Blog post prompts police to seize weapons from Arlington businessman.
Remember Travis Corcoran, the owner of HeavyInk.com who lamented that the man who shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords didn't kill her? Well, he's under investigation by the Arlington police department for his comments.

Police have seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from an Arlington businessman while investigating if comments he allegedly made online were intended as a threat to U.S. Congressmen and members of the U.S. Senate.

Arlington Police Chief Frederick Ryan has also suspended the firearms license of Travis Corcoran, 39, who runs the online comic book business HeavyInk.com in Arlington.

Police Captain Robert Bongiorno said Monday that police suspended Corcoran’s firearms license on the grounds of “suitability” pending the results of an investigation into whether a comment Corcoran allegedly made online was intended as a threat in reference to the Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and 13 wounded.

After U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head in the rampage, Arlington Police Captain Robert Bongiorno said police received information that Corcoran posted a comment online saying “one down 534 to go” in reference to Giffords and the other 534 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Bongiorno said police found the comment reposted on ComicsAlliance.com in a story that said Corcoran first made the comment in a blog. Bongiorno said Corcoran has since redacted the comments, but police consider the threat to be credible until they can prove otherwise. Police have also contacted federal law enforcement agencies about the comment.

Corcoran, who did not immediately return a phone call requesting comment Tuesday, has not been charged with a crime, Bongiorno said.

Corcoran surrendered his weapons and ammunition to police at his home on Evergreen Lane in Arlington last week after his firearms license was suspended, police said.

Bongiorno said the length of the suspension or whether Corcoran’s license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation.

Source.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	duraniedrama 2011-01-19 03:18 pm UTC (link)
	Did you see what the guy said? It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot “indiscriminately”. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone. Please! Even the First Amendment has its limits, and I'm pretty sure giving specific instructions on who to shoot and who not to shoot lies well outside those limits. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

queencallipygos
2011-01-19 03:56 pm UTC (link)

Even the First Amendment has its limits, and I'm pretty sure giving specific instructions on who to shoot and who not to shoot lies well outside those limits.

About the only instance I would say that would be true, would be -- if he was speaking solely to a guy who had a gun and came up to him and said "I'm gonna go on a shooting spree in the Capital, wanna come with me?" And he said "nah, I can't -- but lemme tell you who to aim for."

This isn't that case. And I'm afraid to tell you that, that means this IS within the limits of the First Amendment. I don't like that it is, but the tradeoff is that someone in the Tea Party really doesn't like that it is within the limits of the First Amendment that I could run an ad in the New York Times calling for a boycott of Sarah Palin's book. And since the First Amendment protects my right to do that, and the Tea Party guy has to suck it up and deal with it, I have to suck it up and deal with it that an asshole can crack these "aim for the congressmen, amirite?" jokes.

But the silver lining is that I can also turn to the asshole and say "dude, you're an asshole." Because the First Amendment protects that too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	duraniedrama 2011-01-19 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	Boycotting Sarah Palin's book =/= instructions on who to kill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action How imminent said lawless actions are is really up to the courts to decide. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

queencallipygos
2011-01-19 05:21 pm UTC (link)

Boycotting Sarah Palin's book =/= instructions on who to kill.

I know that and you know that. Someone else may feel differently, though -- and the First Amendment is designed to protect us from that person's opinion on "protected speech" being the rule of thumb.

How imminent said lawless actions are is really up to the courts to decide.

And I agree this is as it should be. I'm just concerned with how they decided in this instance, is all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

queencallipygos
2011-01-19 05:26 pm UTC (link)

Wait, let me clarify -- I am completely down with the police siezing the huge horkin' stash of guns and ammo. What concerns me is: I'm not sure, based on the article, whether there was any other grounds to search his house other than the stuff he said online. If there was, then cool.

But if all they had to go on was what he said online -- well, what's to stop police from pointing to any obnoxious shit any of us may have said sarcastically, and using that as an excuse to search our houses?

I'll grant you that I'm very much in the err-on-the-side-of-permissiveness camp when it comes to the First Amendment, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2011-01-19 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	It wasn't just what he said online -- he was on record as having a stash of guns. A combination of terroristic threats on record, the ability to carry them out, and warnings from members of the public are pretty good grounds for a search. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	queencallipygos 2011-01-19 07:37 pm UTC (link)
	It wasn't just what he said online -- he was on record as having a stash of guns. Ahhhhh, gotcha. That's the part I didn't know. Makes total sense now, thanks. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2011-01-19 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, people complain, the cops run a cursory check, find his gun license and go Hofuck, all right, it's probably nothing but start the car. Or whatever it is they do. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-01-20 01:36 am UTC (link)
	Nice description. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	moljn 2011-01-19 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	It's not like the guy's been charged with anything, anyway; he's just under investigation. And I get that police visits alone can be used to intimidate people, but advocating killing politicians shortly after what happened is not on par with "any obnoxious shit any of us may have said sarcastically." (Reply to this)(Parent)

	agent_hyatt 2011-01-19 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	Plus, he wasn't arrested, he just had his gun license revoked and thus had to surrender his firearms. I think of it as him retroactively failing his background check after getting his gun license. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bubosquared 2011-01-21 12:11 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for this; I'd been wondering why the cops actually followed up on what seemed to be a (tasteless and douchey, admittedly) comment from an Internet Tough Guy, but yeah, when said ITG has not just a gun, but a bunch of them, that does change things a bit. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -