Two men arrested for going after the most dangerous game with tactical gear, night vision goggles, and unregistered AR-style rifles

[essentialsaltes]

I'm sorry, did I say "the most dangerous game"? I meant protected burros.

At around 1 a.m. local time, the two men fired on wild donkeys, or burros, killing three of the animals. One animal was paralyzed and in "severe pain before it died," prosecutors said.

Both Arnet and Feikema were charged with a felony count of possession of an unregistered firearm, and a misdemeanor count of maliciously causing the death of a burro on public lands. Both men pleaded guilty to the charges, and as part of their plea agreement, agreed to forfeit the rifles, night vision goggles, and other gear, including over 4,000 rounds of ammunition.

They each face up to 10 years in prison for the firearm charge and one year in prison for the charge of killing the burros.

 

[durangodawood]

This is what you get when the militia is not "well regulated".

 

[Estrid]

I'm sorry, did I say "the most dangerous game"? I meant protected burros.

At around 1 a.m. local time, the two men fired on wild donkeys, or burros, killing three of the animals. One animal was paralyzed and in "severe pain before it died," prosecutors said.

Both Arnet and Feikema were charged with a felony count of possession of an unregistered firearm, and a misdemeanor count of maliciously causing the death of a burro on public lands. Both men pleaded guilty to the charges, and as part of their plea agreement, agreed to forfeit the rifles, night vision goggles, and other gear, including over 4,000 rounds of ammunition.

They each face up to 10 years in prison for the firearm charge and one year in prison for the charge of killing the burros.

Wild ( feral )/ invasive species inthe desert
areas if usa are a major environmental issue.

People like the " wild" horses and burros coz
they are cute, or romantic. Properly, they should
be exterminated.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wild ( feral )/ invasive species inthe desert
areas if usa are a major environmental issue.

People like the " wild" horses and burros coz
they are cute, or romantic. Properly, they should
be exterminated.

The mistake they made was not familiarizing themselves with the laws of the state they chose to do their hunting in as well as targeting species that are federally protected.

I'm also curious as to what type of rifles they were using...this part of the article says:
The firearms were later seized from the men's homes. Investigators found that the weapons were unregistered, despite requirements that they be registered under federal law.

I wonder if that was a misprint and they meant to say "state law".

Unless the types of AR's they were using had some sort of special modifications or had suppressors on them, there is no federal registration requirement.
Per the ATF
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.


If people want to hunt feral animals that are a nuisance and invasive, I'd recommend they pick a different state and a different animal. Go to a more gun friendly state and do some feral hog hunting. Many states will actually pay you to go hog hunting... turn in the hog tail, get your couple bucks, and you can keep the meat.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Unless the types of AR's they were using had some sort of special modifications or had suppressors on them, there is no federal registration requirement.
Per the ATF
There is no Federal registration requirement for most conventional sporting firearms. Only those firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA) (e.g., machineguns, short-barrel firearms, silencers, destructive devices, any other weapons) must be registered with ATF.

When the men got out of the truck, they were dressed in tactical gear, including helmets with night-vision goggles, and carrying short-barreled AR-style firearms.

Short-barrel rifles don't require any sort of "special modifications". Considering that they were AR-pattern rifles, you can buy a 14" (or shorter) barrel off the shelf and instantly violate federal law by fitting it to your rifle in your garage without filing the necessary paperwork.

 

[Larniavc]

Killing animals for pleasure is disgusting.

 

[DaisyDay]

I remember Brighty of the Grand Canyon a children's book about a wild burro.

People like the " wild" horses and burros coz
they are cute, or romantic. Properly, they should
be exterminated.

Have you read the Botany of Desire? It's about how plants survive, thrive by making themselves attractive to people.

 

[DaisyDay]

Killing animals for pleasure is disgusting.

