Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Friday February 17 2017, @11:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the courts-aren't-buying-it dept.

It's still illegal to manufacture firearms for others without a license.

A Sacramento, California man was sentenced Thursday to over three years in prison for unlawful manufacture of a firearm and one count of dealing firearms.

Last year, Daniel Crownshield, pleaded guilty to those counts in exchange for federal prosecutors dropping other charges. According to investigators, Crowninshield, known online as "Dr. Death," would sell unfinished AR-15 lower receivers, which customers would then pay for him to transform into fully machined lower receivers using a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill. (In October 2014, Cody Wilson, of Austin, Texas, who has pioneered 3D-printed guns, began selling a CNC mill called "Ghost Gunner," designed to work specifically on the AR-15 lower.)

"In order to create the pretext that the individual in such a scenario was building his or her own firearm, the skilled machinist would often have the individual press a button or put his or her hands on a piece of machinery so that the individual could claim that the individual, rather than the machinist, made the firearm," the government claimed in its April 14 plea agreement.

So, if he taught a class in how to do it would he also then be a criminal?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:16AM

    by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:16AM (#468537)

    How do you keep and bear something if you can't buy or make it in the first place? Also, as gun laws have been getting more permissive here crime rates have been dropping. Still sound crazy?

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:28AM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:28AM (#468542) Journal

    How do you keep and bear something if you can't buy or make it in the first place?

    How's that the problem of the lawmakers?
    This is a pretty common regulation tactic: you're allowed to possess something, but not to acquire it or create it yourself.

    Also, as gun laws have been getting more permissive here crime rates have been dropping. Still sound crazy?

    Call me when your crime rates start beating those of less weaponized countries.

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 18 2017, @07:38PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 18 2017, @07:38PM (#468695)

      The problem is that it was obviously the intent of the founders that the people be armed, in large part to keep the government in check. This is made plain if you read their letters. They made it clear that they expected another revolution to be needed eventually. One without the right to be armed is not truly free, and as someone who has never experienced freedom you cannot be expected to understand.

      Sneaky workarounds like banning manufacture or banning ammunition should be seen as the violations they truly are.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday February 18 2017, @08:01PM

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Saturday February 18 2017, @08:01PM (#468707) Journal

        Indeed, that is how I understood the common view of the intent of the 2nd amendment is indeed.
        Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the sneaky workarounds.
        In a case of blistering irony, getting rid of such sneaky workarounds will probably require a revolution.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:39PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:39PM (#468750) Journal

      You are being called.

      The crime rate in America is on par with the criem rate in Europe. That is, all of America, is roughly equal with all of Europe. The size of Europe and the US are roughly equal, the diversity of the populations of the US and Europe are roughly equal, and the crime rate is roughly equal.

      If you are going to cherry pick one, or five, or twelve countries within Europe with low crime rates, then I can do the same for the US. I can find one, or five, or twelve states or cities with very low crime rates.

      I am so very tired of people making the claim that the US should have the same crime rate as Country X, especially when we have counties larger than Country X. We have states as large as most countries in Europe.

      When we begin to compare apples to apples, the United States has nothing to be ashamed of. So long as you are comparing apples to tangerines, and insist that tangerines are better, then there can be no reasonable argument to your own irrational argument.

      Also - https://soylentnews.org/~Runaway1956/journal/1674 [soylentnews.org]

      In at least some cases, the reported low crime rate is a lie. Lies were used to establish gun control, and they lie to "prove" how effective gun control is.

      Rinse your mind of the mass media brainwashing, then take another look at the issue.

      --
      We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:53PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:53PM (#468756) Journal

      https://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp [numbeo.com]

      Hover over the US - you get a crime index of 48.76.

      UK 41.19
      France 43.66
      Russia 46.05
      Italy 44.66

      HOLY CRAP LOOK AT AUSTRIA AT 19.25!

      Switzerland is quite respectable at 22.45

      https://www.numbeo.com/crime/indices_explained.jsp [numbeo.com]

      Crime Index is an estimation of overall level of crime in a given city or a country. We consider crime levels lower than 20 as very low, crime levels between 20 and 40 as being low, crime levels between 40 and 60 as being moderate, crime levels between 60 and 80 as being high and finally crime levels higher than 80 as being very high.

      Again - my nation spans a continent. It occupies a significant portion of a continent. If you want to compare Europe to the US, then you must compare in an equitable manner. The landmass and diversity of all of the US and all of Europe are roughly equal. Let's compare the whole damned nation to the entire continent, and we find that the numbers aren't very dissimilar. Most efforts at comparison are exercises in dishonesty.

