3 ms·

> The real criminal in this case is feds depriving fundamental civil rights under color of law. The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of

by neilv 2y ago

> The real criminal in this case is feds depriving fundamental civil rights under color of law. The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of pipe bombs and other explosives, with plausible domestic terrorism intent or inclinations. The Second Amendment technicality you mention might come up in a legal defense, but I don't understand fixating on that as "the real criminal" here -- on a story of securing a very dangerous-sounding cache of pipe bombs, mishandled explosive material, etc.

ty6853 2y ago
The actual charge here is a tax violation (failure to buy a stamp for a short barrel rifle). Not paying $200 in NFA taxes. The precedent is based on a lie the gov itself accidently violated during surplus sales to the public. The precedent exists because the Supreme Court took up a case against a dead guy with no representation, as a poison pill. The state argued the military didn't use short barrel arms, which was a lie. No defense was there to contest it, and this it is now binding on total fiction. Of course the most hilarious part is 'short barrel' anything was just a measure to ban pistols, which congress changed their mind on last minute and allowed pistols while forgetting to nix the law on creating pistols from long arms. This guy is charged for essentially violating a historical vestigial accident upheld by bogus precedent against an undefended dead guy.
- neilv 2y ago
  There could be an interesting meta discussion here, of the kind that doesn't usually happen recently. IIUC, you're focusing on that 2A aspect because it's a topic that you know and care about, and think needs to be mentioned? And the other aspects of the story were already being discussed, and you had nothing to add on those? If so, did you say "the real criminal" only as a figure of speech? Or do you think that nothing about the pipe bombs, etc., was criminal?
  - snypher 2y ago
    Just to be clear, he was charged with a single firearms offense, and is presumed innocent of that. If other charges appear then they should be discussed. >do you think that nothing about the pipe bombs, etc., was criminal? Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Just like when someone is reported as having "an encrypted messing app" - fear mongering nonsense.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - neilv 2y ago
      > If other charges appear then they should be discussed. The HN post is on the news story. The news story is not a trial, and is about more than whatever charges are filed against anyone thus far. Other aspects of the story are already in active discussion. I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. > Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Does it actually seem like that, or does it seem like probably the FBI expects that there will probably be additional charges?
      - simoncion 2y ago
        > I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. You said: > The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of pipe bombs and other explosives, with plausible domestic terrorism intent or inclinations. > The Second Amendment technicality you mention might come up in a legal defense, but I don't understand fixating on that as "the real criminal" here -- on a story of securing a very dangerous-sounding cache of pipe bombs, mishandled explosive material, etc. Your slant there is that this fellow's possession of explosives was illegal... or maybe SHOULD have been. If it was even vaguely-plausibly illegal, the fellow would have been charged. The cops searched his entire place and detonated some of his explosives, so it's not like the cops were unaware of the explosives. As mentioned in this thread [0] (and accompanying subthread), he's just being charged with a tax violation (and is currently out on bail) probably because possession of high explosives is usually entirely legal in the US. Frankly, it should be illegal for police and other similar government agents to engage in character assassination. Statements from government agents like "This fellow was in possession of large-but-entirely-legal quantities of entirely-legal substances and materials. Be very afraid!" should absolutely leave the speaker personally liable for something akin to libel. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969>
- sleepybrett 2y ago
  let me introduce you to the 'superseding indictment'. They charged him with the easiest thing. They'll follow it up later.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Illegal explosives are also usually NFA tax violations, fwiw.
ungreased0675 2y ago
The domestic terror intent seems like a real stretch. Guns, grenades and explosives are legal, if you do the right paperwork. This guy is being charged with not doing the right paperwork, with a bunch of inflammatory right-wing memes stacked on top.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  Right, you could find memes from just about anyone and paint an extremist picture with the right context left in or out at your discretion. I think that it's clear this wasn't the "credible" threat implied, simply by his bail.

by neilv 2y ago

ty6853 2y ago

The actual charge here is a tax violation (failure to buy a stamp for a short barrel rifle). Not paying $200 in NFA taxes. The precedent is based on a lie the gov itself accidently violated during surplus sales to the public. The precedent exists because the Supreme Court took up a case against a dead guy with no representation, as a poison pill. The state argued the military didn't use short barrel arms, which was a lie. No defense was there to contest it, and this it is now binding on total fiction. Of course the most hilarious part is 'short barrel' anything was just a measure to ban pistols, which congress changed their mind on last minute and allowed pistols while forgetting to nix the law on creating pistols from long arms. This guy is charged for essentially violating a historical vestigial accident upheld by bogus precedent against an undefended dead guy.

neilv 2y ago
There could be an interesting meta discussion here, of the kind that doesn't usually happen recently. IIUC, you're focusing on that 2A aspect because it's a topic that you know and care about, and think needs to be mentioned? And the other aspects of the story were already being discussed, and you had nothing to add on those? If so, did you say "the real criminal" only as a figure of speech? Or do you think that nothing about the pipe bombs, etc., was criminal?
- snypher 2y ago
  Just to be clear, he was charged with a single firearms offense, and is presumed innocent of that. If other charges appear then they should be discussed. >do you think that nothing about the pipe bombs, etc., was criminal? Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Just like when someone is reported as having "an encrypted messing app" - fear mongering nonsense.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - neilv 2y ago
    > If other charges appear then they should be discussed. The HN post is on the news story. The news story is not a trial, and is about more than whatever charges are filed against anyone thus far. Other aspects of the story are already in active discussion. I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. > Seems like the FBI don't, for now. Does it actually seem like that, or does it seem like probably the FBI expects that there will probably be additional charges?
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > I'm trying to get at more substantial discussion than on Twitter, by understanding why someone was speaking the way they were, by asking them. You said: > The allegation is that this person made a veritable arsenal of pipe bombs and other explosives, with plausible domestic terrorism intent or inclinations. > The Second Amendment technicality you mention might come up in a legal defense, but I don't understand fixating on that as "the real criminal" here -- on a story of securing a very dangerous-sounding cache of pipe bombs, mishandled explosive material, etc. Your slant there is that this fellow's possession of explosives was illegal... or maybe SHOULD have been. If it was even vaguely-plausibly illegal, the fellow would have been charged. The cops searched his entire place and detonated some of his explosives, so it's not like the cops were unaware of the explosives. As mentioned in this thread [0] (and accompanying subthread), he's just being charged with a tax violation (and is currently out on bail) probably because possession of high explosives is usually entirely legal in the US. Frankly, it should be illegal for police and other similar government agents to engage in character assassination. Statements from government agents like "This fellow was in possession of large-but-entirely-legal quantities of entirely-legal substances and materials. Be very afraid!" should absolutely leave the speaker personally liable for something akin to libel. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42562969>
sleepybrett 2y ago
let me introduce you to the 'superseding indictment'. They charged him with the easiest thing. They'll follow it up later.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Illegal explosives are also usually NFA tax violations, fwiw.

ungreased0675 2y ago

The domestic terror intent seems like a real stretch. Guns, grenades and explosives are legal, if you do the right paperwork. This guy is being charged with not doing the right paperwork, with a bunch of inflammatory right-wing memes stacked on top.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
Right, you could find memes from just about anyone and paint an extremist picture with the right context left in or out at your discretion. I think that it's clear this wasn't the "credible" threat implied, simply by his bail.