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

103 comments

  • A former resident

    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.

    • If you have something constructive to add to the subject, do so. But the gun nut who I ran this by (I’m married to him) thinks my vocab is just fine. This type of SBR isn’t legal in California and I could have gone into more but I didn’t think it necessary to geek out for the other gun nuts in the audience who are capable of doing that themselves. And, if my gun nut husband doesn’t think I made any errors, you are indeed asking me to learn more than the basic vocab of this subject.

      • 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.

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

        • Lost Croat Outburst

          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.

      • You are correct, Looks fine to me, maybe because they said clip not mag? Hopefully thy fingerprint it and is comes back to wade, maybe they’ll add another week to his vacation, thanks for the info.

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

      • 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 👍🥰👵🏻

      • Kym, ignore the snarky “former resident”.

      • A former resident

        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.

        • First, let me accept your apology and add that I am sensitive to people criticizing my credibility when it’s the only thing I have to make this site stand up to larger news organizations so I can be too sensitive. My apologies for my part in the misunderstanding.

          Earlier this afternoon, my cousin just asked me why I used AR not assault rifle when talking about this and I explained that AR originally stood for ArmaLite and now denotes a style of rifle that has nothing to do with assault rifle….and I’m pretty sure that most folks don’t even know that. Which all goes to show how easy it is for misunderstandings to pop up online even between people who might normally agree.

        • ….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.

          • I’m pretty far left but…it would be wrong to assume my position on firearms from that.

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

          • “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!”

          • 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

            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

          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…..

    • 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.

      • Checked in with my gun nut…he says sigh, yes, gun nuts do differentiate between clip and magazine but that colloquially they are interchangeable. Still, I’ve made that correction because a normal reader would understand either word in that place and magazine is more correct.

        But, Bushytails, there is no way I’m changing bullet. That’s crazy. Calling it a round or a cartridge may make sense to a gun nut but not to the normal reader. My job is to communicate with a normal person. And I’ve been around guns my whole life and while I’ve frequently heard the term round and the term cartridge, the term bullet is used much more frequently to refer to the whole package not just the piece that is shot from the firearm

        And, former resident, Bushytails is right. This took up a crazy amount of time that I could have been communicating something that I need to–when you and everyone else who read this post understood exactly what was being referred to. I write almost all the articles here. It is impossible for one person to be an expert or even knowledgeable on as many subjects as I need to communicate about to my readers. So I rely on folks to add info if they can.

        I wouldn’t at all have minded if you had just said where you thought I was wrong and what you thought I should know, I appreciate getting better but that comment you made unnecessarily threw shade on my reliability–which as I’m out here putting my face and name on everything I say is rough…doubly so when it comes from someone not even willing to put their name and what they think is the correct terminology in their comment.

        • 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. 🙂

          • Bushy, You didn’t say that and I didn’t think you meant it. I was just expressing my horror that someone would expect me not to use bullet …all the while knowing that this must have been one of Resident’s issues.

            I really didn’t mind the idea that there was better terminology to use. The comment just felt so patronizing while I standing out here on every article letting folks take shots at me (metaphorically) for whatever I might have erred in writing and he wasn’t even willing to put the better terminology out there under his handle. Sometimes that makes me grumpy.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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).

                • 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?

                  • That’s a really good idea.

                    • 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.

                  • 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…

                  • 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.

                    • Marc,

                      I agree with ending that federal ban, too.

                      Thanks for your answer.

                    • 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/

                    • 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/

                    • Did you really miss the satire?

                    • 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.

                    • 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.

                    • 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.

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                  • 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

                    • 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

                    • 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..

                    • 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.

                    • 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…

                    • 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%.

                    • 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.

                    • Ullr,

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

                      Many, many more ways.

                    • 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.

                    • “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?

                    • 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.

                    • 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?

                    • 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..

                  • 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.

                    • 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..

                    • 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.

                    • 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…

                    • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • 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

        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!

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

  • Government Cheese

    Wade Harris, you lost your gun?

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

  • Messed up that criminals are armed with these kind of weapons, ready to invade your home, yet law abiding citizens can only have a 10rd mag.

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

    • @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?

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

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

  • 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.

  • California magazines are limited to 10 pages.

  • Great job Kym.

  • 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

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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