Man Commits 10-Year Felony Going All “One Less” On His AR-15

The #OneLess movement is a thing. Maybe. For a couple folks, at least, who think destroying their own AR-15s will somehow prevent a psycho killer (qu’est-ce que c’est?) from getting one. Or, more likely, it’s just about sending a virtue signaling message. Except when it’s sending an “I’m a Federal felon message,” which is exactly what Scott Pappalardo did . . .

Oooh so close, too. Unfortunately, in Pappalardo’s #OneLess (which should be #OneFewer, I recon) video, he chooses to cut through the barrel of his old-school, Vietnam-era-M16-looking AR.

It went from rocking a ~20-inch barrel to, well . . .

Something considerably shorter than the National Firearm Act’s 16-inch minimum. As we all know, a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches is Federally classified as a “short barreled rifle” or “SBR,” and must be registered with the Federal government after paying a $200 tax and receiving fingerprinted and background-checked approval.

Making an SBR without prior approval, as Pappalardo did, is a Federal felony. A big one, too. Maximum penalty? Something like 15 years in prison, $260,000 in fines, and a loss of one’s Second Amendment and other rights (should The Man go after him for the 10-year, $10,000 gun-related NFA violation and the tax evasion violation, both of which technically happened).

Obviously he won’t be prosecuted. Just like David Gregory, he was on the wrong side of the law but the “right” side of the anti-gun politics. It would be interesting if the proverbial book was thrown at Pappalardo, though, as I expect both the Left and the Right would be up in arms over it. So to speak. And getting both sides to agree on the inanity of the NFA? Priceless.


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    If I have to live with the stupidity of the NFA, so should he, for the next 10 years… in federal supermax. I bet tyrone will have a fun time with this pussy.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Not just Tyrone, but also his homeboys Bruce, Tank, Dozer and Tiny (and then they’ll pass him off to their homeboys after they’re done with him).

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          What about checking out Channel 9?

  2. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    Only people that support gun control can be this stupid.

    1. avatar JS says:

      Pretty much. These are the “gun Owners” that never support 2A issues anyhow. Its a stupid stunt

  3. avatar Mark N. says:

    He also cut the receiver into pieces a bit later, so all he could be prosecuted for is demilling his firearm in the wrong manner. Not that that would stop the feds from prosecuting, but I think a jury would have a hard time swallowing it. So no, for practical, not political reasons, he will not be prosecuted.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      My understanding is that he only cut the receiver up after youtube commenters informed him of the criminal nature of his original video. I’m not sure how accurate that is though.

      1. avatar Cam says:

        So what your saying he
        1) manufactured a SBR
        2) when informed of his crime, he destroyed the evidence of the crime.
        So obstruction of justice and illegal manufacturing of a SBR

        1. avatar Arc says:

          Intent is pretty important, I doubt it was his intent to create a SBR. Even if he was charged under the treasonous and unconstitutional legislation, it would be thrown out.

        2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Arc: “Intent is pretty important”

          If only that were true in pratice. The BATF has pursued charges and obtained convictions against people whose guns went full auto because of malfunctions. They have pursued and obtained convictions against people who unknowingly shortened shotguns or rifles to slightly shorter than the legal lengths. The BATF doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about intent when it doesn’t suit them to do so.

        3. avatar Chris says:

          Where does the word “intent” occur in that code? If it is not there, and it is not, then he can be prosecuted to the full extent.
          As we know with the case of the guy who got stuck with a forced layover and prosecuted in NY, and the case of people prosecuted for a single expended or dud shotgun shells they had saved as souvenirs, good intention or no intention to break the laws is NOT a defense extremely often when to comes to gun laws.

    2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Unfortunately if we’re going all “letter of the law” and such, which we’re supposed to do (right?), he made an illegal SBR. There’s no time limit or time-based exemption or caveat in the law. Hell, there’s *constructive possession* in the darn law! Doesn’t matter if he made it to have it this way forever or only had it this way for two minutes, he had it this way and in that instant he permanently broke the law. There’s no take-backs on that.

      (“Constructive possession” meaning you possess the parts necessary to assemble something in violation of the law, and you can therefore be found guilty of having violated the law even if you never actually assembled something in violating configuration or even ever intended to. For instance, you own one AR-15 rifle with 16″ barrel and you decide to purchase a “pistol” upper with an 11.5″ barrel. Well, if you don’t have a pistol lower to put it on and the only AR receiver you could put it on is that rifle one, you’ve just committed a 10-year felony whether or not you ever connect that shorty upper to that rifle lower or whether you ever would, etc. Heck, if you just own a short barrel and only a rifle on which it could potentially be installed, you’re a felon. As absolutely ridiculous and absurd as this law is, there could be a day when you’re in violation of “constructive possession” for owning a rifle and a hacksaw, since you technically have the means to manufacture a short barreled rifle at any time. It’s utter B.S., but it has been prosecuted successfully, and it’s way less of an *actual* violation of the law than what this guy did.)

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      I am entirely opposed to the NFA and feel a little queasy recommending this, but…

      He should be prosecuted for his violation of the SBR regulation, even if the odds are that he will be acquitted by the jury.

      As the gun grabbers like to say, and prove, time and again: The process IS the punishment. Acquitted or not this ass would be out at least the $10,000 the fine would have cost.

  4. avatar Chris. says:

    If I were on the Jury I wouldn’t convict…

    I would however make sure to deliberate for days to make the guy sweat buckets.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      That’s mean.

      (I like it, though.)

    2. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I’d deliberate for ten days and then convict. Just to see the look on his face.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’d convict. He wants unconstitutional laws? Well, let him have all the fun of living with those laws.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        If he wants to surrender rights then lets get them all, convict and send him up to club pen. There he won’t be over burdened by his rights.

    4. avatar Arc says:

      +1 Make him think about his choices, then find him not guilty.

  5. avatar Astigmatism says:

    One less idiot with an AR.
    Now he’s just an idiot.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      But was he an idiot BEFORE he chopped up his gun? Was he an idiot BEFORE he bought it in the first place?
      We’ll never know… it just reminds me of a heated philosophical difference of opinion I had with a bigot about Omar Mateen, “was he an extremist Muslim before or after he bought a rifle? Did the rifle transform him into a terrorist, or was he one to begin with?”

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Idiot in the past, idiot in the present, idiot in the future.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      I watched that video last week.

      As I recall he did not mention at any time how many other firearms he owned or what models they were. Nor did he prove, before illegally shortening his AR, that it was actually still functional.

      Virtue Signalling, you now have a face, perhaps a poster boy.

  6. avatar Andrew says:

    It’s time to hold the antis to the laws they want. Throw the book at him and then ask him how he likes gun control while he rots.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I admit, I’ve had this thought, and it’s tempting as hell. However, in the final analysis I find I have to stand on principle. No matter how much the gun control nutters may love the idea of using the letter of the law as a political weapon against people with no criminal intent, I’m squarely against that. It’s wrong of them, it would be wrong of me.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        How about standing on the principle that the law should apply equally? That if we don’t like a law we should work to change it rather than just ignore it?

        Or, hey, how about ignorance being no excuse? That’s a classic right there!

        Actions have consequences. This … person … should face the consequences of his.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          I do believe the law should apply equally. I believe that the ancient legal tradition of mens rea should apply in all prosecutions, and the feds shouldn’t be prosecuting people criminally for paperwork snafus and the like. I don’t believe Joseph Pelleteri should have been charged. I don’t believe Shaneen Allen should have been charged. I don’t believe Mark Witaschek should have been charged. And I’m not willing to change that stance because the opposite would result in ignorant anti-gunners being hoist by their own petard.

      2. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

        If the laws aren’t enforced, they won’t know that they exist until someone looking for a reason to screw over the “bad guy” discovers them in a dusty tome in the basement.

        Conviction makes clear that there are myriad, complex laws (“Receiver must be cut with a cutting torch with a tip diameter sufficient to displace 1/4″ of material”) to which gun owners are already subject.

        Remember the story about “I got an AR in 5 minutes on an expired ID” that everyone believed…… by the kid that didn’t actually buy any firearm? The one that Cuomo pushed hard on his twitter feed?

        People other than PotG don’t know any of this stuff.

  7. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    that whole #OneLess movement got picked up by 4chan /k/ and /pol/, who proceeded to troll the ever living shit out of ignorant people by posting random mishmash of parts and some liberal statement about how they’ve destroyed their guns.

    Some of that was even picked up by media organizations.. So if you look, you’ll see the media spreading pictures of a “Destroyed AR15” that is literally just an AR upper, an Enfield BCG, a few Glock parts and some tools.

    It was a pretty hilarious thing to see the amount of ignorance flowing out under that hashtag once they got it going hard.

  8. avatar Patrick says:


    1. avatar burley says:

      The answer to the question: how many guns do I need?

      1. avatar FB says:

        Theres never enough

  9. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    His family should suffer the same EXACT fate that Randy Weaver’s family did. And yes, I’m serious.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      TrueBornSonofLiberty advocates the murder of a family for the crime of one member of it… Your trolling should be a little more subtle.

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    That’s OK. I offset his action with one of my own on Saturday.

  11. avatar DrDKW says:

    ‘One Less Lib-tard’ has a nice ring to it!’


