New changes to Az Gun Laws "No Dry Ice" - Page 2

stevelyn · July 19, 2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Ok some people might not know what a dry ice bomb is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice_bomb

Never heard of such a thing till now.

I think I'll just stick to MRE heaters.

hogdogs · July 19, 2009, 01:32 AM

A guy who, at this time, must remain nameless worked at a small shop that made aluminum hand railings and stairs...
Learned that if you take some of this stuff...
http://www.highsidechem.com/pinkstf.html
Acid based aluminum cleaner...
poured into a coke bottle along with a small handfull of aluminum shavings from under the saw table, close it and toss it... It makes a heck of a kaboom... And it is super hot as well as chemically dangerous... Don't know if it was illegal or not but bet it will be if anyone ever gets harmed from this...
Brent

BillCA · July 19, 2009, 04:53 AM

Maybe we should require people to fill out BATFE form CO2236 when buying dry ice and subject them to a 10-day waiting period, eh?

Seriously, all that's happening is people have found a cheap source to make sufficient pressure, to burst a common container via a chemical reaction. Use calcium carbide and water and you can make the gas flammable.

The problem is that some people get hurt because they don't appreciate the forces involved and the potential dangers.

Skan21 · July 19, 2009, 05:08 AM

Quote:

I think I'll just stick to MRE heaters.

You beat me to it. Used to make those MRE bombs all the time. But it's not illegal so it can't be dangerous!

tmd11111 · July 19, 2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

I think I'll just stick to MRE heaters.

Leave it to a soldiers idle mind to come up with some crazy stuff. When I went to Bosnia as part of IFOR we used to put the contents of several MRE heaters into 1ltr water bottles with a few ounces of water. Once the bottle got real hot and swelled up we would toss it in the fire pit. Made for a very impressive ball of fire.

Needless to say we had to put a stop to it when they started using 1 gallon jugs. Kind of made for a minature hydrogen bomb.

Wildalaska · July 19, 2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

You're saying that existing laws against harming people do not criminalize the act of making a dry ice bomb and using it in a way that hurts someone?

Thats not the issue, nor is it the subject of the particular statute quoted.

WildsonoonecantellmewhyitsstupidAlaska TM

blume357 · July 19, 2009, 12:15 PM

act and the same with not being able to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket....

some lame brained legislator decided it would stop a crime when the crime is already illegal and has a penalty...

no different than outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other for what ever reason.

Wildalaska · July 19, 2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

I think it made the point.... just like what does dry ice have to do with a criminal
act and the same with not being able to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket....

some lame brained legislator decided it would stop a crime when the crime is already illegal and has a penalty...

no different than outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other for what ever reason.

You are wrong. Read the statute again.

WildandagainandagainuntilafewwordsjumpoutatyouAlaska TM

**tyme** · July 19, 2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

You're saying that existing laws against harming people do not criminalize the act of making a dry ice bomb and using it in a way that hurts someone?
Thats not the issue, nor is it the subject of the particular statute quoted.

Okay, so it criminalizes possession of dry ice + *intent* to use it to hurt someone. The intent to harm is not connected with the prohibited weapon, but it's connected with the possession of dry ice. Can you think of any reason for this law other than a dry ice bomb... that is, where the dry ice is a component of the prohibited weapon in question?

I really don't think it was the legislature's intent to create a new offense to add to the rap sheet of someone who builds/owns/transports/sells/buys illegal weapons and also happens to have a side business of making dry ice bombs. For that reason I think the legislature's intent was that the dry ice in question would be connected to the prohibited weapon.

Please explain what else you think the quoted statute does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antipitas

13-3102(A)(3) Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, except that if the violation involves dry ice, a person commits [an additional crime] by knowingly possessing the dry ice with the intent to cause injury to or death of another person or to cause damage to the property of another person;

Quote:

WildsonoonecantellmewhyitsstupidAlaska TM

It is stupid because you might as well criminalize possession of scissors, soldering irons, wood glue, or chemistry equipment with intent to use them to commit a crime, if the possession of said item is connected with an offense involving some sort or prohibited weapon.

The most dangerous thing about dry ice in my experience is that you can suffocate in enclosed spaces if you have it in an unsealed container. But since that probably doesn't involve a prohibited weapon (Arizona's definition of prohibited weapon in 13-3101 does not include noxious substances anything similar), it wouldn't be a separate offense if for instance someone intended to put a block of dry ice in someone else's bedroom overnight. If anything involving CO2 deserves to be separately criminalized, that method of (attempted) murder is a heinous act that certainly qualifies.

(edit: I'm also concerned about the dual inclusion of a variety of explosives under 13-3101 (A)(8)(a)(i) and (A)(8)(a)(vii). A8a(i) does have an exception for legally owned destructive devices, but A8a(vii) does not, and seems to include explosive DDs.)

Wildalaska · July 19, 2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

It is stupid because you might as well criminalize possession of scissors, soldering irons, wood glue, or chemistry equipment with intent to use them to commit a crime, if the possession of said item is connected with an offense involving some sort or prohibited weapon.

