I know how to build bombs. I could teach you (but I’d have to charge).* Is that legal?
I read The Anarchist Cookbook as a kid. (Let’s leave it at that!) Thankfully, I had sense enough not to try anything in it.
Years later, as an ATF agent, I’d see that book countless times on search warrants, often after a person had accidentally blown themselves to smithereens. (PSA: Do not try that at home!)
But where I really gained my knowledge of destructive devices was at the ATF Academy. (I learned other useful things there, too, like how to breathe.)
I’ve written before about ATF’s explosives mission. (It’s even in the name.) There are simply no better bomb investigators in the world than at ATF. And to investigate bombings, you must know how bombs work.
So would it be legal for me to share my knowledge with others? It depends (says every lawyer).
After the OKC bombing, Congress wanted to limit the spread of bomb-making instructions. Of course, it had to contend with the First Amendment. This is America: you can say what you want. You can even write The Anarchist Cookbook.
So when it passed 18 U.S.C. § 842(p), it only made it illegal to teach someone how to make a bomb if you KNOW the person you’re teaching intends to commit a crime of violence with it.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether this law is constitutional.
Christopher Arthur also knows how to make bombs, and started selling manuals with info useful for resisting “a tyrannical government.” One of his customers used that info to build bombs (and then attacked some cops).
That led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate Arthur. It had an informant contact him and request in-person training. The informant told Arthur that ATF agents had been to the his house (a made up story), were probably coming back, and he wanted to “be ready” when they did.
Knowing the informant wanted to use the info to kill ATF agents, Arthur instructed him in all manner of devices, boobytraps, and strategies to create “a freaking death box.” FBI arrested Arthur and charged him with §842(p).
Before trial, he moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court denied his motion, finding the statute’s knowledge requirement kept it narrow, likening it to aiding and abetting. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 25 years. He appealed.
In an opinion that offers a lesson in free speech law, the Fourth Circuit found the statute is not overbroad and doesn’t restrict protected speech, since it narrowly targets “speech integral to criminal conduct,” an exception to the First Amendment.
You can read the opinion here.
*No, I won’t actually teach you how to build a bomb. But hopefully I earwigged you with that milkshake song!