Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokyMtn
|
Interesting - others have noticed the main points, but I want to discuss them a little more, see if anyone can add some legal knowledge.
First we notice the unjustified use of the interstate commerce clause. That's become routine practice with the feds, it's of no special interest here. Basically if you go by their logic, there is no case that doesn't involved "interstate commerce," so they are deliberately misreading the term to justify expanind the scope of their control.
But the interesting part of the charge is... Harpham "knowingly received and possessed" an IED not registered to him in violation of some federal code.
So my question is, to any who knows, is their anything unusual about that "received and possessed." Does it in fact mean that he did not make the bomb himself, but got it from a third party? Or does the charge imply nothing about the manufacture of the IED? If he made the thing himself, would the charge read differently, or is there something to be made of the fact that he's charged with "receiving" rather than manufacturing the device?