J.D. Tuccille Discusses Guns on HuffPo Live

I was on HuffPo Live to chat about "the gun culture and gun control laws in the United States vs. those in other countries." Fellow guests were Daniel Fisher, Senior Editor of Forbes Media, and Christina Wilkie, National Reporter for the Huffington Post. Moderating it all and keeping the discussion flowing was Alyona Minkovski. It's a hot-button issue, and I think we kept things interesting. Speaking of the gun issue, I've touched upon it a few times in the past:

You can view the conversation, which runs about half an hour, below.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the gun culture and gun control laws in the United States vs. those in other countries

    Culture has nothing to do with it. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural extension of the right to self-defense. Force the gun grabbers to argue against self-defense rather than silly shit like magazines and what color a firearm can be.

  • KPres||

    Anyone else find it interesting they think find the BLACK guns scary? Paint your ARs white and you'd never hear a peep about them.

  • Guy Laguy||

    or pink?

  • Walter Labat||

    like Christopher implied I am inspired that someone able to earn $4493 in one month on the internet. have you seen this website... http://www.snag4.com

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    J.D. Tuccille Talks about Himself in Third Person

    Why Does Anybody Need an Assault Weapon? Because They Want It.

    Heads will explode over at Huffpo if you try selling that one.

  • benji||

    How dare you joke about such a thing when it comes to guns:

    I accidentally killed my best friend when I was 15. Shot my best friend of eight years a week before we started high school. I was sitting in his room holding his rifle across my legs as he talked about how he had looked it up in some collectors guide and it was worth more than when he got it (Christmas or birthday or something). All the sudden there was a gigantic explosion and the rifle flew off my legs and I looked over as my friend fell over holding his gut and the whole world was tinted a hazy red.


    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a.....ords_1.php

  • DaveSs||

    When you examine the details of this kind of situation you inevitably find a couple violations of the basic rules of safe gun handling.

    Its not like these are complicated rules even.

  • benji||

    From Marshall's piece:

    I also have a random and kind of scary experience from childhood. I’m probably or 4 or maybe 5 years old. We’re visiting someone’s house in St. Louis where we lived at the time. I’m off in some part of the house away from the parents playing with the little girl my age in the family. And I see a gun. Looks like a rifle or shotgun (I was too young to know which.) I pick it up, aim at the little girl and jokingly go ‘pow!’. And when I say ‘go pow!’ I mean I said ‘pow!’

    But that’s when things got weird. Basically all the blood ran out of this little girl’s face at once, which was totally weird to me. And she said in something like shock, that’s a real gun.
  • ||

    The best thing is if you wanted to drastically reduce shooting accidents, teach all children the gun handling rules. Practice with toy guns. But as we all know, such a proposal would be met with squeals of horror and terror, because it's not about safety, it's about power and control, and taking away something that your perceived cultural enemies want.

  • Virginian||

    The best thing is if you wanted to drastically reduce shooting accidents, teach all children the gun handling rules. Practice with toy guns.

    Pshhh next thing you know you'll be saying the best way to keep kids from drowning is to teach them to swim.

    Ignorance is strength. The Party told me so.

  • ||

    if you wanted to drastically reduce shooting accidents, teach all children the gun handling rules

    You think they really want fewer dead children? Really? And even if they did, they certainly wouldn't be willing to pay such a high price as that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Depends on the age. Young children won't reliably understand the rules, which contrary to what many think are NOT that simple. For example, the first rule is "keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction". But what's a safe direction? It depends on where you are. An older kid can be taught to think about it in abstract spatial terms, as adults must. A young kid, who thinks standing in a corner with hands covering their eyes constitutes "hiding", not so much.

    I'm with the NRA on that issue; young kids should only be taught to stay away from the gun and tell an adult.

  • ||

    Three or four. The old man sits me down in front of the hallway closet. This is my rifle. It's not to be feared but it is not a toy. You are not allowed to touch it without me present. Mishandling a gun could result in a terrible accident. You could hurt or kill mommy or your baby brother. How would you feel if something like that happened?

