/QUOTE] If you think the law is unjust then it's morally inconsistent to want to see it applied to anybody.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53193077]If you think the law is unjust then it's morally inconsistent to want to see it applied to anybody.[/QUOTE] You're confusing a purely moral consideration with a practical one. Yes, from a purely moral perspective, it would be unjust to apply an unjust law to someone. Therefor any instance of someone being affected by an unjust law is bad. But [I]practically[/I], when a minority is affected by an unjust law, refusing to enforce it on any other group only allows the majority to ignore the law's adverse effects. Sometimes unjust laws need to be applied to the right people for the majority to understand that they're unjust. In an ideal world that wouldn't be the case, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Look, this can be really simple if you let it. The question in question: Do you think that somebody should be hit with a felony for having a short gun like this? If yes, well, I disagree with you but at least you're consistent. If no, much the same. But if your answer is that only people of one political leaning should be made into felons for performing the same actions, then fuck that.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53192944][IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Colt-AR15-M16.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/02/20/gun-owner-makes-illegal-sbr/[/url] Be as pedantic as you want it is not illegal to destroy ones own firearm. If you can find a law that says it is post it.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you missed the part that says "Cutting by means other than the above described torch method is not authorized." So uh, good job on that?

[QUOTE=catbarf;53193067]How is it a straw man? Either the law treats her the same as it treats everyone else, or if she gets an exception then that's tacitly putting her above the law. If Congress bails her out by reforming the law to ensure that this kind of stupidity never happens to anyone in the future, I'm all for that. I don't want to see her punished, I want to see the law enforced equally as it's supposed to be.[/QUOTE] How often does the law treat everyone the same way though, does the ATF literally have no discretion in the final decision, like plenty of other areas of the law? I got pulled over and realized I didn't have my updated insurance. Legally I probably should have had my car towed but because the officer believed me when I told him I had insurance, just not on me, he set a deadline court date, let me drive off, and I was able to go the next day and resolve the whole thing with no issue. Is the ATF prevented from that kind of case-by-case decision making? I genuinely want to know because this thread makes everything seem very black and white with one side.

[QUOTE=Tigster;53193288]How often does the law treat everyone the same way though, does the ATF literally have no discretion in the final decision, like plenty of other areas of the law? I got pulled over and realized I didn't have my updated insurance. Legally I probably should have had my car towed but because the officer believed me when I told him I had insurance, just not on me, he set a deadline court date, let me drive off, and I was able to go the next day and resolve the whole thing with no issue. Is the ATF prevented from that kind of case-by-case decision making? I genuinely want to know because this thread makes everything seem very black and white with one side.[/QUOTE] In an ideal world, yes, the ATF would be reasonable and use a reasonable determination of intent to know when to prosecute and when not to. And then I'd have no problem with them saying 'she didn't mean to build an SBR, she was destroying the gun, we're not prosecuting'. But in our real world, the ATF (and other law enforcement entities) take a hardline view towards firearm offenses, punishing even innocent infractions. I laid out some really egregious examples on pages 1 and 2. They're not hypotheticals, but things that people have actually been convicted for. In our real world, the ATF has used that discretion universally to fuck over innocent people without regard for anything we would consider common sense. Now here's a case where the same thing as always is happening, and people want the ATF to suddenly demonstrate a degree of reasonableness that they never have before. If that translates into actual policy change, that would be great, but declining to prosecute in this one case, while continuing to enforce the same stupid hardline stance against ordinary gun owners, would be providing abnormal special treatment. To use your example: If police officers in your town were known for having no sympathy whatsoever, and towed your car for lack of insurance, wouldn't you be upset if a local politician was caught driving with no insurance and given a free pass? Sure, they are supposed to have some latitude, but when that latitude is being used to favor certain groups it's not really fair.

That's why you use a metal shredder to evenly cut it apart like a car.

