Volunteer Firefighters Clearing Trash Found Short-Barreled AR Rifle Alongside Rural Humboldt County Road Today

Short-barreled AR Rifle

Firefighters found this short-barreled AR rifle over the side of Thomas Road this morning. The bullet that was loaded inside is laying under the barrel straight out from the grip. [Image provided by a local resident]

This morning, while cleaning up trash along Thomas Road, members of Salmon Creek Volunteer Firefighter Department found a short-barreled AR rife rifle loaded with one bullet.

closeup of Short-barreled AR Rifle

Closeup of the rifle that was located. [Image provided by a local resident]

The photos were taken after the rifle had been picked up, unloaded, and set back down in the same place. There was no clip magazine found nearby.

Although at this point, though there is no confirmed tie, community members speculated this was tied to a burglary and pursuit in the area on January 26 (See links below.)

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department was notified and a deputy responded to pick up the firearm.

The firefighters and other community members were clearing trash and removing vegetation that degraded the beauty of and impeded traffic on the county road.

Salmon Creek Fire vehicles lined the rural road as volunteers removed trash and vegetation.

A Salmon Creek Fire pickup and private vehicles lined the rural road as volunteers removed trash and vegetation. [Image provided by a local resident]

Earlier Chapters in the Manhunt in Salmon Creek:

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A former resident
Guest
A former resident
4 years ago

It would behoove credible journalists like Kym Kemp to learn the basic vocabulary of the topics they report on. We don’t expect you to be scientists, engineers or experts on any topics, except for language. If you can’t accurately describe the issues you report on, what does that say for your credibility on any topic that we individually are not familiar with?

I’m not an expert on firearms, so won’t attempt to correct you other than to say even with a passing understanding of the topic I could point out several errors which distract from the message.

Rob Winte
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

So what is the difference between a magazine and a clip? … A magazine is designed as a device that holds ammo to be fed into the chamber of a firearm. A clip is designed as a device to hold ammo together to be ready to load into a magazine or cylinder of a firearm.

Magazine would have been correct in this context, plus a misspelling, rife instead of rifle.

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob Winte

ACKSCHUALLY, dimetrodon is a SYNAPSID not a DINOSAUR. Honestly I’m starting to doubt whether you’re a paleontologist at all, Kym.

Kay
Guest
Kay
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

Lol. Spilled my coffee!

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob Winte

You’re sarcastic, right? Clip and magazine are essentially the same, like trope and meme. Has been all my life, but then, I thought Hillary HAD it!

If you want to get technical, what the investigators found were almost certainly cartridges, not “bullets” which are components of cartridges.

OK, so the country is being destroyed from within by the Party of Lincoln, TR, Reagan while being cheered on by the Son of Reagan (Michael) which we were warned about by Washington and Lincoln and we’re going to beat Kym up over clip vs. magazine? Ohhhhhhh Kayyyyyy.

Mike
Guest
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

purist get upset when you call a magazine a clip, it makes no sense but they do.

Jim Brickley
Guest
Jim Brickley
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

It’s like calling people who ride bicycles, ‘Bikers’. Very confusing!

Ruth Ray
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

You do a great job Kim ! I’m no “expert “ on anything BUT I can always understand you perfectly!

Well I think I might be an expert on being a Grandma and Great Grammy 👍🥰👵🏻

Hank
Guest
Hank
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Kym, ignore the snarky “former resident”.

A former resident
Guest
A former resident
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Kym, I apologize for being snarky. Sensitized from reading so many gun-grabber opinions lately, invariably from folks who have no clue. Guns are such a huge political controversy these days that even basic vocabulary tends to imply where one stands on the issues.

What caught my eye at first was the headline “ar rifle…” AR originally stood for ArmaLite Rifle, a brand. One of the most popular guns in America is the AR-15 style gun, as in the photo. Gun grabbers decided that AR stands for “assault rifle”–there is no such thing as far as I know. So your headline read to me as “a rifle rifle”.

Then of course the “clip” vs “magazine” and the bullet instead of cartridge or round. No big deal, but you get the drift.

Again, I apologize no offense intended.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Thank you, Kym, for seeking Truth, regardless where it leads you.

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
4 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Ditto.

Nero
Guest
Nero
4 years ago

….I’m anti gun grabber too…highly defensive toward those who wish to disarm me….but we on the right can’t become like the left, where any minor perceived slight is a “micro agression” that demands we be offended. Don’t get defensive…..just think about what I’m saying. Don’t be so quick to assume and be offended. I’m not even sure what you were saying about the ar thing. It was an ar pattern sbr and she didn’t use the acronym ar in a context that suggested that she thought it meant assualt rifle….so you going off on the history of the armalight….one.) this is our hobby, we enjoy gaining info regarding the subject…but we can’t expect every man and women to have this knowledge. We can expect someone who speaks with authority regarding taking them to know them, unquestionably. But this was a gun nuetral article. An event occured involving this gun. That was it. 2.) It just seemed like you took the opportunity to show your knowledge. Like if I, randomly in my reply here went off on the coining of the term assualt rifle coming from Nazi Germany in a propaganda attempt to fill their foes with fear regarding the new weapon. And thus it’s usage today still embodies an attempt at propaganda… It would just seem like I like reading myself talk. Think about it. It’s not much different than someone going to an article about….idk..some random football player. And talks about his football playing. And then in the comments some lefty is like, “I notice you fail to mention his kneeling for the anthem to protest the treatment if black people. This is a micro agression indicating that you are against the kneeling and thus are a racist. It’s not a far cry from that too, “this lady misspelled rifle and said clip rather than magazine. From this I deduce she is anti gun and must confront her.” We can’t become like the left in response to the left. We must think about things fully and not give into ideological responses by default.

Realist
Guest
Realist
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Well you may want to consider your position being far left as they want to take your guns away. Make no mistake about it.

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  Nero

“but we on the right can’t become like the left, where any minor perceived slight is a “micro agression””
You’re already WAAAY past that, bud! More defensive over your proxy-genitals than a trans person is over their REAL ones!

“ACKSCHUALLY, the proper nomenclature is SCROTUM not BALLS!”

Rob Winte
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Nero

There is a problem by projecting people’s motives when you do not know for sure. This says more about you than it does about me.

Pointing out a misspelling in an article, gave the reporter a chance to correct it, although I thought she could just modify it without drawing a line through the original entry, so that it would be transparent. As far as the other item, clip vs magazine, there seems to be some tendency to allow inaccurate use of words in our communications. Words getting redefined to mean something different than what they are, muddies communication rather than enhances it. Since when is better communication a bad thing?

At no time did I think the reporter was anti-anything and you would not be able to reference anything in my post that would support your claim of “micro agression”.

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
4 years ago
Reply to  Nero

Sir, put down the cup. Do it now. Back away from the coffee pot. Now.

Wow, man, what a buzzkill. Say what? I generally am liberal since the progress of civilization comes from Liberal thought, and try to be guided by science, evidence and The Golden Rule. Sometimes I fail in my secular “religion”.

A liberal who likes guns. Slavic tribes can be quite militant. Blood will tell. Tribe of Rus was a pain-the-butt which is why so many left Russia in their own mini-diaspora.

Like so many, a few washed up on these hallowed shores, this sacred ground, searching for peace and freedom, maybe, at long last.

That’s why I burst with pride at the testimony of Lt Col. Vindman and Masha Yovanovich. They know what this country is and can yet be. They don’t need books to know what horrors in Russia and Germany their families so recently escaped.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not if your country can save you, ask what you can do to save America from the Republican Party.

uhhhh, OK, man. Put the roach down. Now. Back away from the stash.

Government Cheese
Guest
Government Cheese
4 years ago

At least kym didn’t call it a “evil” firearm! 😂. Great job Ms Kemp for all you do. Or is it Mrs. Kemp? I would hate to judge the fact that your married so I will leave it as a non judgmental accusation of just Ms. since I’m pretty sure your not a Miss, unless that is what you want to be addressed and categorized as…..

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago

It would behoove credible commenters to realize that small news organizations don’t have a staff of specialist reporters for all possible topics, and sometimes they have to report on things they may not be experts on, as the alternative is not bringing you news. That said, maybe you should point out the plentiful glaring errors you have found, because I’m not finding them. The only ones I note are the conflation of clip and magazine, but this is a debatable topic given as it seems to be becoming common usage, and the use of bullet to refer to a complete round – and these are minor things not worth berating a reporter over.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

I didn’t say you had to change it… I was just trying to figure out what the hell they were complaining about!

I would say your terminology is more than acceptable for anything other than an article specifically about firearms… You’re running a news site, not a firearms site. As long as you’re not saying they found a black thing with a pointy thing in it, you’re clearly getting the message across, and you’re writing a news article for the general public, not a detailed forensics report for an investigation or anything else where perfect technical accuracy would be needed and general usage terms could cause confusion.

They’re probably the type of person who complains when someone says they stepped on the gas pedal in their diesel truck. 🙂

Canyon oak
Guest
Canyon oak
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

You do a great job Kym👍🏼

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

This is a speaking point for those who oppose any type of gun regulation. When people who are “anti-gun” use a term that is technically incorrect then they can be accused of not being educated on the topic they want to regulate and their opinions and position dismissed, even when the terms have become interchangeable for the majority of people. The fact is, most people just don’t care and understood exactly what the article was saying. Language evolves over time, people need to get over it.

FYI, I am a concealed carry permit holder and own multiple firearms, including multiple AR rifles. I oppose assault rifle and high-capacity magazine bans, but I am not opposed to universal background checks and other possible reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, the mentally ill, or those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Hrmm, I don’t think committing a misdemeanor should be sufficient to strip someone of their basic rights… So instead we really need to start treating domestic violence as a felony a lot more often, rather than treating it almost like it’s normal! And it’s really a cultural thing, not an isolated issue… just like drunk driving, knocking your partner around a bit is something that people joke about, not something that immediately gets you shunned by your peers.

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

I just know that it can be a misdemeanor in some states, but I believe it is dependent on the severity of the assault. Either way, misdemeanor dv can lead to more severe dv, as it does tend to escalate. If a person is ineligible because of misdemeanor dv I believe they become eligible automatically after a few years without further convictions (if I am not mistaken this is how it works in NC, but will vary by state).

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Marc,

I also am not against smart gun control measures.

A big thing that is under-recognized is that DUIs are a (real) big indicator for future violent gun crimes.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article235692842.html

DUIs in Ca are misdemeanor offense, even 2 or 3 of them are still a misdemeanor.

Perhaps DUIs should be a felony, or DUIs should disqualify from future gun-purchases?

Would you support something like that?

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

That’s a really good idea.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

I think Jerry Brown had a bill on his desk that would have bridged the DUI/Gun purchase gap, but he didn’t sign it at the time.

I believe he cited a lack of research. But more research is happening, so hopefully one day.

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

No, it’s not a good idea. Maybe the 3rd DUI, felony and Gun confiscation. Loose license for life. Other than that your just propping up more of a police state mantality…

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Brian, I’m not sure if I would or not; I would have to look into the data to understand any correlation. What I do support is an end to the federal ban on funding studies of gun crime and violence so we can answer these types of questions.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Marc,

I agree with ending that federal ban, too.

Thanks for your answer.

Erik
Guest
Erik
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

There is no ban on research, just a ban on the cdc politicizing and pushing an agenda.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Erik,

I might look more at the angle of your link, but I had to look at The Federalist headlines first.

I was amazed to find it promoting abortions as the headline article today.

Abortions if your son is going to be gay, that is.

Wild “news” site.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/28/wife-decided-abort-unborn-gay-son/

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Did you really miss the satire?

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Wild “news” site.

I view articles from websites that don’t push satire and I’m not used to looking for “fake news” warnings mixed between slightly less fake news headlines.

Going to the Dickey:

The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 United States federal government omnibus spending billwhich mandated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment#Adoption_and_effect

For any objective discussion, like Marc and I were on, The Federalist is an unneccessary distraction.

Imagine having the time to get paid to write a fake article about getting abortions because your unborn son will be gay, using the “satire” to push suicide statistics and make points that have nothing to do with satire…. what a life.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

It clearly says “Satire” above the headline. The editors put “opinion” in the same place if that is what it is. The Federalist assumes readers of their site have a certain level of critical comprehension.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

From your quote:
“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
That’s not a ban on studying gun related violence, it’s a ban on pushing a predisposed agenda.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

Also from my link:

Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.

Sooooo…..no research over 20 years out of fear is defined differently than a ban, but the results are the same.

—-

I didnt see one link in any Onion articles today:

https://www.theonion.com

What the Federalist did with links and talking points treads more into an opinion piece with bullshit wrapping, but that’s my opinion.

Erik
Guest
Erik
4 years ago
Reply to  Marc

I know, facts and refutation can sometimes disrupt a constructive dialogue.

“The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 — when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote.

The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.

The report challenges not only the media narrative but also the notion that researchers need a constant flow of federal money in order to thrive. . . .”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3295796

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

Oh look, it already is a Felony after 3 DUI’s the 4th is a felony, or if you cause bodily harm Under the influence.. But way to misconstrue Info TRB.. It doesn’t seem right to me to make the first DUI a felony, if nobody was injured. It seems the law would agree.. That would be soo extreme..

https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-makes-a-dui-a-felony-in-california

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

I said 1, 2 or 3 DUIs are a misdemeanor offense.

You found that to be true too, so what am I “misconstruing”?

I think:

#1 should be a red flag for new gun purchases.

#2 means you loose what guns you got.

#3 Felony conviction

No #4

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

You left out, that #4 IS a felony, and BTW, Once someone is convicted of that Felony, they can no longer poses guns or weapons, or Ammo, anyway.

Taking people’s guns or restricting them on a second DUI is extreme. Having a DUI and guns does nothing To prove intent with a gun.

In California there are 40 or so misdemeanors that will result in loosing your guns for up to 10 years, some federal bans for life. Most of them are associated with domestic voilence, or Brandishing a firearm, or threatening someone, ect ect… Most of them make solid sense because they are considered violent acts. Soo.. your restrictions you’re proposing are extreme overkill, to the more than otherwise Overkill of gun laws California already has on the books.

But, thanks for demonstrating why Legislation And laws are not drafted on Social media..

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

I also didn’t mention #5, what’s your point?

The first 3 are misdemeanors!

That was MY point.

Most people go their whole lives with 0 DUIs bucko, me included.

I’m less inclined to give a fuck about drunk drivers than you it would seem.

You also seem to have not looked at or understood the big connection of DUI/gun violence.

No biggie.

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Your point of view.. from my perspective… Make DUI on the1st offense a Felony, for the sole purpose of confiscating guns. Never mind that person may have not have had anything to do with violence or guns, or gun violence. None the less ARE guilty.. based on your “statistics” alone… Yours…. “Perhaps DUIs should be a felony, or DUIs should disqualify from future gun-purchases?”

My point. A DUI does not indicate you in gun violence. Having A single DUI shouldn’t mar you for life.
Sure maybe most people go thru life never getting a DUI. I am lucky to have not. I did get my DL I had just got suspended automatically for the smallest amount of weed, When I was younger. That sucked. It had Nothing to do with operating under the influence. I have also had friends and luved ones make the simple mistake of being just slightly over and get a DUI… I can’t say I would want to see them felons or remove their rights to defense over it.

The other point.. is that California already has A slew of laws that confiscate your guns on misdemeanor charges, such as Domestic Violence, or having a restraining order on you, or even theft. Like 40 of them. Most of them make sense. So if you do get drunk and are irresponsible with your gun, or have been convicted of intimidating people with a fire arm, guess what.. your ability to own and posses a firearm gone… for 10 years. Maybe more. All on misdemeanor charges..

This is the point your missing TRB. Is that if your irresponsible with your firearm, or convicted of violence, your firearm will be confiscated.. having a Even a few DUI’s doesn’t prove you have bad intentions or intended to be violent with a firearm.

I swear, due to people like you, FireArms would be confiscated over parking tickets. Why take away a peaceful person’s right to defend themselves? Especially these days, often criminals have usually have guns anyways and bigger more powerful ones they don’t have to be responsible for.., . If your a convicted violent drunk your right to firearms will be banned anyway.

It has nothing to do with a DUI.. Even if your statistics say it does. Have you looked up how many people who have had DUI, have also ALREADY been convicted on one of the 40 misdemeanors who have also then got their guns confiscated? Or are you just arbitrarily making blind assumptions based on cherry picked statistics? I think the later half is more true..

https://www.shouselaw.com/gun-restoration.html

Yeah. Welcome to Cali, say good by to your guns over parking tickets.. or how about not not…

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Quick numbers: there are 1.5 million annual arrests for DUI. There are 15 thousand annual firearm homicides (not suicide ). That is 1% of the DUI arrests. So, even if there was a 1:1 correlation (there isn’t ) you want to punish 99% for the 1%.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Drunk driving is proof of irresponsibility and poor decision making processes.

Being busted once, does not mean it was the violators first time drinking and driving.

Repeat offenders just emphasize the essence of stupidity and a willingness to put other innocent lives at risk.

No way around it.

Domestic violence falls into red flag laws, also fought against by many in the hardline 2a groups.

The evidence shows a link between DUIs and violent gun crimes.

Your fear of laws and government doesn’t change that.

We used to not have DUI laws, and I’m sure you would have been against them forming at the time. But we save tens of thousands of lives per year now.

I’m not afraid of smart laws.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Ullr,

I’m sure you know there are more ways than homicide to commit a violent gun crime!

Many, many more ways.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Even if you use the number of non fatal gun related injuries (not all are criminal ) at 75k per annum that is only 5% of the 1.5 million DUI’s. Your study showed a statistically significant jump in the correlation between DUI and gun violence over those without DUI, but that number is still very small.

Correlation does not equal causation. There is a stronger correlation between single mother households and violence than anything else. Perhaps we should ban the purchase of firearms for people from single mother households. … that’s sarcasm if you can’t tell.

MADE IN THE USA
Guest
MADE IN THE USA
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

“Drunk driving is proof of irresponsibility and poor decision making processes.”

forgive me if I’m wrong, but it would almost be easy to see how those in charge, back in the first part of the 1900’s, would make a case for forced sterilization.

it seems that poor decision making would be the cause for concern that demands behavior modification or something stronger?

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Surre.. Not afraid of smart laws… No your just into insisting on really dumb laws.. TRB

Your making assumptions on my character, and telling me what I am insinuating based on your false assumptions.. I am for having DUI laws. I do think guns should be confiscated for domestic violence situations. Especially DV situations. Guns in Cali are confiscated for 10 years for the 1st conviction of DV. A misdemeanor.. That is probably a good call. Even more strict than a DUI… And yes, I stop at stop signs..

Just to clarify, not that it really matters, but my response is slightly confusing when I re read.. I’ve never had a DUI. I am hyper diligent about being a safe driver.

But a DUI doesn’t prove someone to be irresponsible in all factors of life, or that they will be hostile with a gun. And if they are convicted of being irresponsible with a gun, Cali law already address that in soo many ways. It’s already covered TRB. Your insisting on nonsense.

Where’s your statistical analysis on how many people have ALREADY had thier guns confiscated because not only did they have a DUI, but they also had DV charges? Or other Misdomenor issues?

Your insisting on punishing people who are not necessarily guilty of a crime they didn’t commit. Assuming guilt till proven innocent.

But way to skirt the issue Once Again..

The other reason I am diligent on this issue, is because A DUI is not just Alcohol any more. You can technically get a DUI for having THC in your system, from smoking days ago, with out proof of impairment. Convicting someone on a felony on those grounds is disturbing to me.

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Sf,

I’m quite sure about my opinion regarding you and DUI laws in the 30’s.

The only reason why you think you would have supported them originally is because your already a subject of the result of the laws.

We frown collectively on drunk driving simply because of the laws and culture created through time and information.

The information regarding DUI/gun violence is there, easily.

What you don’t have now is the time and culture from acknowledging the correlation.

DUI/gun violence correlations are only to-do with alcohol, and any laws based on the research would and should only apply to alcohol.

There’s no reason to assume a responsible person is behind the wheel if they’re drinking and driving.

Do you give so much responsibilty allowance to a pedophile or murderer when they’re not actually committing the crime?

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

Well then , since YOU seem to assume to know people better than they know themselves… You make the assumptions Your right.. when your again Dead Wrong…

This isn’t the 1930’s.. just Incase you haven’t noticed.
But in this case, historical perspectives.. being a subject of the result of laws.. prohibition was a complete and epic failure. And I disagree with you, people don’t frown on drunk driving because of “statistics”… It’s more like correlation to death, major injuries and loss of luved ones…

The historical correlations and corrections you refer too already exist. Like I have repeatedly stated and you repeatedly deny and ignore. Violence with guns will get your guns confiscated faster than a DUI.. as it stands.. Your not making history here TRB.. Sorry but you won’t be known as the next Will Rodgers or Benjamin Franklin..

Just to be clear, if you think this would relate to Alcohol only.. your throughly naively mistaken. That’s Historically proven..

And why do you constantly insist on using pedophila to prove and prop up your loosing view points?

All out of time this afternoon. And 100% disagree with your disposition. Have a good day..

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

I’ve been saying for a while that DUI should be charged as attempted murder or something else that actually reflects the seriousness of the crime, which would be a felony too.

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

First of all a DUI does nothing to establish an intent to “maliciously murder” anyone. What’s next? Attempted murder for every texting teenager? Drowsy soccer Moms?
Unbound dogs? I don’t think so.

Besides, California is such a car dependent state. Limit people’s ability to get to work, or throw them in jail for the rest of eternity for a single DUI, and you have an extreme welfare dependant police state. Oh yes, we will be so much safer then.. or how about not..

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

Let’s consider a situation. You stand in the middle of town, put a blindfold on, and spin in a circle while firing an automatic weapon. Maybe you get lucky, and no one gets hit. Maybe you mow down a bunch of little children. Do you think you’ll get off with a misdemeanor just because no one died? No, they’ll throw the book at you, and the charges will stick, because any reasonable person would see killing random people as a likely outcome of that action.

Now, let’s say you get behind the wheel of a car after drinking. Maybe you get lucky, and no one gets hit. Maybe you mow down a bunch of little children. What’s different here? Your deadly weapon is a car instead of a rifle, and that’s it. You’re knowingly performing an action that, while you may not specifically intend to kill people, has a likely outcome of killing random people. And you should have the exact same book thrown at you.

We used to have attempted involuntary manslaughter as a charge for things like that… we should bring it back.

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

A car is not a gun. That’s a complete red herring. And if, you do get in your car Drunk, and hurt someone, it could very well be involuntary manslaughter. Or worse. So that’s covered. The punishment fits the crime.

The punishment doesn’t fit the crime if you had one too many drinks, and make the mistake of driving home, without hurting anyone. The punishment would not fit the crime in that case. There isn’t an attempt or intent to harm anyone. Possession doesn’t prove intent..

That said, just because you have a AR 15 doesn’t mean you ARE going to take it to the center of town with a blindfold and Fire it. You may be in possession of it, but that doesn’t prove intent.

No, the laws are already well laid out and fairly strict already. The last thing that is needed is more overkill laws that address very little and sky rocket the tax bill. I certainly do not want to pay for a life sentence for someone who is capable of working and only guilty of a DUI. What do you propose next? Death penalty for DUI’s?Yeah. There is a reason I don’t live in Communist China or North Korea…

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
4 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

What, in this case, is the difference between a car and a gun? They’re both devices that have many legitimate purposes and are used responsibly by the majority of owners, but when used irresponsibly can accidentally or intentionally kill other people, often many other people.

If you decide to do something extremely reckless, in that any rational person would agree it has a significant chance of hurting or killing people – be it blindly firing a weapon in a populated area, or operating a vehicle while drunk – you should be treated the same no matter what particular dangerous device you used.

Matthew Meyer
Guest
Matthew Meyer
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Thanks for all you do, Kym. I appreciate you keeping at it all these years. There are stories and perspectives on your site that can’t be found anywhere else. And your dedication to your community and area are both unusual and beautiful to see. I hope you keep at it forever.

onlooker
Guest
onlooker
4 years ago

Well that is just so mysterious on everything — except that you want to bash Kym. Without saying anything credible yourself. You could almost say that you’re shooting in the dark there.

avoidance101
Guest
avoidance101
4 years ago

THATS your concern from this incident? Someone called out a gun part wrong? Wow.

seamus
Guest
seamus
4 years ago

Jeez, I am glad you are a former resident.

And to the people I feel exactly the opposite about, thank you Salmon Creek Volunteer Firefighter Department for spending this beautiful Saturday out picking up other peoples trash. You make this a better place.

Buzz
Guest
Buzz
4 years ago

I genuinely hope that you are, indeed a former resident. Start your own damn news site and make it just as you like.

Pissed off Marine
Guest
Pissed off Marine
4 years ago
Reply to  Buzz

Firearm,rifle, or weapon. The bottom line is that no child found it with a cartridge and or round in a magazine or clip and tragedy struck! There is still a constitution, right or wrong, agree with or not, it still must be upheld to the intellectual and morons!

MADE IN THE USA
Guest
MADE IN THE USA
4 years ago

not for long, if these wrecking ball types are kept off leash, to high jack a real desire for change.

Possum Hater
Guest
Possum Hater
4 years ago

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn’t have military grade weaponry.

Government Cheese
Guest
Government Cheese
4 years ago

Wade Harris, you lost your gun?

Bob Harris
Guest
Bob Harris
4 years ago

Can you let us know whether it’s clerical or gun nomenclature? Or just trolling?

Martin
Guest
Martin
4 years ago

One cartridge case is the correct term. The unfired case holds the bullet. A bullet in the gun chamber will do nothing by itself.

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

@Martin: Neither will a cartridge case, which is just the “brass”. If you want to be so damn critical then you should at least make sure you know what the f’ you’re talking about! At any rate, you understood what she meant, or you wouldn’t have attempted to correct her, even though you weren’t correct yourself.

The correct term would be cartridge, or round of ammunition, etc. which means all components in the assembly (cartridge case, primer, powder, and bullet). There, are you happy now?

Lynn H
Guest
Lynn H
4 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Who the hell cares? This is the news, not your personal classroom.

Government Cheese
Guest
Government Cheese
4 years ago

Your allowed to own AND use high capacity magazines in California. I dug all mine up and use them for my home defense weapons. Nomenclature….. I call one “The Wade”.

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago

This is really bad legal advice and will land you in prison.

That being said, judged by 12, carried by 6… Your choice! I guess it depends on how sketchy your lifestyle choices are and how many sketchy people know about them.