    The 4 y/o FdA gets tears in his eyes and walks away from the conversation, after a hug from father FdA, with great respect for the proper handling of firearms. I didn't touch it for years when I was taught how to properly handle it.

    Kids "get it". You just gotta man up and be a parent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, at that level, yeah. But those aren't the gun handling rules, those are the staying away from guns rules.

  • ||

    Yep, I agree. Kids don't need to know anything more until they start handling them. And the BB gun needs to be treated with the same respect as any gun. That's when you drive it home.

    BB gun around 8ish.

    .22 10ish

    Hunting guns 11-12ish.

    Pistols 15-17ish.

  • Hyperion||

    I had my first rifle at 7. When I was 6, my friends and I were in the woods shooting each other with BB guns. I've been shot with BB guns so many times that I lost track.

    I own a pellet gun today that will easily kill a small mammal with a well placed shot, and it looks like an AR-15. With a really well placed shot, it would probably kill larger mammals. I bought it to scare deers out of my garden out of season. You can hear it when it punctures their hide, and they move it on down the road. Very effective.

  • Chris Mallory||

    My 7 yo daughter is trying to decide between a bolt action .22 w/pink stock or the break action .22/.410 combo. She is leaning toward the combo so she can get the shotgun barrel too.

    She does know the safety rules. She understands you do not point a gun at any thing you are not wanting to destroy.

  • KPres||

    The best thing is if you wanted to drastically reduce shooting accidents, teach all children the gun handling rules.

    Same reason they don't teach finance in high schools....if things get better they lose their grip on the controls.

  • tarran||

    The best thing is if you wanted to drastically reduce shooting accidents, teach all children the gun handling rules. Practice with toy guns

    I tried that, and it didn't work too well. the kids now the difference and still pretend to shoot each other. On the other hand, I've noticed they don't keep their fingers on the triggers of their toy guns until they are ready to fire.

    BTW the stink eye I got from a neighbor when my daughter and I went "hunting" with a toy shotgun was fun.

  • SweatingGin||

    College roommate introduced me to guns. Drilled the rules of safety into my head.

    I can't pick up a gun without checking if it is loaded. Or hand one to someone else without checking loaded status, probably in a way they can see.

  • DaveSs||

    I'm the same way.

    You hand me a firearm, I clear it, even if I just watched you clear it.

    Even after I've personally cleared it, I'm still not pointing it at anyone.

  • Virginian||

    You ever see Tremors where Burt hands that punk the empty revolver to get him moving? Get has the gun for like 30 seconds, and Burt handed it to him unloaded, but what does Burt do when he takes the weapon back....he flips open the cylinder and checks it.

    I'm the same way. Actually got pissed once when I was looking at a friends gun and he was all "It's not loaded, you don't need to check." Wrong. I do need to check. Because it's a half second process that will save you a lifetime of hurt.

  • SweatingGin||

    My college roommate was pretty much Burt.

    I'm th same way.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Guns are a lot like airplanes. You must run through the checklist every. single. time.

  • Nuked||

    Same here. I'm even hesitant on somebody handing me a gun with the action closed. I will always clear a gun when put in my hands.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    HM,

    Nice - I am going to use that one.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'll probably get flamed for this, but there's a point where verifying a gun is unloaded becomes religion/OCD. That's getting damn close to it. If you're following the muzzle direction and trigger guard rules, and not doing anything awkward with the gun or putting it in storage where the muzzle direction is going to be forgotten, there won't be a harmful discharge even if it is loaded.

  • SweatingGin||

    Of course muzzle and trigger guard matter.

    I look at it a lot as "I need to have positive control over the firearm", and part of that is knowing what state it is in.

    Granted, I also have to make myself look closely to be sure I'm not just opening the action and loading a round from the magazine (if tired or something)

    The nice thing is, if you treat every gun as if it is loaded, all the other rules are natural.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.22.13 @ 9:26PM |#
    "I'll probably get flamed for this, but there's a point where verifying a gun is unloaded becomes religion/OCD."

