General Bill by Infrastructure and Security and Stargel (CO-SPONSORS) Hutson
Threats: Prohibiting threats to use, including future threats to use, a firearm or weapon with specified intent; prohibiting a person from threatening the future throwing, projecting, placing, or discharging of any destructive device with specified intent; prohibiting a person from making a false report with specified intent concerning the current or future placing or planting of any bomb, dynamite, other deadly explosive, or weapon of mass destruction or concerning the current or future use of a firearm in a violent manner against a person or persons, etc.
Read the Updated Text of the Bill.
The initial text did not have an exception for defensive use of a firearm and it was added later.
What worries me is what will a Prosecutor or Detective interpret as reasonable. Sometimes our humor does not translate well with others and specially in the webs and somebody with a political axe to grind can use this law to shut down a politically troublesome element.
I also understand that one of the tools of terrorism and other assorted assholes is the threat of a mass shooting to create panic in the populace. I believe this bill if approved will generate one of those “Defendant Zero” cases that Jon Gutmacher talks about.
I may start to side against this bill in the future.
Acceptable?
If you have to ponder the question, it probably isn’t.
Just a rule of thumb.
This is one of those bills that I can see both sides of the issue, but the wording is making me uneasy
I’ll say what I said last time, what is a “future threat”? All threats are about the future.
There must be a legal definition or they wouldn’t use the extra word. (maybe I’m being too rational – these are lawyers, after all)
Then they throw in another pound of word salad about “destructive devices”, “bomb, dynamite, other deadly explosive, or weapon of mass destruction” and a bunch of other stuff that makes virtually no sense to me. Weapon of mass destruction?
It seems to be aimed at anyone who threatens to blow up something. “I’m going to nuke the bridge on Tuesday” sounds like what it’s meant to address. That’s not already illegal?
Not with firearms.