      --
      We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:37AM (#468780)

        Correct number: United States Crime rate: 48.76 Safety Index:51.24
                                                                Khazakhstan 48.29 51.71

        Well, at least the US is only slightly more criminal and less safe that Khazakhistan!

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:47AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:47AM (#468784) Journal

          What did I say about exercise in dishonesty? You can't compare a continent spanning nation to some little fuckistan. Compare to EUROPE, not to one dinky country. Don't be a dink.

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:04AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:04AM (#468794)

            Admit it, Runaway, you have no idea where Khazakhistan is, let alone how large of a country it is, do you?

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:41AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:41AM (#468814) Journal

              http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/united-states/kazakhstan [mylifeelsewhere.com]

              And, again, you're trying to compare the entire US to one nation that is only as large as one of our regions.

              Worse, Kazakhstan isn't even part of Europe, so now you're trying to compare apples to some kind of melon, rather than to tangerines or apricots.

              And, going back to my other post - the US and Europe have comparable crime statistics. Go ahead, point your fingers at the US, and laugh at the relative crime statistics in comparison to Kazakhstan. YOU DON'T RANK ANY BETTER IN THE SAME COMPARISON!!

              Is English your first language, or maybe your second or third .... or twentieth?

              Let me make this as clear as possible: Almost every published comparison of crime in the US and any European country is a lie. Certain places in the US are relatively unsafe, while other places in the US are very safe. Certain places in Europe are well known to be unsafe, while there are very safe places in Europe. OVERALL, neither the US or Europe is especially safe. Both the US and Europe are generally safer than most of Africa, the mideast, and much of Asia, or South America. That's about as much as all those comparison get right - we both enjoy more safety than third world countries.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
      • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:34PM

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:34PM (#469012) Journal

        Fine, let's compare it to Europe, shall we?

        Inhabitants Europe, according to Google's definition of "Europe": 743 mln.
        Inhabitants USA (again, according to Google): 318 mln.
        As their surface area is comparable, Europe has roughly double the population density of the USA.

        Europe is a continent with 45 nations, with about 225 languages spoken. The USA is one nation, with English as official language, Spanish now 2nd, and a smattering of immigrant languages. Almost no one identifies as European, while inhabitants of the USA proudly proclaim to be US citizens. Power of Europe's president is minor compared to the power of the heads of individual states (Case in point: have you heard of Angela Merkel? Have you heard of Herman van Rompuy? exactly.)
        Europe has places where people drive on the left, and others where people drive on the right.

        Yeah, comparing the USA to Europe is an exercise in extreme dishonesty.

        Thinking the USA must be incomparable to countries in Europe just because it's so big is sheer hubris. Thinking the USA is much more diverse than any country in Europe underscores just how little you know these countries.
        Case in point: there is a country in Europe that has both industrialised areas and rural (agricultural) areas. touristy and abandoned areas, has harbours and through-roads, has a city with political influence over the continent, where in some parts the main language of the nation is just not understood, has dirt-poor areas and rich areas, plains and mountains, and has complex politics with national, federal and local government interfering with each other's operations.
        It's called Belgium - one of the smaller nations in Europe, by the way.

        Let's toss in China for the comparison. Almost equal surface area, slightly more people. Most folks there have shared origins, just like inhabitants in the USA. (Not saying they all get along: in the USA, this background means some were North, some were South. Some were KKK, some were hanged by the KKK, etc. Same is true for China)

        Number of guns per capita [wikipedia.org]
        China: 4.9
        USA: 112.6
        Europe: <30 (average)

        Crime rate according to your link:
        USA: 48.76
        China: 33.9
        Europe: about 40 (estimate)

        Conclusion:
        Just looking at the number of guns per capita should already underscore how incomparable the USA is to other countries. It should also underscore that other nations have found vastly different solutions to problems that the USA addresses with guns. Proudly proclaiming that more guns will solve those problems just shows how completely ignorant you are of the existence of other solutions.
        *Maybe* it's the best for the USA given its current inhabitants and culture. So let's hear arguments why that would be fundamentally the case.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @02:18AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 20 2017, @02:18AM (#469135) Journal

          So, bottom line, China is safer than Europe, and you want to make excuses. And, the excuse you have decided on, is that you have "diversity".

          Let me point out, virtually all Europeans are caucasians. Europeans share one religion, for the most part. That "diversity" thing you're bragging on isn't so very diverse as you would have us to believe.

          But, go ahead, feel superior to the US.

          Oh yeah - who started both world wars? It wasn't the US, was it? And, who colonized Africa and the Americas, along with much of Asia? That wasn't the US was it? Hell, man, the US was one of the colonies, until we revolted.

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:13AM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:13AM (#469628) Journal

            So, bottom line, China is safer than Europe,

            Yes.

            and you want to make excuses.