    Disagreed; it's habit.
    Work on vintage cars? Pull an aircleaner? Put a sock in it, NOW!

  • Coeus||

    I'll probably get flamed for this, but there's a point where verifying a gun is unloaded becomes religion/OCD. That's getting damn close to it.

    Too damn bad if it seems creepy to you. It's an important safety step. And here's why:

    If you're following the muzzle direction and trigger guard rules, and not doing anything awkward with the gun or putting it in storage where the muzzle direction is going to be forgotten,

    Yes, if you do, but how are you gonna be sure that the person you hand it to (or back to, if you're checking out someone else's piece) is going to follow all the rules? And by always checking, it becomes a habit. A habit that can not only save your life, but the lives of those around you. A habit that, if everyone had it, would prevent untold misery.

  • General Butt Naked||

    @coeus

    Agreed. I'm no safety sally, but a chamber check takes all of a half-second and, as you say, can save one a lot of trouble. Also, if it's an automatic reflex upon being handed a firearm, then you won't even be bothered by it.

  • JeremyR||

    I never find it amazing that one of the best portrayals of a gun enthusiast/nut was Burt, played by the same guy who was the proverbial baby-boomer hippie turned yuppie on Family Ties.

  • tarran||

    My dad had a friend he went to school with who blew his brains out fooling around with a gun he thought was unloaded.

    And, one of the guys on my carrier in the Navy came home to find his 11 year old son had bled to death in the bathroom after blowing open that artery that runs in your abdomen down to the femoral arteries. I'm 99% certain it was an accident. That guy was never right in the head after that.

  • Rasilio||

    General rule, all guns are loaded, even ones you personally unloaded and have not left your possession.

  • Hyperion||

    Strange, that story. Rifles that just suddenly explode. In all of my life I have never seen a rifle explode. Let alone one that explodes while just lying inanimate.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think the creative writer must've had a spontaneous, violent erection into the trigger guard that squeezed one off.

    You buy that?

  • Hyperion||

    No, but I am sure most proglodytes will buy it if it furthers their agenda.

  • juris imprudent||

    Josh Marshall's credulity is only exceeded by his cupidity.

  • KPres||

    [sad story]

    "I think limiting magazine size is the Holy Grail"

    1. Tell sad story.
    2. Draw conclusion that has nothing to do with said sad story.

    Nice formula. These people aren't driven by primitive emotional rhetoric, are they?

    I wonder what percent of murders actually involve more than a few rounds being fired? I bet its tiny.

  • Brendan||

    Few, if any, day-to-day killings.

    The mass shootings don't show it mattering either.

    The CT shooter apparently left half empty (of is it half full?) magazines all over.
    The Virginia Tech shooter brought dozens of magazines with him.

    The Aurora shooter brought other guns that he switched to when his rifle jammed.

  • ||

    One can only hope so.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I deserve a hat tip for that headline.

  • benji||

    Josh Marshall breaks down the facts about gun culture:

    I'm not a gun owner and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren't gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. And I have my own set of rights not to have gun culture run roughshod over me. . . .

    A huge amount of the current gun debate, the argument for the gun-owning tribe, amounts to the gun culture invading my area, my culture, my part of the country. . . .

    [An email from a "gun person"] captured a mentality that does seem pervasive among many more determined gun rights advocates--basically that us [sic] non-gun people need to be held down as it were and made to learn that it's okay being around people carrying loaded weapons.

    Well, I don't want to learn. That doesn't work where I live--geographically or metaphorically.
  • Anonymous Coward||

    Edited for LULZ:

    I'm not a gun owner homosexual and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren't gun owners homosexual, that means that for me guns buttsex are is alien. And I have my own set of rights not to have gun culture homosexuality run roughshod over me. . . .

    A huge amount of the current gun gay debate, the argument for the gun-owning homosexual tribe, amounts to the gun gay culture invading my area, my culture, my part of the country. . . .

    [An email from a "gun gay person"] captured a mentality that does seem pervasive among many more determined gun gay rights advocates--basically that us [sic] non-gun gay people need to be held down as it were and made to learn that it's okay being around people carrying loaded weapons PDAing other gays.

    Well, I don't want to learn. That doesn't work where I live--geographically or metaphorically.

    BIGOT!!!!

  • benji||

    There's already a few AMERICAN posters who post content like Marshall's on immigration threads regularly.

  • SIV||

    the NRA (that “responsible” lobbying group who has a repeat poacher and admitted pedophile on their Board)

    The Motor City Madman, Fuck Yeah!

    Great White Buffalo

  • Hyperion||

    the NRA (that “responsible” lobbying group who has a repeat poacher and admitted pedophile on their Board)

    Make that guy a congress critter with a D beside of his name, and all of the sudden you won't hear anything but crickets chirpin.

  • ||

    Uncle Ted is an admitted pedophile?

  • SIV||

    The Nuge is who the quote refers to.

    from wiki:

    In 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa. Due to the age difference they could not marry so Nugent joined Massa's parents in signing documents to make himself her legal guardian, an arrangement that Spin magazine ranked in October 2000 as #63 on their list of the "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wait, 17 year old girls is pedophilia? That's past the age of consent in most states.

    It is creepy to become a girl's legal guardian so you can screw her, but that's an impediment the law created.

  • KPres||

    When it's Ted Nugent rather than a creative genius like Roman Polanski.

  • Hyperion||

    Some of us consider Nugent more of a creative genius than Polanski.

    I remember listening to tunes like Snakeskin Cowboys, Motor City Madhouse, and Stranglehold on my way to work in the morning, as a young lad. Good old days...

  • Sevo||

    KPres| 1.22.13 @ 9:44PM |#
    "When it's Ted Nugent rather than a creative genius like Roman Polanski."

    And it sounds like Nugent didn't dope and pork here when she was comatose.
    Cue that asshat Goldberg to tell us it wasn't 'rape-rape'.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    So, that line about "pedophile" is defematory, as the age of consent in Hawaii is 16.

    Sleazy? Somewhat. Illegal? No.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Technically pedophilia isn't illegal so the age of consent isn't an issue. Though it really only applies to pre-pubescent objects of desire, certainly not 17 years old.

  • Sevo||

    Anonymous Coward| 1.22.13 @ 9:32PM |#
    "Sleazy? Somewhat."

    Why?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why?

    While I have no prejudice against picking up the barely legal, the whole matter of "mom and dad, would you be so kind as to sign these guardianship papers so I can stick it to your daughter?" appears to be a messy comingling of sex and legality and power with the potential for disatrous results.

  • Brendan||

    But only for a year.

    Think of it like waiting periods of 21 age restrictions-apparently it's OK to temporarily do bad things like violate rights.

  • Hopfiend||

    Wow, like a case study in logical fallacy.

  • Hyperion||

    I'm not sure why some still believe that there is any value at all in 'trying' to have a conversation with the proglodytes. I am way past giving up on that experiment in futility.

    Don't get me wrong, hats off to anyone who wants to try, but I don't think the results are going to be any different. And I believe that when we all finally realize that these people are so totally alien to any concept of liberty or freedom, and that there is about as much chance of changing their opinion through logical debate, as there is of teaching a cow how to do calculus, then that is when we finally give up this folly and decide on a strategy that will work.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I'm the same way. There's couple I know from a local hangout. She's one leftie talking point after another. She's always trying to bait me and I just ignore it because she's never going to get it so why frustrate myself. The guy's ok, he has a little bit of libertarian in him He at the very least recognizes that both parties suck.

  • Sam Grove||

    I once went through a libertarian point list with this young woman, and at the end she said: "I agree with everything you say, but I disagree with you."

  • Sevo||

    Sam Grove| 1.22.13 @ 9:19PM |#
    "I once went through a libertarian point list with this young woman, and at the end she said: "I agree with everything you say, but I disagree with you.""

    Yep.
    'You mean you're *SERIOUS* about people being free? I thought that was just some idea or other...'
    pathetic; see resident shithead.

