• 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

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
"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.

"...not usable as a firing weapon" = "inoperative" does it for me.

§ 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.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If it was inoperable when did it become that way. Just removing the trigger group is not inoperable, it is still a firearm. I find it puzzling if the gun was inoperable to start with it did not need cutting up to keep it from going on a killing spree.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"...not usable as a firing weapon" = "inoperative" does it for me.

§ 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.

Your personal opinion doesn't count for much in the eyes of the law and it wouldn't keep anyone out of prison.
"inoperative" doesn't mean a stripped lower, or else it would be perfectly legal to have a 'third pin' M16 lower laying about the house so long as you didn't have the parts installed to make it shoot (and we both know better than that, I suspect).

As long as the serial numbered part of a firearm is not destroyed it's "operable" in the eyes of the law.
That's why firearms are de-milled by torch cuts, collectible artillery pieces have their breeches torched, and tanks have portions of their turrets cut away.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
There's also the word "and"

It has to be inoperable AND possessed as a curiosity, keepsake or ornament.

I'll tender that it wasn't possessed as a curiosity, it wasn't possessed as a keepsake and it wasn't possessed as an ornament. Therefore whether it was rendered inoperable or not is irrelevant.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Your personal opinion doesn't count for much in the eyes of the law and it wouldn't keep anyone out of prison.
"inoperative" doesn't mean a stripped lower, or else it would be perfectly legal to have a 'third pin' M16 lower laying about the house so long as you didn't have the parts installed to make it shoot (and we both know better than that, I suspect).

As long as the serial numbered part of a firearm is not destroyed it's "operable" in the eyes of the law.
That's why firearms are de-milled by torch cuts, collectible artillery pieces have their breeches torched, and tanks have portions of their turrets cut away.
First, my opinion is just that, and I clearly identified it as such, and like yours, it's worth what you paid to read it. This is just a discussion about what the person in the video reported. She left a number of unanswered questions, but they are her issue.

It sounds like you are talking about Federal statutes. The Virginia statute I quoted uses the phrase "not usable as a firing weapon" to describe its required condition. To me, that's one instance of an "inoperable" firearm. She doesn't actually say what she did to achieve this condition, so again, that's a LE issue.

BTW, VA law also requires that such a device be in compliance with Federal law. If to do so requires obliterating the S/N, haven't you committed a felony as (perhaps) the very 1st step of your attempt to comply with the law? Is contnued possession of this device illegal even though you haven't finished creating your "curiosity, ornament or keepsake"? Just my opinion.

There's also the word "and"

It has to be inoperable AND possessed as a curiosity, keepsake or ornament.

I'll tender that it wasn't possessed as a curiosity, it wasn't possessed as a keepsake and it wasn't possessed as an ornament. Therefore whether it was rendered inoperable or not is irrelevant.
The terms "curiosity, ornament & keepsake" are subject to broad interpretation (many such things are just "junk"). She didn't keep it anyway, she gave it to the police, who (allegedly) can legally posses it. While it was in her possession, was it a "curiosity, ornament or keepsake"? Only she can answer that. Maybe she was going to make a bird feeder out of it.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The Virginia statute I quoted uses the phrase "not usable as a firing weapon" to describe its required condition. To me, that's one instance of an "inoperable" firearm. She doesn't actually say what she did to achieve this condition, so again, that's a LE issue.
Could you explain please, how an AR with a fully operable lower receiver (a fair assumption as there's no evidence to the contrary) is somehow "inoperable" just because the barrel has been cut?
Does it have a functioning trigger, hammer, and breach?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

The destroying of your property, in of itself, is not and cannot be a crime.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The destroying of your property, in of itself, is not and cannot be a crime.
I don't think she's been charged, or even investigated for destruction of property, hers or anyone else.

As to the definition of 'destroyed', I recall the ATF as having some rather specific guidance on what is, and is not, considered 'destruction'.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I don't think she's been charged, or even investigated for destruction of property, hers or anyone else.

As to the definition of 'destroyed', I recall the ATF as having some rather specific guidance on what is, and is not, considered 'destruction'.

Not reversible, and that is pretty difficult. Just taking out the fire control group is not going to be destroyed.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
All references by ATF regarding "destroy" and "destruction" refer to imported machine guns, ATF Rul. 2003–2.

ATF has no control over private property owned by private citizens who lawfully has the right to poses of such private property.

ATF has authority over their licensees.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I wish the BAFT&E would be abolished as a LEA and be reconstituted as a NTSB type organization. Mallard can do with her property as she pleases and no government agency should be vested with the power to enforce any prior restraint laws inflicted upon our 2A guarantee.
 

builtjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
323
Location
South Chesterfield, VA
I wish the BAFT&E would be abolished as a LEA and be reconstituted as a NTSB type organization. Mallard can do with her property as she pleases and no government agency should be vested with the power to enforce any prior restraint laws inflicted upon our 2A guarantee.

I fully agree with your sentiment, but for the time being we are where we are, and if these are the rules enforced against us, those who aspire to represent us should damned well be held to the same standards if not higher.
 

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
I wish the BAFT&E would be abolished as a LEA and be reconstituted as a NTSB type organization. Mallard can do with her property as she pleases and no government agency should be vested with the power to enforce any prior restraint laws inflicted upon our 2A guarantee.
I fully agree with your sentiment, but for the time being we are where we are, and if these are the rules enforced against us, those who aspire to represent us should damned well be held to the same standards if not higher.

^ This, exactly, no more, no less. She needs to be held accountable and hung out to dry
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
While, I disagree with this lady on her stand on Guns and think her stunt was WAY STOOPID.

As a gun rights activist I could not find her (or anyone else) guilty even under current law for doing what she did.

I believe all gun laws (owning/selling/making/altering/carrying, etc...) are illegal under the Constitution/Bill of Rights, hence I couldn't find someone guilty for violating.
Maybe your understanding of "shall not be infringed" differs from mine.

IMHO, part of your duty as a juror is to determine if the law is legal under the Constitution.
 
Last edited:

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
While, I disagree with this lady on her stand on Guns and think her stunt was WAY STOOPID.

As a gun rights activist I could not find her (or anyone else) guilty even under current law for doing what she did.

I believe all gun laws (owning/selling/making/altering/carrying, etc...) are illegal under the Constitution/Bill of Rights, hence I couldn't find someone guilty for violating.
Maybe your understanding of "shall not be infringed" differs from mine.

While most people here would likely agree with you, what if it were you that did exactly what she did? What do you think would happen to you in the current climate in the jurisdiction she made the short barrel rifle in? She should face exactly the same.

Point being, we should use the laws they want to use against us, against them

IMHO, part of your duty as a juror is to determine if the law is legal under the Constitution.

Maybe so, but I've first hand experience of seeing and hearing a CA and a judge both REFUSING to allow a defense attorney to include jury nullification in the instructions to a jury
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
While, I disagree with this lady on her stand on Guns and think her stunt was WAY STOOPID.

As a gun rights activist I could not find her (or anyone else) guilty even under current law for doing what she did.

I believe all gun laws (owning/selling/making/altering/carrying, etc...) are illegal under the Constitution/Bill of Rights, hence I couldn't find someone guilty for violating.
Maybe your understanding of "shall not be infringed" differs from mine.

IMHO, part of your duty as a juror is to determine if the law is legal under the Constitution.
Per what I posted above - http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...aren-Mallard&p=2229916&viewfull=1#post2229916 - I agree with you.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
While, I disagree with this lady on her stand on Guns and think her stunt was WAY STOOPID.

As a gun rights activist I could not find her (or anyone else) guilty even under current law for doing what she did.

I believe all gun laws (owning/selling/making/altering/carrying, etc...) are illegal under the Constitution/Bill of Rights, hence I couldn't find someone guilty for violating.
Maybe your understanding of "shall not be infringed" differs from mine.

IMHO, part of your duty as a juror is to determine if the law is legal under the Constitution.

Jury nullification?
 
Top