California Man Had Bomb Factory In His Home, Say Prosecutors
Okay, first off, why wasn't isn't there a charge for the gardener he blew up? I can totally understand the bank robbery charge, but why no attempted manslaughter/depraved indifference/anything to do with the carelessness that could have cost someone their life? As for the explosives, while I understand that it is illegal, it shouldn't be. When you can drive up to any petroleum distribution center in America and buy an extremely flammable liquid capable of causing explosions all on its own, isn't it a little silly to regulate solid explosives? Not to mention that you can buy 20 pounds of propane with nothing more than a simple Andrew Jackson...A California man accused of robbing banks and assembling what may be the largest cache of homemade explosives ever found in the U.S. was ordered held on $5 million bail Monday.
George Djura Jakubec, a 54-year-old unemployed software engineer, pleaded not guilty to two bank robbery charges, 12 felony counts of possessing destructive devices and 14 counts of possessing ingredients to make destructive devices. He faces up to 40 years in prison.
It's just so arbitrary, I think that's my big problem with it. We have such a hard-on for solid explosives yet there are dozens if not hundreds of other items that can cause similar destruction that you can purchase without a second thought. 50 grams of PETN is a federal felony; 20 pounds of C3H8 and no one bats an eye. You put PETN, RDX, styrene, butadiene, n-octyl phthalate, and n-phenyl-2-naphthylamine together and you're going to jail; you mix 4-8% alkanes; 2-5% alkenes; 25-40% isoalkanes; 3-7% cycloalkanes; l-4% cycloalkenes; and 20-50% total aromatics (0.5-2.5% benzene) and you're going to the mall.
Now, granted, once you start getting to the point that you're knocking over banks to support your explodey addiction, it's time for the authorities to come find you and fix what ails you. But is there a significant difference between someone that stockpiles explosives and someone that has 25 ARs and 10,000 rounds in magazines? We have someone in our community who works with explosives somewhat extensively and has yet to harm anyone (except perhaps the feelings of Sarah Brady et al). Many of us have gun collections that would induce absolute PSH in the media - heck, a good chunk of us carry at least one of those guns with us when we're out and about around town!
As long as your actions aren't hurting anyone else, it's hard to see why they should be illegal - because something might happen if someone decides to break numerous other laws is a poor reason to ban something from possession.
That is all.
8 comments:
Just like the TSA has beclowned itself by focusing on things instead of people.
For some reason prohibitionists like to ban things instead of focusing on the people that commit crimes.
No honest man needs a shaped charge larger than a canned ham...
I always like to have some joy by messing with the hypocrisy promulgated by the Antis. It's fun to watch them jump through hoops when I tell them that Automobiles (a tool) should be banned because some drunk driver may get on the road and kill someone. After all, I argue, it takes a conscious choice to get behind the wheel of a car and head on down the road. Yet these tools cause 2-3 times the carnage and deaths than all the firearms fatalities in the U.S. every year. When they say that people need to have cars to get around, I like to watch their blood pressure rise when I say that "No, driving is a Privilege. There is no inherent right to drive. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that it is not a Right. In fact, the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used many times to impose rules on the Automobile Industry because there is no Right to Drive. However, there is a RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms in the Constitution. So, as far as Dangerous Tools that need to be Banned (if we are into Banning), your car needs to hauled away and scrapped before my 12 gauge under the argument of YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHY, because there is no Right to Drive in this country".
I hope one day that when I say that to one of the Antis ( I try to get to the University Instructors, the students on my campus are too dumb to carry a thought that far along), that their pointy heads will explode. But it is fun to watch them turn Beet Red and start to yell and spit why they try to talk. Try it sometime, Jay, the next time you run into some Commies around Cambridge. Have a Happy Turkey Day!
I think I have an arsenal in my office as I write this...
"Okay, first off, why wasn't isn't there a charge for the gardener he blew up?"
Give it time. I don't know for sure since I ain't a lawyer (nor would I ever want to be), but my guess based on a layman's understanding of the relevant law is that all the charges listed in the article -- bank robbery, possession of explosives, etc. -- are _federal_ charges. Since the gardener wasn't a federal employee, any charges stemming from his injuries would be _state_ charges, and would be filed in state court.
You and Joe Huffman should never be left alone in the same room.
Its funny how knowledge is the most dangerous thing there is.
Bubblehead Les - interesting points you make. Unfortunately, here's what the supreme Court said:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929
And yet we're told driving is a 'privilege' for which we give implied consent to DUI testing and so forth.
Post a Comment