  • mr simple||

    Yeah, I oncd explained real libertarianism to a couple lefties who thought they had it figured out. The guy said "You're libertopia sounds great and I would like to live there, but I don't think it will work." His solution, of course, was more government control. They don't believe freedom will work.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's an understandable attitude, particularly for young inexperienced people. There's no obvious reason why a libertarian society should work. It's a very counterintuitive thing to get your head around.

    Particularly for young middle/upper class people, whose life experience consists solely of having everything provided for them by their parents in return for following rules, it's sensible to think that there has to be a provider and a rulemaker for society in general as well, which they identify as government (what else could it be?). Libertarianism smacks of wishful thinking that everything will magically work out to such "realists".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Besides they've spent 12+ years in socialist indoctrination camps with limited outside experience.

  • Brendan||

    I get a lot of 'maybe it would work if things were better' or (the absurd) 'if things were perfect'.

    I reply that things aren't better because we haven't tried it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Seriously, that's precisely what the leftie blogosphere and MSNBC etc have become. Talking point dissemination networks.

  • Guy Laguy||

    so like FoxNews but in reverse

  • Anonymous Coward||

    FNC is generally a red meat trough for the neocon/socon set, but it features Megyn Kelly's legs so I can forgive them some of their crimes.

    MSNBC exposes you to toxic levels of smugdouche in an hour or less.

  • Sevo||

    And you get Maddows mug...........

  • juris imprudent||

    I do so only in the vain hope of causing sufficient cognitive dissonance to recreate a scene from Scanners.

    No luck yet.

  • waaminn||

    Dude makes a ll kinds of crazy sense to me man!

    www.PrivoWeb.tk

  • Guy Laguy||

    we need to do something about these illegal gunz!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The more I talk with leftie gun-grabbers, the closer I get to saying things like "I'm not half as scared of some nut with a gun as I am of a bunch of people like you who want to ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wherever they impede your political agenda." or "I don't own a gun, but when I talk to people like you who want to void Constitutional Rights in the name of The Children I start wanting an assault rifle to protect myself from YOU."

  • juris imprudent||

    Or as I refer to them power-mad-people-with-delusions-of-adequacy.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've been thinking lately about the so-called oratory genius of our Dear Leader, and wondering where this notion took hold. I've also been watching speeches given by others, whose power over words far exceed our bumbling president. One guy that has stood out is Charlton Heston. I've never really watched him speak before, and figured he was a kooky old salt; this I gathered from his popular reputation perpetrated by the media. But goddamn, that man can do some speechifying.

    An example.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not much empathy in that speech.

    And blued steel sucks.

  • juris imprudent||

    Obama isn't an orator. Put him on the floor of the House of Commons and he would quickly be relegated to the backbench. Only in this retarded country can a politician be considered a gifted speaker because someone else's words are being projected onto a teleprompter for him to deliver.

    Doomed - we are fucking dooooooooooooomed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What are those slanted things to Moses' right and left in the video GBN linked to called again?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Maybe you missed the "someone else's words" part.

  • Killazontherun||

    Don't know why a nurse would watch a damn hospital based melodrama, but the wife does. On the other side of the house. Went to retrieve something and glanced upon a scene. Got to ask, why doesn't anyone tell cancer chicks about the existence of wigs? Those knit caps are look horrible.

  • Killazontherun||

    Those knit caps are fucking disgusting [nix this you insensitive cad] look horrible.

  • Hyperion||

    Better yet if they smoke some available medical MJ to get the munchies and keep T&A intact. A hot body is much better than pretty hair.

  • Killazontherun||

    Well, if she ditches the stupid pride cap and keeps her hot bod, then she fulfill my Star Trek I fantasies.

  • Sevo||

    On topic, in case some of you missed it in the AM links:
    6 Years in the can for planning to build something scary:
    "6-year sentence for do-it-yourself AK-47"
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/.....211555.php
    I'm sure Feinstein is just thrilled!

  • General Butt Naked||

    DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!

    See what being a helpful citizen gets you.

  • Sevo||

    General Butt Naked| 1.22.13 @ 11:00PM |#
    "DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!"

    Agreed, but what is the safe response?
    'Ever hear of the 5th amendment?'
    'Talk to my lawyer.'
    'I refuse to answer.'
    'Nice day we're having, isn't it?'

  • ||

    I believe, "fuck off and die in a fire...pig" is the appropriate response. That or "come back when you've got a fucking warrant, oinker."

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!

    Part I
    Part II

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    sheisse

    part i

  • ||

    The Full Version, as well.

  • Killazontherun||

    Assembly instructions got that guy put away? Assembly instructions!?! I've got literally tens of thousands of pages worth of assembly instructions, diagrams and schematics of weapons for no other purpose beyond satisfying my curiosity. Why are we not in the middle of a citizen's revolt, again?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'd invest in a shredder if I were you...

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm sure it's a California thing. For the most part, these were purchased in retail gun shops around the state of NC. I don't see how if challenged, the Cali law passes Constitutional muster; if not classified information, which making an AK certainly is not, and not one of the clarified by case law designated exceptions like child porn than what is the basis?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Patent infringement?

  • Rasilio||

    No it was a convicted felon thing.

    The guy had his 2A rights revoked because he was a convicted felon.

    So because he had all of the components and the instruction manual it was inrepreted that he in effect had a gun in his possession which he was not legally allowed to possess on account of his being an ex con.

  • Hyperion||

    Why are we not in the middle of a citizen's revolt, again?

    We are, it's just that this democracy thing isn't working for us. The Democrats selectively bred sheeples, hold the voting bloc majority.

    And we need to undo 100+ years of stupid. That takes much patience.

  • juris imprudent||

    No, he plead guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He contested the manufacture count and lost - which all he needed was the [illegal in Californistan] receiver, the rest was window dressing.

  • Killazontherun||

    Just reading the text as written. Sounds like you have another source that better clarifies. Here, the instructions are central to the case.

    For a Southern California auto-shop owner, a box of rifle parts and a set of online instructions on how to assemble an AK-47 added up to six years in prison for attempted possession and manufacture of an assault weapon.

    As a state appeals court put it in upholding Tien Duc Nguyen's convictions, "Beware of the dangers of the Internet."

    Nguyen's case underscores the relative strictness of California's gun laws, which prohibit attempts to make or own a weapon that is legal in most states and is advertised, along with assembly instructions, on the Internet.

    . . . .

    In Nguyen's appeal, a gun-rights lawyer argued that California's ban on rapid-fire firearms, which prohibits "AK-47 series" rifles, applies only to weapons that are ready to fire and not to a collection of parts.

    But the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana said Nguyen had obtained all the parts and directions and had already started to put them together when he was interrupted.

    "Had the police not intervened, (Nguyen) would have completed the assembly and thereupon been in possession of an 'assault weapon,' " Justice Eileen Moore said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Friday.

  • juris imprudent||

    The actual ruling is linked in the article:

    He was convicted of attempted unlawful assault weapon activity and attempted possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subds. (a)(1), (b), repealed by Stats. 2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036). Defendant appeals. He insists the statutory scheme will not support a conviction until the AK-47 is fully assembled and enables the shooter to fire repeated shots without reloading manually. Defendant fails to distinguish between the violation of Penal Code former section 12280, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b),1 on the one hand, and the attempted violation of those statutes, on the other hand.

    So although the judges make cute about the Internet - that had nothing to do with the facts of the case or the law.

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I scanned the court case,

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opini.....046081.PDF

    and the instructions (as a criminal possession) indeed had no bearing on it. It was part of what made the cops suspicious of his intentions, but not part of the evidence used at trial, and that is a huge difference. His intent was inferred by physical modifications he made to the parts whose only purpose would have been assembly.

    To think, I almost started a blood thirsty revolution over a shoddily written report in a San Fransisco based rag. Oh, the irony. I am so ashamed!

  • wakeup||

    Prominent rifle manufacturer killed in mysterious car crash days after posting psych drug link to school shooters

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes man, you jsut gotta roll with the punches!

    www.Anon-123.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement