CRIME WATCH FOLLOWUP: Charge filed in sawed-off-shotgun case

(Seattle Police photo)

Checking on recent cases, we discovered that the man arrested in The Junction with the sawed-off shotgun shown above (as reported last week) is now charged. The charge against 48-year-old Michael J. Mullen was filed just two days after he was released from jail on personal recognizance. He is charged with one count of “unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun.” The charging documents say it was “heavily altered” and “loaded with what appeared to be a live 12-gauge shell” – and had three more rounds taped to its barrel – when Mullen allegedly brandished it at people in the alley behind the west side of the 4700 block of California SW. The documents also say his criminal history consists of two convictions 20 years ago, DUI and disorderly conduct, and that he lives with relatives west of The Junction. A $15,000 arrest warrant was issued at the time the charge was filed.

16 Replies to "CRIME WATCH FOLLOWUP: Charge filed in sawed-off-shotgun case"

  • Patrick June 18, 2019 (5:19 pm)

     This guy is threatening people with this type of weapon and he is released back into the community while someone decides whether to file charges?   My guess is if this had not made the blog or other news outlets, they would not have even filed charges.   Not only do we need to clean house at the city council, but also the pathetic prosecutor Pete “give me another bong hit” Holmes. 

  • Peter June 18, 2019 (6:49 pm)

    I’ll (somewhat) check my general cynicism, but I have to agree with Patrick.  IMO, Dan Satterberg has the same “tough on crime ” charging attitude as Pete Holmes.  In other words, only if he is forced to.     

  • Kdk June 18, 2019 (8:09 pm)

    It’s just a federally illegal gun. 

    • Swede. June 18, 2019 (10:43 pm)

      No it’s not. Something like this can be brought, or built, legally from a standpoint of the federal government. In Washington state however a short barreled shotgun is still illegal. But something as extreme as this one would likely be classified as a AOW, ‘All Other Weapons’ and those are legal in WA too. 

  • Steve June 18, 2019 (10:55 pm)

    Good luck getting him without incident. 

  • luthier June 19, 2019 (12:07 pm)

    18″ barrel is legal. He’s a bit short here…

  • ScubaFrog June 19, 2019 (2:54 pm)

    That thing’s a bomb.  Not a gun.  It’s cut too short, firing something like that is uncontrollable, shot everywhere with the possibility to hit many.I’m only glad it’s a felony case, this Mr. Sutton will never be allowed to own a firearm again.  Satterberg won’t plea this down to misdemeanor status.  Satterberg’s very serious in regards to gun crimes and violent crimes.  This man’s going to spend time in jail if Satterberg has his way, along with time in community correction.

  • Peter S. June 20, 2019 (8:50 am)

    Sorry Swede, I believe you are incorrect:  Short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, suppressors (aka “silencers”) are all Federally regulated and require the properly submitted ATF paperwork and $200 filing fee PRIOR to obtaining approval and the requisite tax stamp that authorizes possession, regardless of state.   While technically legal in Washington, it’s practically impossible for an individual to obtain approval in Seattle, as was covered in the related thread.  Some other jurisdictions are more accommodating.Full auto (aka “machine guns”) are also covered by this regulation, but are illegal for individuals in Washington State.  

    • Swede. June 20, 2019 (5:23 pm)

      I’m aware of the paperwork because I’ve done it. And that’s what I meant with ‘legal’. And you don’t have to have SPD sign off on it, ANY state LEO can approve it, so it’s not hard to do, just take a long time to wait after it’s all done with ATF. 

      • Peter S. June 23, 2019 (12:31 pm)

        @Swede:  Not looking to get into an argument and I’ve done the paperwork, too.  I was responding to this in your post “In Washington state however a short barreled shotgun is still illegal.”  Perhaps you meant legal(?), because they are.  You are also correct that any LEO jurisdiction can sign off, but most I’m aware of will take a dim view if you don’t have a residence there.  Which gets me back to the point about Seattle.  They refuse to sign off even though it’s completely legal and you have a clean record, just because they don’t want to due to prevailing political attitudes.  Ironic, given the amount of illegal activity that is tolerated.      

Sorry, comment time is over.