G Child
Guest
G Child
4 years ago

Nate Dogg and Warren G called it a clip, while they were regulating.

Tom
Guest
Tom
4 years ago

I’m a gun nut and a military veteran and have had law enforcement training and I don’t see any problem using the word “magazine ” or “clip”. Furthermore. I can’t understand anyone bashing Kym Kemp for something this trivial when she does such a fine service to all our communities.

Sparklemahn
Guest
Sparklemahn
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom

You’re right, too.

Hank
Guest
Hank
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom

Tom, you are right on.

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom

Fully agree! We all knew what she meant.

RedWoods
Guest
RedWoods
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom

Tom I agree 100% and so does anyone who ever was under fire & asked a buddy for a few extra “clips” or “mags”. Everyone knew what was needed. No nitpicking in the “real” world!!

Sparklemahn
Guest
Sparklemahn
4 years ago

You’re right.

Casey
Guest
Casey
4 years ago

California magazines are limited to 10 pages.

Marc
Guest
Marc
4 years ago
Reply to  Casey

🤣

Ronald
Guest
Ronald
4 years ago

Great job Kym.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago

“Large capacity magazines may now be legal in California. In March of 2019, a federal judge in California gave a ruling that seems to have struck down Penal Code 32310 (which banned large capacity magazines in the State).

“The judge, though, has agreed to hold off on implementing his ruling (on sales) while the State gets ready to challenge the decision.”

As of right now you can possess “high-capacity” magazines in California, but they can’t be sold, yet.

https://www.shouselaw.com/large-capacity-magazines

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

You’d better have the receipts that prove you bought your mags during the week between the two ban periods…

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

Nope. That’s not how the ruling works. It is legal to possess high capacity magazines in California and it doesn’t matter where or when they were acquired. There is a stay on retailers selling them until the appeal is heard.

(correction: the stay included a ban on importing high capacity magazines after April 5th 2019 although those in possession of them are legal.)

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/california-judge-issued-stay-on-magazine-ban-to-protect-gun-owners/#axzz6Eo18kLYz

Erik
Guest
Erik
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

Looking forward to freedom week 2.0.
Keep up to date on Miller v. Becerra here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1552764

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Here’s hoping. On a positive note for the 9th circuit Trump has already appointed 10 judges to the 9th bringing a semblance of balance.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Trump’s Deep State will continue making wonderful laws beneficial to both arms manufacturers and Kamikaze Incel mass-shooters for years to come, and you’ll continue to pretend to be a lawyer, giving people advice that will most likely end with a prison senfence.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

Do you have a reference for, “…most likely end with a prison senfence[sic]”?

.My hope is that judges will insure that laws pushed on the people are constitutional. That’s it.

MADE IN THE USA
Guest
MADE IN THE USA
4 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

never gonna happen

Jaekelopterus
Guest
Jaekelopterus
4 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

There are still plenty of ways fucking around with hi-cap mags can get you into trouble. You could let your friends touch them, fail to store them properly, take them out of state, ECT. The point is that no case law has really been made in regards to that decision, and I don’t think any lawyer would recommend that you try to go out and ever try to make case law. Its the legal equivalent of doing experimental surgery on yourself.

https://www.shouselaw.com/large-capacity-magazines

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
4 years ago
Reply to  Jaekelopterus

Well, gee. I used the very reference above from Shouse law firm… and the only thing I said was it’s legal to possess high cap magazines.

As per your list of hypotheticals, it’s also illegal to beat someone over the head with one. None of that changes what I said.

Crazy Eight
Guest
Crazy Eight
4 years ago

I find it sad that theres more concern about a damn typo then the fact that that weapon could have been found by a child or another twack job to use on another robbery…get youre priorities straight folks

Crazy Eight
Guest
Crazy Eight
4 years ago

Thank you Kym for the info and news you give us on the daily… you’re a rock star