3 ms·

I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment r

I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right. I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law. I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite

refurb 6y ago
Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp. And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions. So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest. Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  So, let's say it's a Tannerite pipe bomb. Someone could be wandering around the protest exercising their 2nd amendment right with a Tannerite pipe bomb. I don't want to be anywhere near that guy because he's probably a little unhinged, but it's not something that would raise my eyebrows these days if I saw it on the news.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 >The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; I would argue that packing tannerite into a capped pipe turns it into a grenade or bomb, and thus a destructive device.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      Ok, fair enough. That's a good point. But, I'm not convinced because the pipe doesn't seem all that dissimilar to the 'target container' that the explosive is placed in prior to legal use. From the Tannerite website, these are the instructions for use: 1. Start by emptying the contents of the target into the mixing container. 2. Next, open the packet containing the catalyst and pour it into the mixing container. 3. Secure the lid and shake the container until you achieve a uniform color throughout the mixture. 4. Then pour the combined mixture back into the target container until it completely fills the target container then secure the lid. 5. Always place Tannerite® Brand targets at least 100 yards away from the shooter and/or spectators. https://tannerite.com/binary-target-faq/ https://tannerite.com/binary-target-faq/ What is the difference between a capped pipe and the 'target container?' Legally, what makes the leap from legal, to 'destructive device.'
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        IANAL: What I've heard is that according to the government unmixed tannerite is 'not an explosive' but once you mix it, it becomes an explosive. And you need permits and licensing to transport or store an explosive, but not to make (mix) it and use it immediately. You can't mix it at home, put it in your car, then drive to the gun range to use it. However I would expect the feds to find a way to charge you if they found unmixed tannerite and pipebomb parts in your backpack.. maybe constructive intent? I would hope so anyway.
        phobosanomaly 6y ago
        That's a great point. I didn't take into account the legal consideration of intent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent So, I guess if the FBI knew hypothetical pipe bomber was around, they would arrest him. If it was the FBI, and they were looking for him specifically, they would most likely have sufficient additional evidence to prove intent. This is because he would have had to get on their radar somehow, and however that happened would likely supply sufficient evidence to prove intent. Local police would have to take a different approach, since they would have a much more difficult time proving intent. If they just arrested some random guy with tannerite and a pipe, the prosecutor would then have to go out and construct a case for intent from scratch.

refurb 6y ago

Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp. And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions. So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest. Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
So, let's say it's a Tannerite pipe bomb. Someone could be wandering around the protest exercising their 2nd amendment right with a Tannerite pipe bomb. I don't want to be anywhere near that guy because he's probably a little unhinged, but it's not something that would raise my eyebrows these days if I saw it on the news.
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 >The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; I would argue that packing tannerite into a capped pipe turns it into a grenade or bomb, and thus a destructive device.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Ok, fair enough. That's a good point. But, I'm not convinced because the pipe doesn't seem all that dissimilar to the 'target container' that the explosive is placed in prior to legal use. From the Tannerite website, these are the instructions for use: 1. Start by emptying the contents of the target into the mixing container. 2. Next, open the packet containing the catalyst and pour it into the mixing container. 3. Secure the lid and shake the container until you achieve a uniform color throughout the mixture. 4. Then pour the combined mixture back into the target container until it completely fills the target container then secure the lid. 5. Always place Tannerite® Brand targets at least 100 yards away from the shooter and/or spectators. https://tannerite.com/binary-target-faq/ https://tannerite.com/binary-target-faq/ What is the difference between a capped pipe and the 'target container?' Legally, what makes the leap from legal, to 'destructive device.'
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      IANAL: What I've heard is that according to the government unmixed tannerite is 'not an explosive' but once you mix it, it becomes an explosive. And you need permits and licensing to transport or store an explosive, but not to make (mix) it and use it immediately. You can't mix it at home, put it in your car, then drive to the gun range to use it. However I would expect the feds to find a way to charge you if they found unmixed tannerite and pipebomb parts in your backpack.. maybe constructive intent? I would hope so anyway.
      - phobosanomaly 6y ago
        That's a great point. I didn't take into account the legal consideration of intent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent So, I guess if the FBI knew hypothetical pipe bomber was around, they would arrest him. If it was the FBI, and they were looking for him specifically, they would most likely have sufficient additional evidence to prove intent. This is because he would have had to get on their radar somehow, and however that happened would likely supply sufficient evidence to prove intent. Local police would have to take a different approach, since they would have a much more difficult time proving intent. If they just arrested some random guy with tannerite and a pipe, the prosecutor would then have to go out and construct a case for intent from scratch.