Jed: In the case of common law crimes, the defendant need not intend to violate a law per se, but does need to intend to do something inherently wrongful. In the case of felony murder, the intent is to commit an inherently dangerous felony, where the connection between that felony and somebody’s death is tenuous at best.

Tax evasion and wiretapping in Maryland are teh only examples I’m aware of where the specific intent has to be to violate a law per se, although I’m sure there are others. But for any crime, especially a strict liability one like a gun law, I would hope that most prosecutor would have the good sense to go lighter on a generally law-abiding citizen who violates a law inadvertently than they would on one who intentionally defies the law.

More specific to CNN: interesting distinction between crimes of specific harm, and regulatory law, which I realize is fuzy, because even regulatory law is predicated upon some supposition of harm. But CNN’s actions fall much more in the realm of regulatory, rather than immediate harm, and so this seems to me to weaken the intent argument, in the question of whether ignorance of the law can determine intent.

Regulatory laws, by contrast, are generally “strict liability” crimes, meaning if you did the crime, you are liable, whether you intended anythind bad or not. So if Griffin had taken possession of the weapon and transported it back to his home state (he probably didn’t, according to Kevin Baker’s last update) his lack of a criminal intent would not have nullified the crime. It would, however, play a major role in determining which cases the ATF will pursue and which ones will get let off with a warning.

[Note also that in some cases, though not this one, ignorance of the law can be a defense to criminal prosecution. That's typically the case for tax deficiency notices vs. criminal actions for tax evasion; it's also the reason Linda Tripp was not prosecuted for illegally taping her conversations with Monica Lewinksy before getting a court order permitting her to do so.]

Publicola: I’m sure there are too many examples like yours to count. They aren’t limited to firearms, either; heavy-handed enforcement seems to be the norm for everything within that agency’s jurisdiction. A few years back, a popular Pasadena restaurant had its liquor licensed yanked for several months over a very technical infraction of a Pasadena ordinance the Pasadena authorities themselves didn’t seem to care much about. I don’t know of any such cases involving tobacco, but I can’t imagine their heads are any cooler when it comes to that. My point is that these cases are the sort of things we ought to be attacking the ATF for – using too little prosecutorial discretion rather than too much. By calling for Griffin’s head over a violation that ensnares one asshole journalist and millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners, we dilute our message beyond recognition. The absolute last thing we need to do is to give the ATF a mandate to start enforcing laws even more rigidly than they already do.

Ah, well, we agree on that. ATF won’t want to prosecute CNN, and the likelihood is slim, I agree.

But that’s why our pressure, our calling for their heads, our INSISTANCE that this be investigated thoroughly is so important.

Sure, it’s entirely possible that CNN never bought a gun, never left Atlanta, never did a score of things. And I’d prefer that CNN have to detail this to ATF in a manner that will allow other people who don’t know how many other lies or deceptions CNN had on that segment to understand that CNN was out to score cheap political points.

But we shouldn’t TRY to cut the poor news network a break, for saying that they broke federal law. That’s just silly.

Do I expect anybody to get the treatment we would? No. But then, that’s why I’m fired up, and why we have to insist on heads rolling.

There are a dozen or so cases I coudl pjt to within the last ten years or so – usually the BATFU steals property & drags the court case out in the hopes of drainign their victims financially. That’s just not nearly as sexy as someone getting killed.

So just because Weaver is all you hear about don’t assume that’s all that’s been going on.

& the point is the BATFU is not a bunch of nice guys trying to do a public service – they’re a bunch of asses who don’t let common sense or constitution interfere with their conviction rate. If you have any friends in the DA’s office ask him to pull the figures on the BATFU’s conviction rates (for cases they bring). Then ask him to see ho wmany offenders were violent criminals. The unusually hgih rate will surprise you; the lack of harmful intent probaby won’t.

I’ll stop before I turn this into a blog post of its own. I’m just saying that if there’s one federal agency to not give any benefit of the doubt to it’d be the BATFU. Go to Keepandbeararms.com & look under their atf abuses category (in the right margin) to see some non-Weaver things they’ve done.

Let’s assume the transfer to Griffin did occur, and Griffen brought the gun to Georgia. So, CNN and Griffin definitely intended to make the purchase and the transport. Isn’t the “intent” argument based on intent to commit the act itself, as opposed to ignorance of the law? Yeah, I know, the “ignorance is no excuse” thing is a staple of TV crime shows, but I’ll be surprised if you tell me that ignorance is a positive defense.

So, lemme get this straight. You’re advocating NOT prosecuting CNN because they’re rich and powerful?

Perhaps, if you speak one of those dialects where “bad” means “good.” Otherwise, I’m not sure how you can read “[t]hat’s a bad reason not to prosecute” and think I am advocating that they not prosecute on that basis.

You might be able to make a case that you don’t want to see CNN prosecuted because you wouldn’t want to see some ordinary slob spend 10 years at club fed for the same thing. (And it happens. A Lot).

That was my point, basically, and while I know that it happens some, and a lot more than I am comfortable with, I don’t think it happens nearly as frequently as it would if the ATF adopted a general policy of throwing the book at every individual believed to have committed even the most technical violation of any firearms law. And if they do have a policy like that, it should be ended yesterday.

But I don’t think CNN would extend us the same concern.

Neither do I, but that’s completely beside the point.