Should it be illegal to make a fake bomb?

[TripletDaddy]

Technically, the violation for carrying an actual bomb into a plane or cargo hold is not categorized to prevent terrorism. It is a violation of haz-mat regulations.

49 USC 171-180.

The penalty can be a minimum of 5 years in prison and a fine of $250K or more.

Intent would be required for the terrorism part.

This is why I don't think there is any actionable offense for the scenario RobinFinderson (not sure if it is pronounced FIN derson or FINE derson) described. Absent intent, you have not violated any regulation or law by packing silly putty in your bag.

Again, such behavior may detain you, but it isnt illegal.

[creekster]

Technically, the violation for carrying an actual bomb into a plane or cargo hold is not categorized to prevent terrorism. It is a violation of haz-mat regulations.

49 USC 171-180.

The penalty can be a minimum of 5 years in prison and a fine of $250K or more.

Intent would be required for the terrorism part.

This is why I don't think there is any actionable offense for the scenario RobinFinderson (not sure if it is pronounced FIN derson or FINE derson) described. Absent intent, you have not violated any regulation or law by packing silly putty in your bag.

Again, such behavior may detain you, but it isnt illegal.

You dont htink that a prosecutor can show intent to fake a bomb by showing some shcmuck builds a device like Finderson describes and throws it in his suitcase? I dont think it would be very hard to voncince a jury of someone's intent in that circumstance. If you add in any sort of connection whatsoever with Al Qaeda or any simialr organization it is a slam dunk. Possible excepotions would be a good alternate explantion, but I would like to hear them first.

An example: Attempted murder requires intent be show but it is not often that you have smoene annouycing the intent. It is shown by circumstance and conduct.

[TripletDaddy]

You dont htink that a prosecutor can show intent to fake a bomb by showing some shcmuck builds a device like Finderson describes and throws it in his suitcase? I dont think it would be very hard to voncince a jury of someone's intent in that circumstance. If you add in any sort of connection whatsoever with Al Qaeda or any simialr organization it is a slam dunk. Possible excepotions would be a good alternate explantion, but I would like to hear them first.

An example: Attempted murder requires intent be show but it is not often that you have smoene annouycing the intent. It is shown by circumstance and conduct.

When you add intent, as well as ties to other groups, absolutely. Agree 100%.

I was only pointing out that packing a fake device in your suitcase is not actionable. Much like when you take your kids to Disneyland, buy them a plastic pirate gun, and then it gets screened at the airport.

[Uncle Ted]

RF, you should do this and report back to the CUF on how it went. I'll look for you on the news.

[Indy Coug]

This is a ruse for RF to do a waterboarding expose.

[UtahDan]

An example: Attempted murder requires intent be show but it is not often that you have smoene annouycing the intent. It is shown by circumstance and conduct.

Exactly. Practically speaking intent is nearly always inferred, either from surrounding facts and circumstances or from the fact that one intends the natural consequences of their actions.

[TripletDaddy]

Exactly. Practically speaking intent is nearly always inferred, either from surrounding facts and circumstances or from the fact that one intends the natural consequences of their actions.

You and Creekster seem to agree with me 100%. thank you.

[UtahDan]

You and Creekster seem to agree with me 100%. thank you.

I didn't read your comment. I skipped right to creekster, hang on and I'll go look.

[UtahDan]

I didn't read your comment. I skipped right to creekster, hang on and I'll go look.

DDD what are you relying on for your statement that "intent would be required for the terrorism part." When I tried to plug your cite into Lexis it came back invalid. Is there a terrorism component to that statute or does that come from elsewhere.

[Lost Student]

I think DDD meant CFR instead of U.S.C.

What a dunce. always inserting U.S.C. into conversations where it doesn't belong.

[TripletDaddy]

DDD what are you relying on for your statement that "intent would be required for the terrorism part." When I tried to plug your cite into Lexis it came back invalid. Is there a terrorism component to that statute or does that come from elsewhere.

My original question was whether a law currently exists that makes it illegal to pack a silly putty device into your checked baggage (absent any other assumptions...ie, intent).

I couldn't find anything.

There was some discussion re: the intent portion and I pointed out that the law re: explosives on airlines isnt a "terrorism" law. It is a haz mat regulation. IOW, absent any other assumptions, if you tried to bring a bomb on board, you would be violating a haz mat regulation. Terrorism may be inferred, but it is not assumed per se.

The cite was 49CFR or 49 USC, i think. dont remember now. It lists the haz mat regulations and potential penalties for violating such.

On a whim, I texted my Sis (the one mikewaters threatened to have fired...bless that guy!) and she texted me a pic at LAX of the sign warning of the prohibition of on board explosives. The penalties corrolate to the haz mat regulations, not to penalties for terrorism.

Basically I am kind of going off on a tangent. sorry.

[TripletDaddy]

I think DDD meant CFR instead of U.S.C.

What a dunce. always inserting U.S.C. into conversations where it doesn't belong.

I went back and read my post. I did mean CFR, not USC. thanks.

[Lost Student]

I went back and read my post. I did mean CFR, not USC. thanks.

You're welcome. I hereby recant calling you a dunce. However, for the sake of historical accuracy, I feel that I should not edit my post.

After a brief search I think this might be the most relevant federal law--18 U.S.C. § 1992. Terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air. It might be a stretch, but the case below (sort of) bridges the gap.

(a) General Prohibitions.— Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c), knowingly and without lawful authority or permission—
. . .
(4) sets fire to, undermines, makes unworkable, unusable, or hazardous to work on or use, or places any biological agent or toxin, destructive substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near any—
. . .
(B) garage, terminal, structure, track, electromagnetic guideway, supply, or facility used in the operation of, or in support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle, and with intent to, or knowing or having reason to know,[1] such activity would likely, derail, disable, or wreck a mass transportation vehicle used, operated, or employed by a mass transportation provider;
. . .
(7) commits an act, including the use of a dangerous weapon, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person who is on property described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (4);
. . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if the offense results in the death of any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or subject to death, except in the case of a violation of paragraph (8), (9), or (10).

A fake bomb can be a "dangerous weapon" if it gives someone "a reasonable expectation of death or serious bodily injury."

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c...9.79-1259.html

[RobinFinderson]

I want to point a couple of things out.

The 'fake bomb' would be put into the stored luggage. No one is trying to board the plane while carrying the fake bomb.

The only people who would see the fake bomb would be TSA people, whose professional responsibility is to go through our stuff and make sure that there is nothing threatening in the luggage. Presumably, the TSA people have been trained in threat assessment. In other words, they come into contact with all kinds of foreign objects that they may not recognize, yet presumably they should be able to figure out if something is made to explode, even if they don't recognize it. They are supposed to be threat-assessment experts.

I bring up these facts because I think they are important. This isn't the equivalent of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater. This isn't the same as leaving a threatening note in the luggage. This isn't the same as presenting the fake bomb as something real to untrained laypersons. If asked about the device, the person could say that it was harmless costume prop (he's going as a terrorist for Halloween). I believe that the fact that the only people who would see the fake bomb would be trained professionals matters.

[Donuthole]

I want to point a couple of things out.

The 'fake bomb' would be put into the stored luggage. No one is trying to board the plane while carrying the fake bomb.

The only people who would see the fake bomb would be TSA people, whose professional responsibility is to go through our stuff and make sure that there is nothing threatening in the luggage. Presumably, the TSA people have been trained in threat assessment. In other words, they come into contact with all kinds of foreign objects that they may not recognize, yet presumably they should be able to figure out if something is made to explode, even if they don't recognize it. They are supposed to be threat-assessment experts.

I bring up these facts because I think they are important. This isn't the equivalent of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater. This isn't the same as leaving a threatening note in the luggage. This isn't the same as presenting the fake bomb as something real to untrained laypersons. If asked about the device, the person could say that it was harmless costume prop (he's going as a terrorist for Halloween). I believe that the fact that the only people who would see the fake bomb would be trained professionals matters.

I think you better tell faith about this plan of yours before your next trip, because it could very well end your vacation before it starts. Just my 2 cents.

I am excited to hear how it goes, though.