How to Cut a Handgun in Half with a Chop Saw

Comments

1
A lovely sentiment, I guess, but I'm sure folks in Roseburg bought ten guns while he was working on destroying one.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/…
2
This article is proof of a a felony under i-594, I hope he turns himself in.
3
love kurt, love racer, and LOVE this idea. can this please be the next #shoutyourabortion?

#CHOPYOURGUNS!
4
Hi SuperNintendo Chalmers,

Have you ever considered fucking yourself?

G
5
God bless him. It's nice to see a stupid gun get chopped, of course, but it's nicer to see a guy attack his demons in such a pointed way. Let's hope that someday all guns can meet a similar fate.
6
@4 Well, that's certainly a very well thought out response to my uncontroversial point that mass shootings drive increased firearm sales locally and nationally. Don't hate the messenger! I'm simply suggesting personal symbolic actions are pointless and he'd be better off, say, volunteering in a campaign in a swing state senate district if he wants to achieve meaningful change.
7
Only 350 million to go! Time to crowd source the shit out of this #ChopUpGuns
8
In fact, given the tribalism at work in American politics these days, if #chopupguns caught on in progressive circles, there would certainly be an equal and opposite response from the other side.

See, for instance, studies showing that sending "how much energy your home used vs your neighbors" on bills inspires conservation with some (climate change!), but drives others to use a lot more (America fuck yeah!). Given the paranoia of the right these days, the incremental effect of a viral campaign like this would likely be more guns going in to circulation.
9
He bought the gun out of the trunk of a stranger's car, no paperwork, no background check, no proof of training, mere hours after putting the word out that he was interested in buying one. Thank god he only wanted to destroy it and not kill innocent people with it.
10
I have sent emails to the City and County prosecutors requesting they prosecute Mr. Geissel for firearm violation.
11
@10 This is just another instance of the stranger's double standard. This felon deserves prosecution
12
The author committed an offense under I-594, regardless of his intent to destroy the gun, he broke the law, admitted to it and posted the evidence online. Time for the Seattle police to arrest him and charge him under I-594. If not, or if they decide they want to give him a break because of what he did with the gun, then the law is meaningless.

Self righteous idiots that pull these stunts should be held to the same standards they expect lawful gun owners to be held to. But for now, he is a criminal. Plain and simple. I hope he ends up in prison.
13
@2 & 10 - I assume you guys were 594 supporters, and not just trolling because someone who is anti-gun broke the rule.

14
@13 I was pretty neutral on 594, as a gun owner that can easily pass a background checks. But I did have some issues with the vagueness of how transfers were defined.

More importantly this gut broke the law by doing exactly what it was designed to prevent. Buying a gun without a background check. I'd like to know why the stranger seems to be endorsing people to violate a law that it supported.
15
@14 - I don't detect an editorial position in this piece. I agree that this is a type of sale that 594 was aimed to prevent, although realistically the intent wasn't to prevent people from destroying guns.
16
@15 it's intent was for a background check on all firearm transfers.
17
You wanna know what's really fucked up? Unless a weapon is illegal to possess (think, sawed-off shotgun), a law enforcement agency that confiscates a weapon from a criminal cannot destroy the weapon. The agency must either retain the weapon for its own use or trade or auction the weapon. Yes, our state law actually forces confiscated weapons to remain on the market. RCW 9.41.098.
18
Oh, @2 and @11: the first violation of I-594 is not a felony. Get your facts straight before hyperventilating.
19
A quote worth posting twice:

"Self righteous idiots that pull these stunts should be held to the same standards they expect lawful gun owners to be held to. But for now, he is a criminal. Plain and simple. I hope he ends up in prison."
20
Kurt Geissel not only committed a felony but he also just proved that the "Universal Background Check" law recently passed is utterly pointless. Not to mention that pistol he chopped was a piece of crap from the get go.
21
What's really great about this is the laugh I got hearing that he burned his fingers because he was to stupid to realize it would be hot.
22
Thanks for all the information needed to arrest this individual. I am sending this to the Seattle Police now.
23
I'm writing and asking for prosecution under I-594 as well.
24
How to tell when a Stranger article hits a nerve... when the comments section is flooded with first timers who are clearly unhinged lunatics. So good job today, Stranger. Bating these loons into coming out of their bunkers and spilling their vile idiocy all over the interwebs for everyone on the fence to see is one way that sanity will ultimately prevail in this struggle.
25
this nation needs a private, deep-pockets, no-questions-asked national buy back program. any weapon, double it's worth, to get illegal guns off the streets, and out of the hands of incompetents.

