Monday, January 24, 2011

Um...

"Long time reader, first time emailer" Swarthington sends me the following head-scratcher from right here in MA:

Police: Abington man made bombs to clear snow
ABINGTON —An Abington man is being charged with creating bombs at his former address in Abington after police had been told the man was blowing up snow banks to avoid shoveling the snow.

Abington Police Chief David Majenski said Leo J. Powers, 23, with a last known address of 45 Margaret Road, Abington, is being charged with threats to commit a crime and possession of incendiary devices.

*shakes head*

It sounds like he was using smokeless powder to blow up the snowbanks around his house. Now, we certainly applaud his creativity - who needs a wimpy snowthrower when there's a better, more explodey solution - it's not the best idea anyone's ever had in the Volksrepublik, that's for damned sure. Even in the most permissive of areas, setting off explosions to avoid honest work is bound to be frowned upon.

And, of course, they revoked his firearms license - although in this case I think they had reason...

That is all.

15 comments:

Alan said...

Doesn't sound like a good reason to revoke his permit to me. Who did he hurt?

Irish said...

You guys might laugh or cringe at this, but one of the tenants in my building wanted to throw m80's up on the roof to move the snow... he's not a rocket surgeon thats for sure.

Jay G said...

Who did he hurt? No one, fortunately.

Something tells me it was pure luck, like the drunk who makes it home safely behind the wheel.

Something tells me that it was a lot more blind luck that prevented injury than any skill on the operator's part.

Is it worth losing a permit over? I don't know - hence the operative word "think" in my statement - but it's a damn sight more cause than "he wrote something we didn;t like"...

I probably should have said "in this case I think they had a better reason"...

TinCan Assassin said...

Not to mention all the rants that are bound to pop up about "gun-show loopholes" from the original article. Why, oh why did he have to say THAT?

ASM826 said...

The issue is not whether he should lose his permit, the issue is that there is a permitting system at all. The idea that I should have to prove my fitness to a government official to get permission for any of my rights is wrong as using homemade bombs to blow up snow.

bluesun said...

I find it most incredible that there is a gun owner in Massachusetts is so unaware of your general culture up there that he would even consider something like that.

Jay G said...

ASM826,

No argument here. None whatsoever.

Bluesun,

It happens more than you might think. I know people who shoot in their backyards (MA does not allow suppressors); which is technically legal (if you have the approval of all neighbors within a certain distance) but still not a fantastic idea as it may very well piss off the local PD...

A fair number of folks move into state either not realizing just how bad it is or thinking that it can't be as bad as everyone ways - only to find out that, yes, it *is* that bad - or worse...

Anonymous said...

In Oregon, this is the DOT's standard methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_whale

Not sure why the MA authorities are such wimps.

Samsam

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Alan: Maybe it's not a good reason by itself, but they have at least the lampshade that he is charged with a crime. If they're felonies, it's an even better excuse. Whether it should be a crime or not is another matter.

ASM286: Agreed, 100%. MA needs to lose the whole permitting system, or at an absolute minimum it needs to go to 'shall-issue' (for now) and then Jay and others can push to eliminate it entirely later.

Jay: The story doesn't say, but are those charges felonies or misdemeanors?

Jay G said...

Jake,

Really, who knows? The guy could have been igniting a thimble full of pyrodex - or using half a canister. I don't know what the penalty is for "explosive device" - but I would wager it would be a felony.

Ian Argent said...

Sorry - wait until he's a prohibited person before yanking his ability to legally possess; like what's going to happen when they convict him.

That having been said, as a condition of bail the judge might make him temporarily "prohibited". Same result, but more sound path constitutionally.

Phssthpok said...

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/01/23/

Anonymous said...

Gives the word "snowblower" a whole new meaning.

Stretch said...

Silly man. Snow is too fluid (yes, that's the word I want) to be effectively moved by explosives.
The answer?
Flamethrowers!

Anonymous said...

I've seen some "interesting" things done with explosives (as in, a the head of a police bomb squad, an oilfield firefighter and a couple of similar types looking a box of goodies and saying, "hey, what if we . . .") but blowing up snowdrifts? Waste of powder.

That said, I'm glad I live in a place where the state police and local cops said on the TV news that women traveling a certain stretch of road would be well advised to carry something because a rather nasty critter had slipped out of the county B&B.
LittleRed1