17 yo UK boy charged with terrorism for having book

[Stumpy 256]

John - for once we agree 100% - and i'm pretty glad about that.
And well played to the police on this one.

Now back to that gun thing (I kid i kid!!)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[ExAFO 0]

When my friend's tomcat was fixed, he lost his nuts.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

The law is all about intent. It's not that one is forbidden to possess individually-legal items which might be combined to form an explosive; it's that one is forbidden to possess those components with the intent that they be combined to form an explosive.

So in your garage, you possess some fertilizer you bought legally at the farm store, some ordinary diesel fuel, a bunch of small firecrackers (small enough to be legal in your state - as long as you don't break them open to harvest the contents), some legal model rocket engines, some legal coated-filament igniters for the model rockets, and some flashlight batteries.

.

Right now posession of model rocket engines with more than 62g of propellant is illegal** even if your intent is to just make a model rocket.

** If you get a federal "explosives license", a FBI background check, are fingerprinted, and sign away your rights "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", and have a fully armored magazine, you MAY possess a model rocket engine with 63g of propellant.

Edited to add, 63g is just over 2 ounces.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The book by itself should be okay. But if you're found possessing odd substances that are in the ingredient list for a bomb in the book, then 2 + 2 = 4, and should deservedly be real trouble...

So, then, are you a propoent of kicking kids out of school for drawing pictures of soldiers, or talking about their dad's gun collection, too? it's very analogous

No, it's not analogous. There's nothing illegal about being a soldier, or drawing them. There's also nothing illegal about owning guns, or talking about them.

I'm surprised that you would consider such things the equivalent of plotting to make a terrorist bomb. That could explain a lot about your illogical postings on the war and on guns...

[rehmwa 2]

That could explain a lot about your illogical postings on the war and on guns...

since you and I are pretty well lock step in agreement about guns.....

why do you consider your own position on guns to be illogical?

(I have no idea about your position on the war. Nor do I suspect you have any idea of mine)

edit: My analogy stands. Owning a book is not a crime. Owning 'household' goods is not a crime. Without proof of intent, owning Both is not a crime. You aren't adding up "2+2" you are adding up 2 + dog.

One cannot be selective about personal freedoms. We have to be behind all of them. Liberals pick and choose which freedoms they want to defend - or even are sporadic on when they support particular ones.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The law is all about intent. It's not that one is forbidden to possess individually-legal items which might be combined to form an explosive; it's that one is forbidden to possess those components with the intent that they be combined to form an explosive.

So in your garage, you possess some fertilizer you bought legally at the farm store, some ordinary diesel fuel, a bunch of small firecrackers (small enough to be legal in your state - as long as you don't break them open to harvest the contents), some legal model rocket engines, some legal coated-filament igniters for the model rockets, and some flashlight batteries.

.

Right now posession of model rocket engines with more than 62g of propellant is illegal** even if your intent is to just make a model rocket.

** If you get a federal "explosives license", a FBI background check, are fingerprinted, and sign away your rights "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", and have a fully armored magazine, you MAY possess a model rocket engine with 63g of propellant.

Edited to add, 63g is just over 2 ounces.

Part of the reason why my "J" motor capable rocket sits unfinished. That, and I didn't buy the altimeter yet.......

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The law is all about intent. It's not that one is forbidden to possess individually-legal items which might be combined to form an explosive; it's that one is forbidden to possess those components with the intent that they be combined to form an explosive.

So in your garage, you possess some fertilizer you bought legally at the farm store, some ordinary diesel fuel, a bunch of small firecrackers (small enough to be legal in your state - as long as you don't break them open to harvest the contents), some legal model rocket engines, some legal coated-filament igniters for the model rockets, and some flashlight batteries.

.

Right now posession of model rocket engines with more than 62g of propellant is illegal** even if your intent is to just make a model rocket.

** If you get a federal "explosives license", a FBI background check, are fingerprinted, and sign away your rights "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", and have a fully armored magazine, you MAY possess a model rocket engine with 63g of propellant.

Edited to add, 63g is just over 2 ounces.

Part of the reason why my "J" motor capable rocket sits unfinished. That, and I didn't buy the altimeter yet.......

It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.