[QUOTE=Tigster;53193288]How often does the law treat everyone the same way though, does the ATF literally have no discretion in the final decision, like plenty of other areas of the law? I got pulled over and realized I didn't have my updated insurance. Legally I probably should have had my car towed but because the officer believed me when I told him I had insurance, just not on me, he set a deadline court date, let me drive off, and I was able to go the next day and resolve the whole thing with no issue. Is the ATF prevented from that kind of case-by-case decision making? I genuinely want to know because this thread makes everything seem very black and white with one side.[/QUOTE] From personal experience I have noted that it varies from agent to agent. I have had instances where I sold an individual a firearm, who had a Minnesota permit to purchase and passed a NICS check, and months later would come up denied for a domestic or other crime committed either in another state or decades ago. Of the 5 that I had done the sale for, 4 of them the ATF called up the individual after we passed the trace to them and asked them to simply sell the gun to an FFL dealer within a month and provide them with a bill of sale. For the other they sent uniformed agents to their home and seized the firearm. Now the ATF never tells us why people are denied or what they were charged with, but anyone with half a brain and google can look up public record. 3 of the five were domestics dating back to the 70's and 80's in other states, including the one who had his weapon seized. The other two were felony theft from the 80's in other states. Whether that one individual happened to be enough of an issue to warrant a direct seizure by agents is beyond what I could tell you, but considering how the others were handled it was particularly heavy handed. On a less nefarious side of things I have a handful of serious gun collectors who use the store I work at to transfer in the firearms they purchase all across the country. Needless to say they have a lot of money, and they transfer in anything from the mundane to the most exquisite. Of the 3 that I work with, they all typically pick up no less than 20 firearms per visit (which is usually once or twice a year). Of those 3, 2 have been contacted by the ATF. 1 was investigated in regards to being a potential straw purchaser, however as he was able to either produce the firearms in question or had the bills of sale for those he sold he was let off the hook. As to why he was suspect would be hard to say, all 3 are 60+ year old retired veterans sitting on military and state pensions. From my own personal dealings with ATF agents you get about the same diversity you would expect from a city police force; some are racists, others are pro-gun rights, others are anti-gun rights, and a few attempt to be as impartial as possible, and of course there's everything in between. To be frank your average ATF officer is just like any other cop, just on a much bigger scale. As I said this is from my personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt, but considering what I do for a living I'd like to think it holds some merit. However, what is more of an issue is the ATF leadership. Do they have discretion? Sure, a hell of a lot more than anyone else for that matter. If you ever want to read about how much discretion the ATF has, and how it loves to sit on one side then flop to the other (by seemingly political lines), read up on Arm Braces and the various ruling that have come out over the last few years. The problem doesn't stem from their discretion, it stems from their consistency.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53192970]Now That I'm home from work, where I do this stuff daily, lets elaborate. It is a felony to deface a firearms serial number: [url]https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Summary%20of%20Federal%20Firearms%20Laws%20-%202010.pdf[/url] [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922[/url] Typically the destruction of the receiver also entails the destruction of the serial number, which would constitute a felony. But what if you just carefully touch cut around the serial number? Well you're left with a chunk of gun that is legally still a firearm, something that became very important juts prior to the Huges amendment in 1986. Tons of people scrambled to register dewatted machine guns from WWII to get them on the registry. Its considered a unservicable firearm, which is still considered a firearm however in the case of what would normally be considered an NFA weapon it can be sold without NFA tax. [/QUOTE] Interesting. So you're telling me that if I were to theoretically use a blowtorch to cut the aforementioned pattern out of a rifle, skipping the serial (so that the lower receiver was completely non-functional), then cut out the serial without damaging it, that little plate would still be considered to be a firearm? Unless I'm reading your post incorrectly, of course.

[QUOTE=phygon;53193335]Interesting. So you're telling me that if I were to theoretically use a blowtorch to cut the aforementioned pattern out of a rifle, skipping the serial (so that the lower receiver was completely non-functional), then cut out the serial without damaging it, that little plate would still be considered to be a firearm? Unless I'm reading your post incorrectly, of course.[/QUOTE] Technically it would be, as an unserviceable firearm. That still classifies it as a firearm, and quite literally that much had been used to register machine guns prior to the Hughes amendment going into effect in in the later half of 86'. It's in league with drill rifles who've had their bores plugged. They are still in effect firearms however, and really only change the status of machine guns (and by extension other NFA items); they can be transferred without the paying of a $200 tax. You would have a very hard time torch cutting an AR-15 and not hitting a serial number and/or a manufacturer and place of manufacture stamp, which is part of the reason why torch cutting is required. The idea is to render it completely unable to be rebuilt, and as done by an FFL/ATF take that serial number completely out of circulation. If you were to torch cut a reciever yourself using the ATF regulations for FFL's you would cut into the 3 most common areas manufactures put serial numbers, and 2 uncommon. The common areas being on the magazine well, around the fire control group, and around the fire selector lever. The (very) uncommon areas being within the trigger guard along the bottom side, and in the front of the magwell.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;53191884]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?[/QUOTE] First, I didn't say rifles, I said semi-autos. As in ANY semi-auto, whether that's a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun or a rubber-band gun (props if you can drop an active shooter with a rubber-band gun, that's Home Alone as fuck). Unless I specifically mentioned the word "rifle" anywhere in that post, which from my quick re-reading of it I did not... OH you might be talking about the M249 mention?! Yeah I wouldn't call that "a rifle" in the context of full-auto vs. semi-auto, even if you wanted to argue semantics it's irrelevant to the comparison, if you can buy a semi-auto M249 then I say "neat?" but you can understand my concern if it were super-easy for anyone (as in "ANYONE" and that includes the sort you WOULDN'T want to do this) to make it into full-auto, or at least close enough to it, right? Second, I was kidding (hence the "whaddya say", sorry for not making it more clear, seriously who says that?). I know damn well nobody would go for that, unless you seriously believe that I've learned absolutely nothing from having discussed this matter with others here and abroad, in which case you do you? I have had a decent amount of people try to put words in my mouth in those discussions though, so I understand the confusion if the way I word things is hindering this discussion in some way. But as a fun aside, I am personally friends with enough responsible gun owners that I would fear getting my ass pistol-whipped to death if I had the power to pass anything like that, so yeaaaah no. I gotcha. Third, I think certain people here are also being purposefully antagonistic if they're seriously calling for her to face the fullest extent of the law just because she turned in a rifle that she oopsie-daisie'd into contraband, purely on her own volition? [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53193355]Technically it would be, as an unserviceable firearm. That still classifies it as a firearm, and quite literally that much had been used to register machine guns prior to the Hughes amendment going into effect in in the later half of 86'. It's in league with drill rifles who've had their bores plugged. They are still in effect firearms however, and really only change the status of machine guns (and by extension other NFA items); they can be transferred without the paying of a $200 tax. You would have a very hard time torch cutting an AR-15 and not hitting a serial number and/or a manufacturer and place of manufacture stamp, which is part of the reason why torch cutting is required. The idea is to render it completely unable to be rebuilt, and as done by an FFL/ATF take that serial number completely out of circulation. If you were to torch cut a reciever yourself using the ATF regulations for FFL's you would cut into the 3 most common areas manufactures put serial numbers, and 2 uncommon. The common areas being on the magazine well, around the fire control group, and around the fire selector lever. The (very) uncommon areas being within the trigger guard along the bottom side, and in the front of the magwell.[/QUOTE] It almost sounds to me like it'd be simpler to just dump it into a foundry or something. :v:

I would have agreed that she doesn't deserve all this if she doesn't act like she's above the law right after breaking one of the most strict law in the US, while trying to advocate adding more to said law without even admitting the law is simply way too strict, which can and have ruined lives of many citizens.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415][b]First, I didn't say rifles, I said semi-autos. As in ANY semi-auto, whether that's a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun or a rubber-band gun (props if you can drop an active shooter with a rubber-band gun, that's Home Alone as fuck).[/B] Unless I specifically mentioned the word "rifle" anywhere in that post, which from my quick re-reading of it I did not... OH you might be talking about the M249 mention?! Yeah I wouldn't call that "a rifle" in the context of full-auto vs. semi-auto, even if you wanted to argue semantics it's irrelevant to the comparison, if you can buy a semi-auto M249 then I say "neat?" but you can understand my concern if it were super-easy for anyone (as in "ANYONE" and that includes the sort you WOULDN'T want to do this) to make it into full-auto, or at least close enough to it, right? [B]Second, I was kidding (hence the "whaddya say", sorry for not making it more clear, seriously who says that?)[/B]. I know damn well nobody would go for that, unless you seriously believe that I've learned absolutely nothing from having discussed this matter with others here and abroad, in which case you do you? I have had a decent amount of people try to put words in my mouth in those discussions though, so I understand the confusion if the way I word things is hindering this discussion in some way. [B]But as a fun aside, I am personally friends with enough responsible gun owners that I would fear getting my ass pistol-whipped to death if I had the power to pass anything like that, so yeaaaah no. I gotcha.[/B] Third, I think certain people here are also being purposefully antagonistic if they're seriously calling for her to face the fullest extent of the law just because she turned in a rifle that she oopsie-daisie'd into contraband, purely on her own volition?[/QUOTE] Again, how and why should we take people like you seriously? Explain this to me.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53193067]How is it a straw man? Either the law treats her the same as it treats everyone else, or if she gets an exception then that's tacitly putting her above the law. If Congress bails her out by reforming the law to ensure that this kind of stupidity never happens to anyone in the future, I'm all for that. I don't want to see her punished, I want to see the law enforced equally as it's supposed to be.[/QUOTE] The strawman is where people are saying that the people who don't want her to go to prison are only saying that because she is a politician, or because they agree with her views. Neither are things anyone has said explicitly, so its disingenuous to imply otherwise. Beyond just the dishonesty though I think it's a little absurd, as if Facepunch of all forums is the place where people think politicians should be able to follow different rules and laws than the common citizenry. As for not wanting to see her punished, I guess we are just at an impasse. Both sides agree that what she did was wrong and both sides agree that the law should be changed, just one side thinks she should be punished as much as previous transgressors and the other doesn't. The last thing I can say is just what I've said the last five times it was brought up: It has nothing to do with her being a politician, and it has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. Someones going to make a post implying that I said either or both of those things anyway so this is probably pointless v:v:v

