North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un on board submarine No. 748 of Korean People's Army. Has nothing to do with this post except for portraying irrational people.
Tam put up a post about a nit-picky legalism that made it to the Supreme Court. As I followed along I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a box of wet feathers on account of the violation seems to depend on intent and nowhere in all the verbiage about this case did I find any discussion of what Bruce Abramski's actual intent was. Intent is a state of mind, and who knows what is in somebody else's mind? Shoot, half the time I don't even know what's in my mind.
Now you can find 'evidence' of intent. You might find that someone has written a detailed plan about what they intend to do, and you might find that they had collected all of the material / equipment they would need to carry out this plan, and you could call that "evidence of intent", but you still don't know what the guy was thinking. He may have been planning to go on a camp-out, or fishing, or rob a bank, or it might just have been a fantasy that he was dreaming about.
Bruce might have been able to avoid the whole court thing by saying that he didn't decide to sell the gun to his uncle until after he got home. Then again the prosecutor was gunning for him, so maybe that wouldn't have worked. I mean, what happened to the bit about the search warrant being invalid?
P.S. Internet search results on this court case are almost universally in favor of the majority ruling and more gun control. I thought the gun rights movement was making some progress, but maybe what I'm seeing is the results of the 'sell-more-newspapers' syndrome. Never mind if you sound like an idiot, you might get someone mad enough to yell at you, and that's what's important.