then melt them all.
26
@24 amen. Batshit insane and armed. Here's @23's twitter: https://twitter.com/svxr8dr
27
Stay classy @26
28
I have inadvertently broken the law before. I've done it many times. It may be true that a law was broken, and if you feel that has affected you or your society then you are within your rights to report it and the law enforcement officials can decide how to proceed. HOWEVER, that is not the point of this article. This piece is of interest to many people in Seattle. The Stranger has zero obligation to act as judge or law enforcement. My guess is that gun was going to get cut either way, and that the subject of the article will be happy to answer for his crimes if prosecuted. Anyone who thinks they can judge the intelligence or motivation of someone they do not know, from reading a brief interview, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of humans. Laws matter, but they are not all that matter.
29
@16 ...to prevent untraceable private sales to people who would use the firearm to perform a criminal act.

By your logic, the 2nd Amendment was only intended to allow organized citizen militias to have guns, because hey, there's nothing specifically in its wording that mentions private arsenals for unspecified purposes.

Context matters, yo.
30
@28

Camera, I hope you would apply the same standards to us, the gun owners. By the way, we tend to NOT break laws, as it disqualifies us from buying the guns. We don't have criminal history, we don't have domestic abuse in our history, we don't have drunk driving in our history.

Yet the press vilifies us, because it does not understand us. To the press, we are a bunch of paranoid fanatics, and it is perfectly fine to judge us all based on actions of a subset of individuals who are not even us, and if they were, they would constitute a fraction of a hundredth of a percent.

Yes, law matters. You forced I-594 on us based on "common sense" of people who don't know much about the guns. Now that it did nothing to actually reduce violence, you tend to go easy on lawbreakers - but I am sure only if they represent your side.
31
@30, I am a responsible gun owner, conceal carry permitted. What led you to believe otherwise?
32
I think the gun-fetishists are just butt-hurt because: A of All) someone purchased a gun in a manner that, while technically illegal, is actually the way most of them would prefer to purchase their own guns; B of All) he then made use of it in a manner not consistent with its intended purpose (i.e. killing someone); and C of All) there's now one less gun out their (crappy or otherwise) for them to add to their own collections.
33
@32 It's not so much butt hurt, but rather the idiocy involved in I-594 to begin with. How dumb is it that I as person with a concealed carry permit have to get a background check (plus fees) when transferring a firearms to another person with a concealed carry permit and then repeat the entire process again when transferring it back. You are literally running a background check on two people who have already had background checks ran, yet I can gift a gun to family member with no background check....unless of course it's a loan or an inherited firearm. Or that I-594 makes it logistically impossible to recreational shoot amongst friends (sharing of firearms) on public or private property that is not a range. Perhaps this could be cleaned up with adding clarity to the I-594 definition of "transfer", but all attempts to do so were tabled by the Judiciary Committee Chair last session.
34
r8dr, you're not even concerned with the facts at this point. You retweeted this picture alleging that under Washington State law, handing a rifle to your hunting buddy is a felony. I quote RCW 9.41.113:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
...
(4) This section does not apply to:
...
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm...(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law
So before you guys start bitching about the new law, you MIGHT JUST WANT TO GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT FIRST M88888888.

Do you actually expect people to take you seriously when you demonstrate by your words and actions that you are unambiguously misinformed on the issue?
35
venomlash Go back and read the examples I gave because they violate the transfer clause .How can I take anything you say seriously when you dont even understand how "transfer" is defined "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment
including, but not limited to, gifts and loans." Now in the pic I RT'd, I was thinking in a hunter safety course environment rather than out in the field. You might want to become familiar with the memo from WDFW sent on 12/2/14 . Where WDFW over steps their authority by granting themselves LE authority (which they dont have) in order to be able to comply with I-594 in on program. Bottom line is in a hunter education class a student handing a firearm to another adult student violates the transfer language of I-594.

To: Hunter Education Instructors

From: David Whipple, Hunter Education Division Manager

SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE 594

Dear Instructors,

During the November election, the voters enacted Initiative 594, concerning background checks on firearm sales and transfers. I-594 becomes effective on December 4, 2014. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in close consultation with our legal counsel in the Attorney General’s Office, has assessed the potential effects of I-594 on the Hunter Education Program, our instructors, and our prospective students. We do not believe that I-594 will significantly affect the program.

I will briefly summarize our analysis below. More detail will follow in the next few days.
• I-594 requires that all firearms sales or transfers in Washington be subject to background checks and be made through licensed dealers, unless specifically exempted.
• I-594 exempts all law enforcement agencies from the background check/transfer requirement. WDFW, as a general authority Washington law enforcement agency pursuant to RCW 10.93.020(1), is therefore exempt from this requirement. Any firearms purchase, sale or transfer to or from WDFW or WDFW employees when acting within the scope of their authority, is exempt from the background check/transfer requirement in I-594.
• The Hunter Education Program is a WDFW program authorized by state law pursuant to RCW 77.32.155(1)(a). Hunter Education Instructors, when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program, act on behalf of WDFW, and are therefore exempt from the background check/transfer requirements. This exemption extends to Hunter Education Instructors whether or not they are actually in the classroom, provided that they are in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program. (Firearms transfers by Hunter Education Instructors that are not for the purpose of the Hunter Education Program and within the scope of their authority as WDFW volunteers, are not entitled to this exemption.)
• Transfers of firearms between Hunter Education Instructors (when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program) and sports clubs, gun clubs, and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also exempt from the background check/transfer requirements.
• Transfers of firearms between Hunter Education Instructors and Hunter Education students are also exempt from the background check/transfer requirements of I-594, when the Hunter Education Instructors are in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program. Again, this is because the firearm transfer is to or from Hunter Education Instructors acting on behalf of WDFW, a law enforcement agency.
• I-594 contains limited specific exemptions for certain temporary transfers of firearms kept at shooting ranges and temporary transfers of firearms to persons under the eighteen for educational purposes. Although Hunter Education instruction is an educational purpose and may occur at a shooting range, these two exemptions do not limit or override the broader background check exemption applicable to law enforcement agencies. Therefore, within the constraints described above, transfers of firearms between volunteer Hunter Education Instructors and students are exempt by virtue of WDFW being a law enforcement agency, regardless of the age of the student, and regardless of whether the firearm is removed from a shooting range.
• Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594’s background check/transfer requirements—
 Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
 Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.

In summary, the transfer/background check exemption I- 594 applies to the following transfers of firearms to or from WDFW Hunter Education Instructors while in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program:
• Between WDFW employees and Hunter Education Instructors
• From one Hunter Education Instructor to another Hunter Education Instructor
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and NGOs
• Between Hunter Education Instructors and students

Additionally, student-to-student transfers may also be exempt under the circumstances and for the reasons described above. Where such transfers are not exempt, we believe that minimal changes to classroom procedures will avoid conflicts with I-594.

So before you guys start bitching about the new law, you MIGHT JUST WANT TO GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT FIRST M88888888.

Do you actually expect people to take you seriously when you demonstrate by your words and actions that you are unambiguously misinformed on the issue?
36
@35: "Now in the pic I RT'd, I was thinking in a hunter safety course environment rather than out in the field."
HA HA HA, OH WOW. Two people in camo and blaze orange hunting gear out in a grassland/forest environment, and you try to cover by saying (to paraphrase) "oh no, they're not hunting! they're learning to hunt in a place that is neither a firing range nor a wilderness area where hunting is legal!" Nice try at walking that one back.
Of course, such temporary transfers are legal if "(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located" (ibid). I believe you'll find that target shooting (the only activity involved in hunter training that requires a gun) is illegal except at firing ranges.
(a) Persons may target shoot in:
(i) Developed recreation facilities specifically designed for target shooting; or
(ii) Areas with an unobstructed, earthen backstop capable of stopping all projectiles and debris in a safe manner.
Persons shall not target shoot in any other location.
(WAC 332-52-145)

And you may be interested to know that the WDFW actually DOES have law enforcement authority.
(1) Fish and wildlife officers shall have and exercise, throughout the state, such police powers and duties as are vested in sheriffs and peace officers generally. Fish and wildlife officers are general authority Washington peace officers.
(RCW 77.15.075)

And for that matter, you accuse me of misunderstanding the legal definition of "transfer". That's amusing, because nowhere did I use the word "transfer" (or even reference it) except in DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE APPLICABLE LAW. Do you realize you are blatantly making things up?

Look, you're new here, so you probably don't know who I am. I'll just say this: I'm a pretty intelligent guy, and I have very powerful Google-Fu. If you misrepresent the facts to me, there's a very good chance I'll catch you on it and call you out. Heck, I'm not even a firearms owner or a hunter, nor am I a Washingtonian, and it seems that I know more about the relevant law than you do!
37
Teal deer:
-your claim that it's a hunting instructor and a student in the image you retweeted, not two hunters, falls flat, especially in light of the fact that the image EXPLICITLY LABELS THEM AS HUNTERS.
-target shooting is illegal anyway except at firing ranges
-your claim that the WDFW doesn't have law enforcement authority is explicitly contradicted by state law
-you're putting words in my mouth

Git gud.
38
Venom, check the law you cited, especially ii):
(a) Persons may target shoot in:
(i) Developed recreation facilities specifically designed for target shooting; or
(ii) Areas with an unobstructed, earthen backstop capable of stopping all projectiles and debris in a safe manner.
Persons shall not target shoot in any other location.

There are a shitload of places that meet the ii) criteria, plus whatever restrictions are placed at a local level. Never heard of 'plinking'? Basically, a LOT of BLM and USFS land, plus private grassland and timber parcels are totally legit for target shooting (so long as the owner says okey-dokey), but are in no way an official range.
39
So basically you're full of shit on that particular point.
40
@38, 39: If you say so. I believe the larger point (that r8dr is full of shit on essentially everything he's posted here) stands, as it does not depend on the veracity of that particular claim. I'll take that balance.
41
This guy should be put in jail for buying a gun illegally from someone who is a felon. Isn't that the law up there in WA?
42
You can say I'm full of it all you want but at the end of day I-594 has zero arrests, zero prosecutions, and zero reduction in crime. Hell just enforcing puts the court case back in play....which is probably why no one is enforcing it and the yahoo in the article can violate it freely and I can violate the transfer language of it every single day. However feel free to dig thru my twitter history all you like.
43
In addition WDFW instructors are volunteers and DO NOT have LEO authority
44
@42: A lack of arrests and prosecutions doesn't mean that the law isn't working; there's no reason to believe that unlicensed gun dealers aren't simply complying with the law for fear of criminal penalties. Bottom line is, it's too early to see the impact, as statistics for background checks and violent crime rates are not available yet, and the law has been in effect for less than a year. If you think people are freely violating it, let's see some evidence. (Protip: the fact that the police aren't arresting people who as an act of protest engage in behavior that is arguably illegal under the terms of I-594, but which has no purpose other than an act of protest, doesn't mean it's not being enforced against actual gun-runners. Might as well accuse the cops of not enforcing laws against disturbing the peace whenever they let protesters march.)

Additionally, "fish and wildlife officer" is defined as follows in RCW 77.08.010 (20):
"Fish and wildlife officer" means a person appointed and commissioned by the director, with authority to enforce this title and rules adopted pursuant to this title, and other statutes as prescribed by the legislature. Fish and wildlife officer includes a person commissioned before June 11, 1998, as a wildlife agent or a fisheries patrol officer.
If WDFW wants its volunteer educators to be LEOs for the purposes of I-594, all they have to do is have the director say so; he already has to sign off on the education program, and he has the power to commission such fish and wildlife officers. You don't like that interpretation, you're welcome to sue over it if you think you have standing.
45
This is funny.
An anti gun attention whore intentionally violates state law to say "Look at me!"
But it's OK because he "Destroyed" the firearm right?
FAIL!
To meet BATFE criteria of a "Destroyed" firearm the receiver (serialized component) must be cut into 3 non repairable sections.
The mindset of the anti gun crowd is curious. You irrationally blame a mechanical object for the actions of a human being.
If that is your view then fair enough.
But you must then apply that same logic to other aspects of your lives.
When your child fails a math test do not dare say one word to the child about it.
Rather buy them a new pencil because it is the pencils fault.
In the mind of the anti the mere fact of owning a gun makes one prone to killing, correct?
Then every woman is prone to being a prostitute because she has a vagina I guess.
You scream "If it saves one child!" but then drive your niece to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion.