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)

queencallipygos
2011-01-19 07:44 pm UTC (link)

See, now, I thought that things been clarified after Groucho Marx won against the FBI when they went after him for saying "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." A Federal attorney ruled that there was a difference between "the leader of an organization which advocates killing people and overthrowing the government" making such a threat, and any other random person. Ultimately they ruled that Groucho's quip was not a "true threat".

Not challenging you, I'm just curious about the paper trail on this specific issue now, because I thought the line between "person who can potentially actually do something about a threat" and "random harmless yutz on the internet" was clearer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	airawyn 2011-01-19 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know. Possibly these things wouldn't hold up in court if you got a good lawyer on it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

eleutheria
2011-01-20 02:42 am UTC (link)

Nope, if it's reported to them, they do tend to follow up on it. A couple of anecdotes worth noting here.

Long, long time ago I gamed with a guy who worked in membership for the NRA. He was on the VRE (commuter train) and the guy next to him struck up a conversation including what DC-folk usually ask, "what do you do for a living?" NRA guy answers with where he works and the other guy starts ranting about how much he hates President Clinton, and how he "wished someone would just shoot him". NRA guy said basically, look I don't like him either, but that's not cool, man, and the conversation ended. The next day, the Secret Service showed up at the NRA to talk to the guy I gamed with. Apparently someone had overheard and called in a report. It wasn't a huge thing, they interviewed him for an hour or two about what he remembered about the guy on the train, and said that even if it's probably just someone spouting off, they still have to follow up on it if it's reported to them.

I also knew someone who volunteered sorting mail at the White House. The sorters get instructions on how to deal with negative mail that basically amounts to if they say they hate the President and think he's a jerk or is going to burn in Hell or should be impeached, that gets put in one pile, but if it mentions violence in any way (even if it's "I hope you die in a fire, asshole"), it gets put in a bin to be sent to the Secret Service for further evaluation.

They do follow up on "random yutz spouting off" reports and letters, even if it's to do a cursory investigation and decide the person's harmless.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

abharding
2011-01-20 08:47 pm UTC (link)

This.

It's the Secret Services job to protect the President and other high level public officials. And it goes beyond just the "taking a bullet" for the person the Agent is protecting but trying to stop any attempt before it gets to far.

Most assassins do talk about their plans to at least someone and many make threats to their chosen target prior to the attack. True, very few people who make the threats actually intend to carry it out, but the Secret Service can't know that until they talk the person and learn a little more about him or her so they can decide does this person pose a credible threat or is he/she all talk. Time will tell on which which side of the fence this guy fall on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	greenling 2011-01-20 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	Wasn't shooty dude yutz on the internet? I mean, he had a Youtube channel, and ranted about this pretty often if I'm informed properly. Maybe they're just in a hightened level of yutz-awareness right now. (Reply to this)(Parent)

kinda...

monkeyarcher
2011-01-21 02:49 am UTC (link)

While it is odd that it went all the way to an attorney, basically everythign is standard. Anytime a person makes a comment such as this, which may or may not be construed as a threat to a government official, it must be investigated. Many times it is dismissed as not a true threat, perhaps even something off the cuff or intended for humor, but not always.
This was something that was convered in training regarding client confidentiality when I worked in mental health. I never realized that this went back to when Nixon was in office...I wonder when this became the standard practice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -