• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrest Karen Mallard

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,180
Location
Virginia
Supposedly ATF is 'investigating'.... (probably the same type of 'investigation' that the FBI did with a certain email server... :eek: )

http://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia-beach/atf-investigating-after-congressional-candidate-cut-apart-ar-15/291-526898428

The good news from all of this.... there is one less Democrat who ones a gun... (at least an AR anyway..). That by itself will make the world a safer place. :p
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I was wondering about that.
Is it necessary that she intended to make a short barreled rifle (i.e. had mens rea) for this to be prosecuted?

If you accidentally cut a shotgun barrel down to 16" instead of 18" will the ATF have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew it was verboten to cut a shotgun barrel to less than 18" without obtaining a tax stamp first?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,854
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I was wondering about that.
Is it necessary that she intended to make a short barreled rifle (i.e. had mens rea) for this to be prosecuted?

If you accidentally cut a shotgun barrel down to 16" instead of 18" will the ATF have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew it was verboten to cut a shotgun barrel to less than 18" without obtaining a tax stamp first?
Ask Randy Weaver.
 

builtjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
322
Location
South Chesterfield, VA
I was wondering about that.
Is it necessary that she intended to make a short barreled rifle (i.e. had mens rea) for this to be prosecuted?

If you accidentally cut a shotgun barrel down to 16" instead of 18" will the ATF have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew it was verboten to cut a shotgun barrel to less than 18" without obtaining a tax stamp first?
No.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Under Virginia Law, she may not be committing a criminal act, as she claimed that the rifle had been rendered inoperative prior to cutting it.

The feds are investigating, though.

§ 18.2-303.1. 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.




 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,326
Location
804, VA
.... (edited for formatting only)

§ 18.2-303.1. 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.
I'd argue that EVERY word in that statute has meaning and must be taken into account. She claims to have given it to the police because she didn't want to keep it so it's NOT a keepsake. In the time she had it in her possession it wasn't being used as an ornament, so that's 2 out of 3 options it failed the BS test on. Is it a curiosity? I'd say no, she knows what it is, everyone knows what it is, there is nothing remotely 'curious' about that firearm. And there goes the 3rd option up in smoke.

Possessed in compliance with federal law. Doesn't that mean having the stamp to possess a short barrel rifle? I bet she didn't have one when she created her short barrel rifle.

I believe that only leaves 'for scientific purposes'. No, nothing scientific about her possession of a short barrel rifle. Her possession is / was 'emotional', so I'd argue she should be up **** creek.

If it were any of us, how would we be treated? She deserves the same treatment
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Under Virginia Law, she may not be committing a criminal act, as she claimed that the rifle had been rendered inoperative prior to cutting it.

The feds are investigating, though.

§ 18.2-303.1. 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.
As I understand it, a "sawed-off" rifle can only be such if it is operable. As she rendered the rifle inoperative prior to "sawing it off", it was never operable when it became a "sawed off" rifle. She admitted she didn't want it in her home, so obviously it wasn't a keepsake, but that doesn't eliminate having it as a curiosity or ornament. And there's no provision requiring that it be kept for any minimum time.

Was "the rifle possessed in compliance with federal law"? Remains to be seen.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
As I understand it, a "sawed-off" rifle can only be such if it is operable. As she rendered the rifle inoperative prior to "sawing it off", it was never operable when it became a "sawed off" rifle. She admitted she didn't want it in her home, so obviously it wasn't a keepsake, but that doesn't eliminate having it as a curiosity or ornament. And there's no provision requiring that it be kept for any minimum time.

Was "the rifle possessed in compliance with federal law"? Remains to be seen.
Pardon, but is there even a shred of proof that it was somehow 'rendered inoperable' prior to having the barrel cut? And if it was indeed 'rendered inoperable' why not film that instead of filming the useless cutting of a barrel?

As for it being in compliance with federal law, I'm absolutely certain she applied for and received her tax stamp from the ATF.:rolleyes:
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
Pardon, but is there even a shred of proof that it was somehow 'rendered inoperable' prior to having the barrel cut? And if it was indeed 'rendered inoperable' why not film that instead of filming the useless cutting of a barrel?

As for it being in compliance with federal law, I'm absolutely certain she applied for and received her tax stamp from the ATF.:rolleyes:
HOW was it "rendered inoperable?? Did she merely remove the firing control group? Did she still have the removed parts on hand?? Didn't BATFE rule that simply having an M-16 hammer & sear and having an AR-15, even if the hammer/sear was not installed was possession of a machine-gun?

If I remove the baffling from a suppressor and put it in my desk drawer, can I posses it without a stamp?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Clearly anyone thinks that a rifle can by itself harm someone, should not have a rifle. She probably will not be prosecuted even though at some point until she got rid of the rifle she possessed a SBR without a stamp, video proof. AND no you can not own a suppressor without a stamp even if it is not on a gun, or has been disassembled. You have to have one to disassemble, and it is a crime to own it before it is unusable without a stamp. IIRC correctly it is even illegal to own a oil filter adapter without a tax stamp.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
no you can not own a suppressor without a stamp even if it is not on a gun, or has been disassembled. You have to have one to disassemble, and it is a crime to own it before it is unusable without a stamp. IIRC correctly it is even illegal to own a oil filter adapter without a tax stamp.
My point exactly.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
As I understand it, a "sawed-off" rifle can only be such if it is operable. As she rendered the rifle inoperative prior to "sawing it off", it was never operable when it became a "sawed off" rifle. She admitted she didn't want it in her home, so obviously it wasn't a keepsake, but that doesn't eliminate having it as a curiosity or ornament. And there's no provision requiring that it be kept for any minimum time.

Was "the rifle possessed in compliance with federal law"? Remains to be seen.
Pardon, but is there even a shred of proof that it was somehow 'rendered inoperable' prior to having the barrel cut? And if it was indeed 'rendered inoperable' why not film that instead of filming the useless cutting of a barrel?

As for it being in compliance with federal law, I'm absolutely certain she applied for and received her tax stamp from the ATF.:rolleyes:
I revise my statement to read: "If, as she claimed in the video, that she rendered the rifle inoperative prior to "sawing it off", it was never operable when it became a "sawed off" rifle.

Don't know if any proof exists (that's a LE issue), and don't know (or care) why she didn't film the "rendering inoperable" procedure.
 

echofiveniner

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
49
Location
Texas
I'd love to see her get interviewed.

"Ma'am would you like to see gun control laws enforced?"

Her "Oh of course, to the strictest extent of the law!"

"Okay so will you turn yourself into the BATF?"

Her "Ugh..."
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,689
Location
Granite State of Mind
I revise my statement to read: "If, as she claimed in the video, that she rendered the rifle inoperative prior to "sawing it off", it was never operable when it became a "sawed off" rifle.

Don't know if any proof exists (that's a LE issue), and don't know (or care) why she didn't film the "rendering inoperable" procedure.
"Inoperable" is not the legal standard. An inoperable firearm is still a firearm, just like a stripped lower with no parts at all is legally a firearm.

There are prescribed methods to destroy a firearm to render it no longer a firearm. She clearly didn't do that, since she clamped the lower and buttstock into the vise before cutting off the barrel. The only way those parts could even be attached to the upper, was if they were not destroyed.
 
Top