            No, I don't.

            And, the excuse you have decided on, is that you have "diversity".

            "We" do.
            Me myself, not so much though.

            Let me point out, virtually all Europeans are caucasians.

            Most Europeans are actually not from the Caucasus [wikipedia.org]. Neither are they white Americans. Or do you use that term to refer to "White People [wikipedia.org]"? As Wikipedia puts it:

            "White people is a racial classification specifier, used for people of Europid ancestry,"

            If you're using the term "caucasian" to refer to "people of Europid ancestry", then yes. Most Europeans are of European ancestry. Tautology man strikes again.

            Europeans share one religion, for the most part.

            Again, I have no clue how you define "one religion". One way could be "a group willing to bash in another group based on the other's perceived religion." In that case, no, we didn't have one religion in the past, and those divisions that we had evolved to stop bashing each other's brains in, not to be "one religion".

            But, go ahead, feel superior to the US.

            Not so much, actually. Europe is different from the USA.
            The whole point of the message was that some of the challenges are similar between them, but some of the solutions are radically different. Instead of railing against it and shouting at the top of your lungs how America is Great, you should look into what others are doing and how it's working for them and how it could apply to your country.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:07PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:07PM (#469701) Journal

              "shouting at the top of your lungs how America is Great,"

              I don't think I've posted much of that kind of crap. But, you remind me of one of Walton and Johnson's cute little bylines. "We've got the greatest douchebags in the world!" When I heard that little tagline once again, abour half an hour ago, I thought about putting it in my signature here.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 18 2017, @12:56PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday February 18 2017, @12:56PM (#468567) Journal

    I have a pig that grows firearm-shaped scales and drops them all over the yard. It was quite a surprise when we learned the gol-darned things can fire bullets. That's how we get our guns. Doesn't everybody?

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday February 18 2017, @08:30PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 18 2017, @08:30PM (#468719) Journal

    Also, as gun laws have been getting more permissive here crime rates have been dropping. Still sound crazy?

    Yes? Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:28PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:28PM (#468743) Journal

      Enough empirical evidence can establish a strong correlation. A strong correlation suggests that there is some causative factor. A wise person will begin investigating whether there is a cause when he discovers a strong correlation. Only a fool will steadfastly deny that there can be any causation involved, unless and until he proves that there is no causation.

      Criminals aren't complete idiots. They may well be fools who are gaming a system, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. They are capable of deducing the obvious. If you are a rich bastard, with armed guards patrolling your property 24/7, the stupidest of criminals knows that he will probably be apprehended, if not killed, trying to burgle the place. Likewise, criminals know that they are likely to be shot if the break into an occupied residence in a state or city where guns are commonplace. The same criminal knows that he is highly unlikely to meet armed resistance in cities with stringent gun control.

      I insist that there is some causation involved in the gun laws and crime statistics ratios. So-called social scientists simply haven't been able to define or measure that causation.

      --
      We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
      • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday February 18 2017, @11:12PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 18 2017, @11:12PM (#468760) Journal

        So-called social scientists simply haven't been able to define or measure that causation.

        That is because there isn't one. So-called gun lovers like so-called Runaway1956 seem to want to assume that loser gun laws reduce crime rates, so they can carry around compensation for their cowardice, but there is no such recurring correlation, and definitely no causation.

        • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by mhajicek on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:07AM

          by mhajicek (51) on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:07AM (#468770)

          False. The US cities with the most violent crime are those with the most stringent gun laws, such as Chicago. You obviously haven't actually done the research. I have.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:29AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:29AM (#468777) Journal

            The US cities with the most violent crime are those with the most stringent gun laws, such as Chicago.

            True? But obviously you need a rebuttal, and the obvious rebuttal is that that is not why. Besides, you are not very wise in the way of reason. Even if your false, or at the very least unsubstantiated, correlation was true, just because strict gun laws correlate with higher crime, that does not means that loser gun laws would correlate with reduced crime. I seriously doubt you have done any research, beyond reading NRA child-killer propaganda. Citations needed! And are you talking about all violent crimes? Or just fatalities, or ones involving firearms? And did it ever occur to you that Chicago is not isolated from the rest of gun-crazy ammosexual death-eating Trump-pumping America? Or that it could be that the true causes of crime are poor moral compasses, racism, poverty, and ignorance such as you yourself exhibit. No, you obviously just love your weepons, and are not too smart. Best to just be honest about that, like Runaway is.

            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:18AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:18AM (#468804) Journal

              "the obvious rebuttal is that that is not why"

              Find some proof to support your "obvious" rebuttal.

              "Besides, you are not very wise"

              Assuming the name of a well known philosopher doesn't make you wise, nor does it qualify you to judge other people's wisdom.