And there is no statute covering dangerous instruments in Arizona? Isn't a knife or scissors a dangerous instrument per se? How about a soldering iron? Would there be a question that a soldering iron isnt a dangerous instrument>

Is dry ice per se an dangerous instrument? I think not. So the law fills the lacunae, in light of some documented examples of dry ice bombs.

WildnotalllawsarestupidalthoughmanyareAlaska TM

**tyme** · July 19, 2009, 06:46 PM

Are you talking about filling a hole in the AZ law's defintion of "dangerous weapon"? Because that's a very specific term.

"knife" "blade" "edge" "scissors" occur nowhere in 13-3101.

Most (all?) state laws accept that anything used in a dangerous fashion becomes a dangerous or deadly weapon. They shouldn't need a specific extra law to cover dry ice bombs.

The fact that they included intent to harm in the law means that they're not trying to make it a per se weapon. So, what advantage are they gaining over simply charging people with aggravated assault/battery, reckless endangerment, or any of a host of other laws that potentially also apply?

Wildalaska · July 19, 2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

The fact that they included intent to harm in the law means that they're not trying to make it a per se weapon. So, what advantage are they gaining over simply charging people with aggravated assault/battery, reckless endangerment, or any of a host of other laws that potentially also apply?

Lets say that M13 has been using dry ice bombs to harass...NRA members by blowing up their cars.

Police pull over MS13 dudes, find cooler full of dry ice, a dozen glass quart jars, nails and a note saying Here's a gift for you white guys.

Crime? before law? After law?

WilditsaquestionofintentAlaska TM

johnwilliamson062 · July 19, 2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

They cannot be left, yet cannot be safely approached.

Pellet gun... And it is a pressure bomb, usually made in a less than perfectly sealed pop bottle. It isn't like it will hold the pressure for years and remain dangerous like a landmine.

BillCA · July 20, 2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

13-3102(A)(3) Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, except that if the violation involves dry ice, a person commits [an additional crime] by knowingly possessing the dry ice with the intent to cause injury to or death of another person or to cause damage to the property of another person;

So, Wild.... in Arizona I can have them charge you under this statute if you grab a piece of dry ice and drop it down my pants and it causes any kind of frostbite burn?

Gotta stop those dry-ice assaults.

My guess is that the law came about because somewhere in AZ, a couple of nimrods tried it after watching some YouTube videos and either;
(a) Hurt themselves
(b) injured a 3rd party.

Or there was an incident using a glass bottle or something like nails to turn it into an antipersonnel device.

This is the big trend with lawmakers -- don't outlaw the actual act, outlaw anything leading up to the act and/or the mere possession of something.

**tyme** · July 20, 2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Lets say that M13 has been using dry ice bombs to harass...NRA members by blowing up their cars.

Police pull over MS13 dudes, find cooler full of dry ice, a dozen glass quart jars, nails and a note saying Here's a gift for you white guys.

Crime? before law? After law?

Looks like a crime before the passage of this new law.

People have been convicted of murder on far more circumstantial evidence than that.

By the time the prosecution has proven intent -- required as an element of the added dry ice offense -- they've proven motive for the carbombing(s). Clearly the gang had the means since they had dry ice and "bomb" materials, and if they were pulled over near the crime scene they had opportunity. What jury won't convict on that?

Wildalaska · July 20, 2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Looks like a crime before the passage of this new law.

Really? Before dry ice was "proscribed" as the case may be, would crime would they have been convicted of?

Quote:

So, Wild.... in Arizona I can have them charge you under this statute if you grab a piece of dry ice and drop it down my pants and it causes any kind of frostbite burn?

Reductio ad absurdum

Quote:

This is the big trend with lawmakers -- don't outlaw the actual act, outlaw anything leading up to the act and/or the mere possession of something.

Really? So in your view inchoate offenses should not be allowed, nor posessory offenses that can form the underlying basis of a malum in se act ?

Further, can you emprically demonstrate this purported "trend" absent reference to the ever increasing technological means of doing harm.

WildthisgetsinterestingAlaska ™

PT111 · July 20, 2009, 06:07 PM

I think I am safe from from this law as I have no idea where to get dry ice. As far as I know it would be about as easy to obtain some nuclear feul for a bomb than a dry ice bomb. What would be the involvement of dry ice and guns?

Just ignorant down here in the South.

homefires · July 20, 2009, 06:50 PM

Maybe they think the Dry Ice will lock up the Hydrocarbons and make detection by sniffer dogs less effective!

I can't think of why you would want dry ice near a firearm!

I suppose if it was in a container, Like Nitrogen it (Co2) would prevent rusting.

Eaaa?

BillCA · July 21, 2009, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

Reductio ad absurdum

Read the statute again, Ken. All that is required is that you possess dry ice with the intent to cause injury... to another person. A dry-ice burn/frostbite is an injury. It is plausible that just the attempt to drop it into someone's clothing could justify charges, depending on the size of the piece of dry ice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

Really? So in your view inchoate offenses should not be allowed, nor posessory offenses that can form the underlying basis of a malum in se act ?

I did not say that. I said that it seems the trend (of the last 3 decades of the 20th Century at least) of legislatures has been to ban the possession of many items rather than to prohibit or punish acts committed with the specific items.

If the same MS-13 members, in AZ, carry the same materials - a dozen glass quart jars, nails and a note saying Here's a gift for you white guys substituting a gallon of water and 2 pounds of calcium carbonate, could they be charged with an offense?

You betcha, but only if the police officer knew that calcium carbonate in water produces a lot of flammable gas. At the very least, he has probable cause to detain and investigate these individuals. The same would apply to the dry ice.

One of my local hardware stores sells dry ice, especially for early morning fishermen heading south. So, if I decide today I'm going to wire in new cabinet lights in the kitchen and purchase a pound of sheet rock screws, wire, some mason jars for the wife's pickle project and 10 lbs of dry ice to keep the fridge cold while I work, a police officer might believe your theory of possession forming "intent" for some malum per se act.

Quote:

Further, can you emprically demonstrate this purported "trend" absent reference to the ever increasing technological means of doing harm.

Probably, given some time and as part of a different thread.

RDak · July 21, 2009, 06:03 AM

Interesting discussion. I have never heard of a dry ice bomb. Learn something everyday.

kozak6 · July 22, 2009, 01:48 AM

Quote:

I think I am safe from from this law as I have no idea where to get dry ice. As far as I know it would be about as easy to obtain some nuclear feul for a bomb than a dry ice bomb. What would be the involvement of dry ice and guns?

Around here, dry ice can be purchased at just about any grocery store.

There doesn't appear to be any involvement between dry ice and firearms, as far as I can tell.

1ricochet · July 22, 2009, 06:40 PM

Thanks for all of the input...this is the very best place to get all of the opinions (and they are free *smile*) no pun intended.

July 19, 2009, 04:53 AM	#28
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	Maybe we should require people to fill out BATFE form CO2236 when buying dry ice and subject them to a 10-day waiting period, eh? Seriously, all that's happening is people have found a cheap source to make sufficient pressure, to burst a common container via a chemical reaction. Use calcium carbide and water and you can make the gas flammable. The problem is that some people get hurt because they don't appreciate the forces involved and the potential dangers. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

July 19, 2009, 12:15 PM	#32
blume357 Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2005 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 3,943	I think it made the point.... just like what does dry ice have to do with a criminal act and the same with not being able to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket.... some lame brained legislator decided it would stop a crime when the crime is already illegal and has a penalty... no different than outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other for what ever reason.

July 19, 2009, 06:46 PM	#36
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	Are you talking about filling a hole in the AZ law's defintion of "dangerous weapon"? Because that's a very specific term. "knife" "blade" "edge" "scissors" occur nowhere in 13-3101. Most (all?) state laws accept that anything used in a dangerous fashion becomes a dangerous or deadly weapon. They shouldn't need a specific extra law to cover dry ice bombs. The fact that they included intent to harm in the law means that they're not trying to make it a per se weapon. So, what advantage are they gaining over simply charging people with aggravated assault/battery, reckless endangerment, or any of a host of other laws that potentially also apply? __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

July 19, 2009, 01:32 AM	#27
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	A guy who, at this time, must remain nameless worked at a small shop that made aluminum hand railings and stairs... Learned that if you take some of this stuff... http://www.highsidechem.com/pinkstf.html Acid based aluminum cleaner... poured into a coke bottle along with a small handfull of aluminum shavings from under the saw table, close it and toss it... It makes a heck of a kaboom... And it is super hot as well as chemically dangerous... Don't know if it was illegal or not but bet it will be if anyone ever gets harmed from this... Brent

July 20, 2009, 06:07 PM	#42
PT111 Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2007 Posts: 1,041	I think I am safe from from this law as I have no idea where to get dry ice. As far as I know it would be about as easy to obtain some nuclear feul for a bomb than a dry ice bomb. What would be the involvement of dry ice and guns? Just ignorant down here in the South.

July 20, 2009, 06:50 PM	#43
homefires Senior Member Join Date: July 8, 2007 Location: Deming New Mexico Posts: 1,495	Maybe they think the Dry Ice will lock up the Hydrocarbons and make detection by sniffer dogs less effective! I can't think of why you would want dry ice near a firearm! I suppose if it was in a container, Like Nitrogen it (Co2) would prevent rusting. Eaaa?

July 21, 2009, 06:03 AM	#45
RDak Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 734	Interesting discussion. I have never heard of a dry ice bomb. Learn something everyday.

July 22, 2009, 06:40 PM	#47
1ricochet Junior Member Join Date: July 16, 2009 Posts: 7	Thanks for all of the input...this is the very best place to get all of the opinions (and they are free smile) no pun intended.