I don't kill for pleasure, but I buy what has been killed by others to eat, and I eat with pleasure. I do kill house vermin, including mice and flies, as well as certain garden pets (slugs, red lily beetles).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Short-barrel rifles don't require any sort of "special modifications". Considering that they were AR-pattern rifles, you can buy a 14" (or shorter) barrel off the shelf and instantly violate federal law by fitting it to your rifle in your garage without filing the necessary paperwork.

If it's a case where they weren't modified and that's how the guns game, stock...

I wonder if the seller of those firearms will get in any sort of trouble.

Typically with SBRs and suppressors, you make the purchase, and then the item itself stays with the FFL dealer until the ATF completes all of the registration stuff and vetting and gives them the green light to transfer it to the buyer.

I know a few people who've gone through the process for suppressors, and they could make the purchase and transmit all of the paperwork, and then had to wait 4-6 months before they could actually take it home from the gun dealer.

I'm guessing perhaps they did the type of modification where a person buys something like a Scorpion EVO or perhaps one of the ones they call "AK Pistols", that come with an "arm brace" instead of a "stock", and then took off the arm brace and replaced it with a traditional AR stock of some sort. (which then changes the classification and makes it illegal)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Killing animals for pleasure is disgusting.

So safe to assume you're vegan?

If not, then you're taking pleasure in the killing of an animal. (Albeit indirectly)

 

[durangodawood]

So safe to assume you're vegan?

If not, then you're taking pleasure in the killing of an animal. (Albeit indirectly)

Not really. When people say "killing animals for pleasure" they mean for the pleasure of the killing.

Perhaps we need to be ultra pedantic and make them specify they arent talking about the pleasure of eating too.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If it's a case where they weren't modified and that's how the guns game, stock...

I wonder if the seller of those firearms will get in any sort of trouble.

Typically with SBRs and suppressors, you make the purchase, and then the item itself stays with the FFL dealer until the ATF completes all of the registration stuff and vetting and gives them the green light to transfer it to the buyer.

I know a few people who've gone through the process for suppressors, and they could make the purchase and transmit all of the paperwork, and then had to wait 4-6 months before they could actually take it home from the gun dealer

Most likely they were custom builds (i.e. they bought a receiver, which is the actual firearm in the eyes of the ATF, and assembled the guns with off-the-shelf components) or they bought 16" guns and swapped out for shorter barrels at home. I wouldn't consider any of that "special modifications" though - changing an AR barrel or assembling one from a parts kit hardly requires a gunsmith or any specialized tools, and the components are laughably easy to obtain online.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not really. When people say "killing animals for pleasure" they mean for the pleasure of the killing.

Perhaps we need to be ultra pedantic and make them specify they arent talking about the pleasure of eating too.

Has nothing to do with being pedantic...

It's highlighting the practical point that from the animal's perspective, the experience is the exact same whether the person is shooting them "for the fun of it" vs. "because they want to eat it".


People tend to get all bent out of shape and clutch pearls over things like trophy hunting, but will gladly pay someone else to do their dirty work for them at a slaughterhouse so they can enjoy a hamburger. (as if a feedlot cow being kept in a cramped pen in it's own sick for a year, only to be hit with the bolt gun and have it's throat cut while still partially alive is experiencing something less uncomfortable than the animal that's the target of a trophy hunter)

 

[Larniavc]

So safe to assume you're vegan?

If not, then you're taking pleasure in the killing of an animal. (Albeit indirectly)

Killing to eat is fine by me. Killing for the pleasure of killing an animal is disgusting. You see, emotions can complicated and far more multifaceted than a blanket statement.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
It's highlighting the practical point that from the animal's perspective, the experience is the exact same whether the person is shooting them "for the fun of it" vs. "because they want to eat it".
....

Theres more to it than the animals perspective.

Its like saying from the pedestrians perspective the experience is the same whether the driver hit you by total accident or whether he mowed you down on purpose. The victims or animals perspective is insufficient to describe the ethics involved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Theres more to it than the animals perspective.

Its like saying from the pedestrians perspective the experience is the same whether the driver hit you by total accident or whether he mowed you down on purpose. The victims or animals perspective is insufficient to describe the ethics involved.

Even from the "guilty party's" perspective, the comparison you're describing actually is quite different. Hitting someone by total accident would imply that there was no intent or knowledge that the person was going to get hit/killed.

In the case of killing animals for meat vs. killing them for sport, the "killing the animal" aspect is deliberate in both scenarios, is it not?

What's really being discussed is the ethical comparison of
"It's okay if this animal dies because it would look good on my wall"
vs.
"It's okay if this animal dies because it would look good on my plate"

 

[durangodawood]

Even from the "guilty party's" perspective, the comparison you're describing actually quite different. Hitting someone by total accident would imply that there was no intent or knowledge that the person was going to get hit/killed.

I was contesting your idea that the victims perspective is sufficient to explain the ethics involved. Clearly its not.

In the case of killing animals for meat vs. killing them for sport, the "killing the animal" aspect is deliberate in both scenarios, is it not?

Consider the different between going out and hunting deer for meat and swerving to purposely hit the deer with your truck because "it would be fun."

(Personally, i think hunting for meat is more ethically valid than buying it from the "factory".. Im not anti hunting at all.)

 

[durangodawood]

What's really being discussed is the ethical comparison of
"It's okay if this animal dies because it would look good on my wall"
vs.
"It's okay if this animal dies because it would look good on my plate"

Killing things for the vanity of showing you did it is pretty gross.

Doing it because youre part of a human meat eating legacy for nutrition that goes back to our hominid ancestors is rather different.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Killing things for the vanity of showing you did it is pretty gross.

Doing it because youre part of a human meat eating legacy for nutrition that goes back to our hominid ancestors is rather different.

I'm not anti-hunting either... nor am I anti meat eating

Perhaps I'm just cynic with regards to certain things and it'll likely be an "agree to disagree" situation...


But I don't know that appealing to tradition or appealing to utility necessarily changes the impact or the ethics in the macro sense when it comes to the target of said action. The fact that some people feel the act is better or worse based on how much of a practical purpose it serves is just haggling over the details.


For instance, if a person steals $50 of food because they're broke vs. if a person steals $50 worth of stuff from the same store because they think it's "fun" is of little consequence to the store owner.


In the case of "Trophy Hunter" vs. "Food Hunter", both have already come to the conclusion that it's okay to kill an animal to fulfill some self-serving purpose (IE: "Humans are above all the other animals"), the only disagreement is over which purpose(s) are socially acceptable.

And then you can also get into the weeds on some other grey areas, like food hunters (all of whom intend on eating the meat) that opt to use bows instead of something that provides a quicker kill like a rifle for self-serving reasons in the realm of "it's more sporting, and I like more of a challenge"...which still implies that they're getting some form of enjoyment out of the "killing process"


I actually raised a lot of similar talking points back when their were threads about that Chinese Dog Meat Festival in Yulin some years back and people were agitated by that...yet many of the same folks who were acting like it's the most horrible thing they've ever seen to see a dog on a spit roaster, would presumably have no qualms going to a pig roast where an equally sentient/intelligent animal was raised and prepared in the same fashion.

 

[durangodawood]

....In the case of "Trophy Hunter" vs. "Food Hunter", both have already come to the conclusion that it's okay to kill an animal to fulfill some self-serving purpose (IE: "Humans are above all the other animals"), the only disagreement is over which purpose(s) are socially acceptable....

So when you examine what I offered earlier:

Consider the different between going out and hunting deer for meat and swerving to purposely hit the deer with your truck because "it would be fun."

I guess youd find no important moral difference because.... morality is just whats socially acceptable? In fact it sounds like youre basically a moral nihilist in that the lack of anything like a divine command to backstop moral statements means that they are essentially not valid.