Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon Possession Part 1

These cases depend on the nature of accusation. Take Ridlehuber! Ridlehuber is sitting at home minding, innocently minding his own business; all of my stories are going to start with that preference. Ridlehuber was innocently in home minding his own business when the police bust down his door. I love to say that! The police bust down his door and inside his house they find an unregistered short barreled rifle. In addition to that, they also find all kinds of things that would commonly be used in a meth lab.

So, the government says,” Well we’re charging him with un law full possession of the fire arm but we want to get all this methamphetamine as evidence and we think it’s intrinsic evidence because we think that he had the gun because he was protecting the meth lab!

The court said,” well hold on! Number one you didn’t charge him with a meth lab, so we can’t say that the gun arose out of the meth lab because he didn’t charge him out of that. Now had you charged him with running a meth lab and the situation were reversed, than the gun would have arisen out of the meth lab and it would have been intrinsic. But since you only charged with the gun, the gun did not lead to the meth lab”.

It’s kind of backwards logic. You know one with think that if evidence is intrinsic, it would be intrinsic either way! It would be an inherent property or an inherent property and the relationship between the pieces of evidence, but its not! According to this, it depends on what the accusation is. It’s like the chicken or the egg type of situation. Arose out of is a language here that is key. Now, I don’t know whether that the, arose out of language is an aberration or whether it really means something. But if you have a chicken and the egg problem like Ridlehuber had, you might want to use this case to argue that it’s not intrinsic.

Now, the anarchist cook book! For some reason the anarchist cook book comes a lot in 404 (B). For those of you who are not familiar with the anarchist cookbook, it was a book written back in 1971 in protest of, of the war and it involved, basically it gave instructions on how to build bombs and make poison and creates homemade weapons and start a riot and things like that. Since then, the author of the book has disavowed entirely, but it’s still out there.

And Rogers was sitting at home innocently minding his own business, when the police bust down his door and inside his house they find a homemade silencer. And he says,” is that a silencer, really? I had no idea. I thought the gun just had a, the pistol… I thought it just really had, like a really long barrel!” they said,” no it’s a homemade silencer “he said,” well I didn’t know that.” They said,” Yes do did! We know you know that because look at what we found here on your coffee table. We found the anarchist cookbook, and in the anarchist cookbook; it gives you instructions on how to make a homemade silencer.” And so they used it, it says here,” to show how to commit the crime for this makes it likely that the defendant rather than someone else was culpable” That’s a logical nexus there. The defendant’s possession shows how to commit the crime. For this makes it more likely the defended rather than someone else was culpable. That’s a logical nexus so we can assume that they’re using 404B there.

We stop and we think about it. Is possession an act, a crime or another offense? What is possession of this book? Possession of the book is not a crime, it’s not an offense, it’s not a wrong. The only thing it could would be another act under 404. But is it? Let me see what we got here!