|
|
The law is the law, and if this man was legally barred from constructive possession of a firearm, then he's guilty. If he was not handling the firearm safely, then one of the range officers would have warned him or kicked him out.
It Is A Plinker!
The question I have to ask, is, why they needed ATF lacky to explain why it "was kinda sorta like an assault weapon, kinda like the ones they use in Israel or something".
They did update the article, so it is pretty much nothing like the original. (The updated article changed the title, and removed discussion of the term "plinker".) |
|
|