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;53193896]Again, how and why should we take people like you seriously? Explain this to me.[/QUOTE] Because people like that are the ones who are actually trying to make all guns illegal to own

I'm shocked this thread is still alive. The ATF aren't going to press charges, and not because they are making a special exception for an elected official. Its because she is clearly acting within the spirit of the law.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53194469]I'm shocked this thread is still alive. The ATF aren't going to press charges, and not because they are making a special exception for an elected official. Its because she is clearly acting within the spirit of the law.[/QUOTE] So you want to explain why all of a sudden, NOW, with this case, the ATF should care about the spirit of the law instead of strict interpretation like they have been using, or are you going to re-hash the same points that have been shot down countless times in this thread?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53194618]So you want to explain why all of a sudden, NOW, with this case, the ATF should care about the spirit of the law instead of strict interpretation like they have been using, or are you going to re-hash the same points that have been shot down countless times in this thread?[/QUOTE] Because they won't win the case? Because the federal prosecutor will point out that it is a waste of money?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53194618]So you want to explain why all of a sudden, NOW, with this case, the ATF should care about the spirit of the law instead of strict interpretation like they have been using, or are you going to re-hash the same points that have been shot down countless times in this thread?[/QUOTE] I have looked through this thread and it keeps getting referenced about them being unnecessarily strict but I have yet to see an instance actually linked please link it Like, its one thing if the ATF is a hardass. but whats a case even compareable to your point about this?..

[QUOTE=Flameon;53194900]I have looked through this thread and it keeps getting referenced about them being unnecessarily strict but I have yet to see an instance actually linked please link it[/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

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53194907]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[/QUOTE] He didn't "trick" him into anything. The agent was up front that these were illegal arms dealings and they were modifying weapons to make them into short barrel shotguns. They then leveraged his involvement to get him to flip ON THE ARYAN NATION. The guy was white supremacist scum and they wanted him to provide intelligence on the nation. That was the entire reason for the shotguns in the first place. Then he didn't show up for court. And then he decided he was going to fight any agents that came to serve the bench warrant. Surveillance went sideways on the property and his kid shot and killed a federal agent. The later casualties happened because a federal sniper went full asshole. If that could possibly have any less to do with this, I don't see how.

Randy Weaver is a complicated subject (GunFox, you left out that he didn't show up for court because he was given a summons [i]with the wrong date[/i]), but there are much less ambiguous examples of the ATF being zealously overbearing. [url=http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276693/]Here's[/url] one example. A law-abiding machine gun collector was arrested by the ATF for constructive possession. He had a pistol, a machine gun, and a stock for the machine gun- which could also theoretically be mounted on the pistol, which would be an illegal SBR, but the ATF had no evidence that it had ever been used this way. They also confiscated a completely legal semi-automatic M14, heavily modified its internal parts to turn it into a machine gun, and then claimed that he was in possession of an unregistered machine gun. ATF prosecuted on multiple charges, and an initial conviction was only overturned on appeal.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53194884]Because they won't win the case? Because the federal prosecutor will point out that it is a waste of money?[/QUOTE] Explain to me how a prosecutor loses an open and shut case with clear cut evidence.