We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?
Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction"
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.html
Oh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction.
Who'd thunk?
Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.
Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
Uhhh... if you actually read; https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355
2001 came after 1994 my friend.
I know numbers are hard; but just because it has more "9s" in it doesn't mean it's a greater number.
Here's the change log;
Quote
2004—Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(1), struck out “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.
1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).
Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.
1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).
Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c).
Nope, not redefining it, other than biological/chemical weaponry post 2001
I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.
Feel free to do more mental gymnastics tho, I hear The Special Olympics is having an event for that this year. You can never get enough practice.
That's the standard charge for anyone illegal mailing explosive devices.
