A Candidate for Congress cut down her AR-15 barrel in a video posted to Facebook and is being investigated for making an SBR without BATFE authorization.
https://www.facebook.com/KarenMallardFo ... rk&fref=nf

http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/n ... 84133.html

13 News Now in Virginia Beach, Virginia reports that Mallard, a school teacher who is running for Virginia's 2nd congressional district and running on a gun-control platform, is under investigation after she was reported to the ATF for creating a "short-barreled rifle" in the video. The creation and ownership of short-barrelled rifles are regulated under the National Firearms Act. Creation of or ownership of an unregistered weapon is a federal crime.

In the video Mallard says she grew up around guns but she wasn't happy when her husband purchased the rifle. The congressional hopeful says she decided to destroy the rifle after the Parkland Florida shooting. Many who commented on her Facebook video accused the congressional hopeful of "political grandstanding."

I'm discussing this on another forum and was asked about mens rea (intent) and strict liability as it applies to NFA law. Anyone care to help out? Thanks.

Ranb

ETA; It seems the stupid shall not be punished. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-r ... aples-v-us

In order to convict the defendant of a violation of the National Firearms Act, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the characteristics of the weapon that brought it within the definition of a firearm under that Act. Thus, in this case, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [knew the firearm was designed [or modified] to fire automatically] [knew he possessed a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18 inches or with an overall length less than 26 inches] [knew he possessed a silencer] [knew he possessed a grenade]. Such knowledge can be established through circumstantial evidence.

Mens rea has been passe for a long, long time. If you doubt that, then look at this case: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/08/17/fl ... ping-case/

and this horrible case: https://www.heritage.org/report/the-lac ... nalization

David McNab and Abner Schoenwetter, who were engaged in the lobster trade, were convicted under the Lacey Act for importing undersized lobsters in 1999. In addition, some of the lobsters were also egg-bearing, and all of them were shipped in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. These were not requirements of American environmental law, but requirements of Honduran law—requirements that Honduran courts later determined were invalid.[11] Nonetheless, McNab and Schoenwetter were sentenced to eight years in prison. Due to the low level of criminal intent required for conviction, it did not matter that the two men were unaware of the Honduran environmental regulations.[12]

In my personal case, the Sheriff of Lumpkin County, Georgia, Mark McClure, manufactured a SBR in my home, using my rifle and my tools, then charged me with a weapons violation under Georgia law. He admitted to this in court, under oath, on the stand.

The truth is, they can and will charge anyone for anything. Mens rea is determined at trial. There is ZERO reason to not charge that woman, except that she is doing what the goons agree with, and so she will be exempt from prosecution, just like this jackass: https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/gu ... cott-free/

Mens rea is what you knew. It ain't what you know, it is who you know, or who agrees with you at the USA's or DA's office.

We live in a thugocracy.

They never cared about intent before.