Crime – Page 22 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Feds Raid Radical Christian Group

Apparently I missed the part where Jesus said “Do onto others as you would like done unto you, except for, you know, if you want to blow them up with IEDs.”

The indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court today claims that the Hutaree planned to kill an unidentified member of local law enforcement and then attack the law enforcement officers who gather in Michigan for the funeral. According to the plan, the Hutaree would attack law enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with improvised explosive devices rigged with projectiles, which constitute weapons of mass destruction, according to the announcement by U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade.

Good work on the part of the FBI and US Attorneys. The last thing we need is groups like this running around blowing up cops at a time when a the political situation is a bit on edge, and the media is only too happy to smear the views of ordinaryÂ peaceableÂ Americans with this extremist nonsense.

UPDATE: There seems to be some question about being charged with WMD violations. It’s not uncommon in law to define something that has a common and generally accepted definition as something different for the purpose of a specific statute. WMD is defined in the United States Code’s anti-terrorism laws as including destructive devices. It does not change that definition for ordinary criminal possession of an unregistered destructive device, but only for a destructive device someone “uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use” against any person or property within the United States, and having some nexus to interstate or foreign commerce.

The reason the US Attorney will use the anti-terrorism laws is because you have up to the possibility of a life sentence (death sentence if you actually kill someone) under these laws, as opposed to having an unregistered DD, which will only get you ten years. Given the circumstances, I think the US Attorney is correct in using the anti-terrorism statutes.

Mass Killing in China

Guns are banned strictly in China, but that didn’t stop a lunatic with a knife from killing 8 kids.

Feuding over Dogs Results in Doggie Shooting

This is a really odd story. Neighbor buys a new dog Keira, doesn’t like Coco, one of the other neighborhood dogs. Accusations fly around about which dogs are mean to the other and neighbors stop taking to each other. Keira apparently mauls Coco once, leaving Coco’s owner with 3000 in vet bills. Keira escapes and charges at Coco and his owner Â shoots Keira dead through the head, and ends up facing animal cruelty charges and disorderly conduct:

“Why didn’t you pick up a shovel, a stick or pepper spray?” Assistant District Attorney Shannon Crake asked Menichini.

I find the ADA’s attitude here more than a bit disconcerting. It is not her place to evaluate the man’s chosen means of self-defense. What he had available is a pistol, not pepper spray. I think pepper spray is a wise choice, but it’s a choice. Does she really expect him to carry a shovel with him? To search frantically on the ground for a stick big enough for self-defense? Sorry Ms. Crake the statute itself says “A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degreeÂ if he willfully and maliciously kills, maims or disfigures any domestic animalÂ of another person or any domestic fowl of another person.” The key words here is “maliciously” which means the actor would need to be acting with malice. If this is a case of self-defense, that’s not a malicious act and not animal cruelty. There very well may be facts not reported here that would indicate malice on the part of the actor, but from this article, it looks like the ADA is more interested in second guessing the means of self-defense the actor had available and used, rather than making an argument for willful malice on the part of the actor.

Locking Up Straw Purchasers

While Â leading Democratic candidates for Governor in Pennsylvania are busy with the same old tired solutions to gun violence, namely passing more laws that restrict the law abiding, Tom Corbett is actually out there locking up straw purchasers using the laws we already have. We support Attorney General Corbett in this effort, and believe this is the way you fight straw purchasing.

When meat thermometers are outlawed …

… you can guess the rest. Thank God for California’s strict gun laws preventing this man from getting a gun. Someone could have gotten hurt.

More on the UMass Student

Given that he reports he disposed of the firearm with New Hampshire police, it would seem that he might not be in trouble based on what the law actually says. In this case we’re talking about 18 USC 922(a)(3) which states that it shall be unlawful:

(3)Â for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

So it does seem that he’s in the clear if he legally disposed of the firearm in New Hampshire. The question I would have is whether he disposed of it legally. It gets complicated that he’s a Massachusetts resident transferring a gun in New Hampshire, because for that we have 18 USC 922(a)(5):

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

He turned it into the police, but I would note the police are not a federally licensed dealer or collector. Ironically, he would probably have been in the clear completely had he just sold the gun to an FFL the next day at a gun show. For the act of purchasing the firearm, it would appear this student committed no crime, but the act of turning it into the police may have itself been a federal crime, since the police do not hold a federal firearms license, and are not residents of Massachusetts.

But I think that’s being hyper-technical. I doubt you’ll see any prosecution because the kid transferred it to police, even if it violated a technical letter of the law.

UPDATE: As a commenter points out, the definition of “person” in 18USC921 doesn’t include state agencies, like local police, only individuals, and a few other corporate entities. So there was no crime here.

More Justice

One of the Sea Shepherd crew was captured by the Japanese after illegally boarding one of the whaling vessels. Apparently he was the guy who lent the crew the three million dollar boat that sank in the Antarctic seas.

I hope the Japanese whalers take him back to Japan and try him for piracy.

How About Some Prosecution?

This Umass student committed a federal crime, namely buying a long gun out of state in a private sale. While you may buy long guns out of state in from a federally licensed dealer, any transfer between non-licenees has to happen through an FFL if the residents are of a different state.

If I did this, and bragged about it here, I’d get busted. Let’s see some justice. Ironically, the person who sold him the gun did not commit a felony, since he did not know he sold a gun to someone who wasn’t a New Hampshire resident. But the student here most definitely did commit a felony.

So what was that again about weak gun laws?

UPDATE: I should note this is a bit of “trying to make a point.” Â I actually don’t think this kid’s life ought to be ruined because he violated an unjust law. What I’d like him to do is recognize the law is unjust. I do not think the US Attorney for Massachusetts should treat him any differently than he would any other gun owner in Massachusetts, but I think offering a plea deal to avoid jail time would be fair. He’ll have a federal gun felony on his record, but hey, I don’t make the laws, you know.

UPDATE: Also notice in the video he freely admits that no one would sell him a handgun. The best he managed is a break action double barrel bird gun.

UPDATE: Maybe not a crime. Some more confusion over our federal gun laws that ordinary people with no legal training are expected to follow or face multi-year prison sentences from the felony rap. Still want to argue that guns aren’t regulated enough Mr. Daniel Entrinkin?

Breaking and Entering

It would seem the police have a program to do this in the UK, and end up scolding the homeowner for bad security practices.

It Takes Some Nerve

The Philadelphia Inquirer is noting the growing momentum of the anti-gun movement in Pennsylvania, and taking shots at the only man who ever went after straw purchasers in a big way in Philadelphia: Tom Corbett.

So they are willing to cast aside someone who’s actually tried to do something about criminal misuse of firearms, by actually prosecuting criminals, and advocate replacing that person with someone who will just pass more laws the City won’t bother to enforce. Brilliant!