speech + action

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

Tim May <tcmay at got.net> wrote :

>Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so 
>far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary 
>training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for 
>firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as 
>exceptions.)
>
You are right. Actual cases in which the bare-assed anti-paramilitary
training laws are applied are in short supply. Generally they are
associated with other infractions. Do note, however that there is a
consistent thread of discussing the speech and the act i.e. the
manual-based "training" regarding propane cylinders and the actual
posession of same. The separate items are not puniushable but together
seem to imply conspiracy to commit the act.

http://nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/bailhear.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/02/arizona.militia/

>Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case.
>
Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and
unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the
purpose of spicing up the case.

>No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has 
>this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of 
>many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other 
>alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, 
>etc.
>
You are absolutely right.

Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government
*has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed,
this degree of power is something for which they reach. 

Mike