  12. avatar MDH says:

    Congrats to him. He’s now defacto a felon, and therefore a prohibited person for the rest of his life. What’s even better is, if he turns the rest of his guns in, he’s a felon in possession of a firearm (multiple counts). If he “destroys” any more of them, he’s destroying evidence.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Unconvicted crimes do not trigger that law.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        The certainly do prohibit you in quite a number of states. Even misdemeanor arrests with no conviction are allowable as a reason to prohibit ownership in lots of state’s laws.

        People with two misdemeanor arrests in the past five years, even if both not charged, or even tried and found not guilty, those arrest records have been used to deny registration in DC, Mass and NJ.

        Google PD-G-09-800002_Final_Order.pdf

        there is a case were the guy got his registration, but only because he had arrest in the past five years. As you can see from the findings, if one or more of his arrests, even with no convictions, and he never had a conviction in any arrests, had been in the past the finding was he could have been declared a prohibited person under state law.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      But his video went – sort of- viral. Especially every pro 2A person who has heard of it (or logs on to TTAG) will recognize this jerk.

      Prohibited (unconstitutionally) person or not what sort of reception is he going to receive the next time he enters a gun store looking to buy a Fudd gun or even a pistol? Some shop hungry for a buck may accommodate him, but I’ll bet an awful lot will refuse his trade and send him packing.

  13. avatar anonymous says:

    Obviously he won’t be prosecuted. Just like David Gregory, he was on the wrong side of the law but the “right” side of the anti-gun politics.

    Speaking of that gun-criminal David Gregory…

    If Wayne LaPierre — or any other representative of the NRA — had any guts, they would appear on their usual TV talk shows in Washington DC and hold up a 30-round AR magazine while doing so.

    Yes, there is a risk of getting arrested for violating the district’s ban. But he could — and should — invoke the David Gregory defense.

    Instead, we’re told that “We need guns to fight oppressive tyrannical government . . . but we’re not going to commit any act of civil disobedience that subjects us to the possibility of being arrested”. Unlike most of us, Wayne can afford the best legal representation possible. And the Washington DC prosecutor’s office is already on the record as stating that “a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust“.

    Should DC actually decide to pursue charges against Wayne for doing what David Gregory did five years ago, the worst that could happen is “Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06 [the magazine ban], any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000.”

    If Wayne isn’t willing to risk that in his so-called fight for freedom, to demonstrate the pointlessness of certain gun-owner control laws, what is he willing to risk? And what forms of civil disobedience should gun owners be engaging in?

    I recall something about the Founding Fathers — who, like Wayne LaPierre, were wealthy men with a lot to lose — committing capital treason and making a “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”. If Wayne isn’t willing to risk small but not-zero possibility of a $1,000 fine and/or up to one year in jail in his so-called fight for freedom, to demonstrate the pointlessness of certain gun-owner control laws, what is he willing to risk? And what forms of civil disobedience should gun owners be engaging in?

    Or are we just going to sit back and let our enemies write the narrative for us to follow, while our fearless leaders like Wayne “Brave Sir Robin” LaPierre collect their million dollar a year paycheck?

    1. avatar MDH says:

      What is obvious is that Pappalardo created a short barreled rifle without the required NFA tax stamp, and documented his crime on social media.

      His intentions are not at issue.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Stop making sense, anonymous. You’ll scare the sheep.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        You and “anonymous” make the same spelling mistakes.

        How about the head of GOA go commit a gun felony in DC? Why don’t you or if not drink the shut up?

        Why doesn’t GOA’s Pratt or Richardson do it? Because they are cowards?

        See how your absurd red herring plays when reversed?

        I don’t see the Bloomberg groups, which have a variety of positons attacking each other publically. NRA doesn’t attack the GOA that way, but the GOA looks to me to spend 3/4 of its resources and blathering attacking the NRA. GOA is effectively doing Bloomberg’s work for him

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I assure you that I only post under one username. If you want proof, get my telephone number or email address from RF and contact me.

          I have done plenty of “risky” things to further the protection of unalienable individual rights. I also am not promoting any RKBA rights organizations here. I am not a member of the GOA, SAF, or NRA.

          The NRA supports gun control. The NRA does not support the plain text of the Second Amendment. You can’t get around those facts.

    3. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      WLP’s annual compensation exceeds $5MM

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Good NAA Ranger II video, BTW. I just watched it because your YouTube channel is linked to your name.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          Thanks, John!

  14. avatar John Thayer says:

    Ban dykes, not A.R.’s!

    If you think that’s bigoted and unacceptable then you already know what I think about banning a class of guns.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      We can’t ban those! They protect the beaches from erosion and are one of the best places on the coast to fish from when you don’t have a boat!

  15. avatar jb says:

    #onemore…. one more GOA member that is. Just joined!!!

  16. avatar Shire-man says:

    I suppose he’s clearly an idiot this a win for everyone. Is his clear ignorance, emotional reaction and irresponsible felonious behavior enough to get one of those no guns allowed protection order thingies? Seems too stupid and dangerous to have a muzzel loader.

  17. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Justice is supposed to be blind, so yes, prosecute. But just like Hilary’s emails, as long as you’re on the favored side of the politicized justice department, you won’t be. At least federally.

    At the state level tho, he can be charged because there are laws on the books in different states that either ban SBR’s or say that they’re legal to own if “federal laws are observed.” Since federal laws were not observed by this dummy, the state/local police can arrest and prosecute.

    If anyone wants to mess with this dolt, find out what state/town he lives in and point the local police and state police to his youtube video.

    EDIT: He lives in New York state and it’s a state felony to possess or manufacture an SBR.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    LOCK her…er HIM up! Doofus…

  19. avatar aircooled says:

    People should do “one more” videos where they strip one AR down and reassemble into 2 AR’s (with the subtle inclusion of an extra barrel and receiver, of course)

  20. avatar Jake says:

    It’s a pretty useless SBR when you can only fire one round before having to cycle the action by hand.

    1. avatar c4v3man says:

      The lack of semi-automatic operation doesn’t make a Thompson Center Contender/Encore with a stock and a less than 16″ barrel any less of a felony, even if it’s single shot as well. I’d rather have a magazine fed manually actuated sbr than a break action single shot…

      Peaceful gun owners live in fear of ever-changing laws from making them criminals overnight… I say charge the guy. Let someone on the civilian disarmament side provide the demonstration as to the inanity of the NFA’s SBR/SBS restrictions.

  21. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

    Yes, but how can we be sure he won’t rape anyone?

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Because of his short barrel.

      1. avatar Eighty says:

        Quick sense of humor and… spot on!

  22. avatar Larry says:

    Being in NYS he also needed to have it registered, then when he destroyed it he needed to send NYSP a form with suppprting documents within three days.

    I’d be surprised if he did either of those.

  23. avatar Gofukurmutha says:

    He cut through the gas tube rendering it a one shot rifle. As foolish as this old quif is he still ruined the rifle’s barrel, fore end/ gas tube and wasted money to boot. Jokes on him.

  24. avatar Rick Bunn says:

    Anyone who meets the legal restrictions can buy a firearm, anyone who owns a firearm can do anything legal with it. If someone decides to take $1000 rifle and destroy it, too bad, it’s a machine, a tool. As long as you don’t ask me to do something that stupid.

    1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

      The point is that he did not destroy the rifle, which is now a bolt-action SBR, manufactured without paying the government $200 for a tax stamp.

    2. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      “anyone who owns a firearm can do anything legal with it.”

      Sure. But he did something that’s a 10-year federal felony with it.

  25. avatar AndyinMA says:

    Makes me cry – that thing would cost me 2 grand easy here in Mass

  26. avatar Joe Brown says:

    It would be a great case to get the NFA ruled unconstitutional. I say throw the book at him and take it to the supreme court. Both sides would support him and it would show the arbitrary and unconstitutional nature of the law.

  27. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Cool, I’ve been wanting to chop this ,410 single shot down to 10 inches for snakes. So it’s legal if I Facebook it?

  28. avatar sound awake says:

    “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us”

    1 JOHN 2:19

  29. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    So, has anyone reported him to the BATFE?

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      You’d have to change it to BATFECES — bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms explosives and concerned enlightenment signaling

  30. avatar Johnny108 says:

    Serious question:
    A few gun owners are grandstanding by destroying AR-type rifles.
    How should we, as a gun community deal with, and respond to, these traitorous Fudds?
    We can’t ignore them. The anti gun crowd will use them as examples: “see? Even gun owners don’t want AR’s anymore!”
    Calling them traitors will get us labeled as hate mongers, nazis, etc.
    Perhaps mentally challenged would be the best bet?
    “Hey, if a man wants to crash his expensive car into a wall for no reason, that’s his Right.” ?
    What do you think?

  31. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Waste him!

  32. avatar DONALD TAYLOR says:


  33. avatar David Walters says:

    The only part of this that offends me, other than the fact that the man committed a felony, is that the author of this article says he’s unlikely to be prosecuted.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Is your offense directed at me because I said it, or at the fact that it’s true?

  34. avatar waitingForTheStorm says:

    I visited the ATF website the day that he did this and reported that an individual was manufacturing short barreled rifles on TV. I am still waiting to hear that he has been arrested or charged. I am not going to hold my breath.

  35. avatar Marcus says:

    Such a travesty that although he was reported to the ATF once again they will do nothing. Goes to show all gun laws are worthless they wont enforce new ones if they can barely enforce ones approaching a century.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email