              There IS one obvious correlation that holds true across America: The lowest crime statistics are found in those areas with the most lenient gun laws, and the highest crime statistics are found in those areas with the strictest gun control laws. The correlation is much to strong to shrug off. You might explain it away in a number of ways. Here, let me help you: "Most criminals hear the news of strict gun laws, so they move to the cities with the strictest gun laws to avoid being shot while they commit crimes." Of course, there is nothing to support that idea, but it does explain high crime rates in strict gun control cities. Your turn - you offer us some other nonsense explanation for the statistics.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:31AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:31AM (#468808) Journal

                More hillbilly logic, Runaway? Seriously?

                The lowest crime statistics are found in those areas with the most lenient gun laws, and the highest crime statistics are found in those areas with the strictest gun control laws.

                The highest crime rates are found in the areas with the highest rates of higher education! Colleges cause crime! Lower crime rates are found in areas with higher populations of livestock! See, all we need to do is move some sheep and pigs and turkeys into those "carnage" places, and crime will go down! See, it has nothing to do with guns, nothing to do with your mirroring of the criminal mind (though it is curious how easily you do so. . . ), and nothing to do with gun laws. Crime has fallen dramatically in the US since the sixties. You should read a book, or get someone to read it to you, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined [wikipedia.org]. Has actual facts and stuff, not just a presumption based on paranoia.

                Even wonder why the places with the loserest gun laws also have the lowest population? Is there something about rural places that only correlates with guns, but is not actually an effect of guns? Could you be committing a "false cause" fallacy, like the well known "Texas Marksman" fallacy? Or maybe it is because there are so many guns that there are so few people? Correlation that strong strongly suggest a causal relation! Just how many Hatfields and McCoys are left, anyway?

                • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:54AM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:54AM (#468821) Journal

                  Please, try to familiarize yourself with rational thought. It isn't necessary that you make contact with reality, but you could get close enough to have a shouting match with those of us who live in reality.

                  --
                  We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
                  • (Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:28PM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:28PM (#469039) Journal

                    When some realize that they have lost an argument on the internets, they go Godwin. Runaway appeals to reason and facts.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @08:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @08:57AM (#469211)

        Strict gun control laws are often a result of high levels of violent crime in an effort to reduce levels of those crimes. Is that difficult to understand?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @11:59AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 20 2017, @11:59AM (#469241) Journal

          No, it isn't difficult to understand, at all. "We have a terrible situation, and we need to DO SOMETHING!!" The problem is, that "something" is misguided. Disarming the citizenry only creates more potential victims.

          But, let's go back. "we need to DO SOMETHING!" Who is it, exactly, that does something? Politicians, of course. And, wannabe politicians. District attorneys play the "get tough" game, hoping to impress his superiors, as well as the public. Mayors lobby the city councils, in an effort to show voters that he has got crime "under control". State lawmakers and governors play the same game. "We've got to DO SOMETHING!" or else the voters will put us out of office! And, of course, each of those state lawmakers and governors hopes to show off a record that will open doors at the federal level. "DO SOMETHING!"

          And, there is not one single instance in American history that can conclusively state that this measure or that measure actually reduced crime.

          At best, various lawmakers and law enforcement can point to instances where their measuer COINCIDED WITH a drop in crime. Again and again, a law is passed, and/or a "get tough on crime" candidate takes office, and crime statistics drop a little. However, when compared to crime statistics state-wide and nation-wide, crime statistics also dropped by comparable percentages in states and cities which took no measures against crime.

          Ultimately, individual laws and "get tough" measures have little to no effect on crime. COLLECTIVELY, however, the tougher lawmakers and law enforcement get on gun laws, the higher the crime rates go. That is precisely why Chicago has the worst crime rates in the nation. The city of Chicago, and Cook County have a bunch of authoritarians in charge, who insist that citizens be dependent on the city, the county, and the state for their protection. And, those authorities are incapable of providing the protection they promise.

          And, once again, I remind you that those laws are aimed predominantly at one very special group of people. Dark skinned people are not trusted to own weapons, they are not deemed responsible enough to handle a weapon. Gun laws are racist. Stick that into a search engine, see what you get - gun laws are racist. Where black people are in the majority, or even when they are a very large minority, strict gun laws are passed. Where black people are only a small minority, the gun laws are very lax.

          But, you'll never get those liberal/progressive leaders of Chicago, or any other city or state, to admit that they fear black people. Fear is the root of racism, after all. "Oh, no, we're not racist, we've just got to take care of them there darkies, 'cause they don't know any better!"

          I insist, progressives are bigger racists than all of that imaginary "alt right" combined. Racist sons of bitches are afraid of black people!

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief