plr16 + sb15 = ?

So, what would happen if I took one of these


…replaced its existing pistol grip with one that could accept an AR-15 buffer tube


…inserted one of KAK’s pistol buffer tubes into it: 


… and then wrapped a Sig SB15 Arm Brace around it: 


My understanding of the BATFE compliance letter (IANAL and all that), the PLR-16 started out as a pistol, and neither attaching the AR-15 buffer tube nor the arm brace changed that, so one should still be in the clear.  Furthermore, “constructive intent” only seems to apply when you have no other purpose for the parts you have on-hand except violating the laws (IANAL again), so the fact that I happen to have a spare carbine buffer tube and stock is irrelevant on account of my still having the AR15 they came off of (they were replaced with a Magpul UBR). 

The question only comes up because my SB15 is winding its way towards me as we speak, as is one of KAK’s pistol buffer tubes, and I have been pricing out AR-type build options and prices once I have a steady stream of income again.  It appears that purchasing and kitting out a PLR-16 is marginally cheaper than using the bare, never-built AR-15 lower I have in my safe as a basis for an AR pistol, plus the PLR would not have the stupid-assed buffer tube hanging off its back end if/when the BATFE finally recants their approval of the SB15.  OTOH, it is a Kel-Tec, which can open up a whole ‘nother can of worms in and of itself. 

Anywise, just idle speculation. 

james yeager is a coward

… and a disgrace to the great state of Tennessee, unfortunately.

No, the title of this post does not stem from James Yeager’s questionable behavior during his time in Iraq – I was not there, and I cannot comment on it – but rather his recent behavior here, in these United States.

To begin with, James Yeager is voluntarily on-record as saying he will "break your f—–g back" if you call him a coward to his face. I am fairly certain that all of my readership graduated high school, and are probably more than familiar with the alpha-male bullies that tended to roam the halls of those fine institutions. I am also fairly certain that all of my readership is more than aware that those immature children are, almost invariably, intellectual lightweights and cowards to boot, and attempt to cover up both deficiencies by exhibiting offensive levels of bluster, aggression, and domineering attitudes.

So, tell me, what does someone who makes violent threats from behind the safety of his video camera remind you of?

Moving forward, James Yeager has offered to pay whatever travel expenses you need to go to Camden, Tennessee, and call him a coward to his face. He clarified:

It will be a one way “E-ticket” so no paper ticket will be mailed. I will need your full name and date of birth for the ticket. There will be no need for a hotel.

Apparently James Yeager means to follow through on his threat to break people’s backs; why else would you only need a one-way ticket and not need a hotel room? Even more apparently, James Yeager feels he has something to prove, otherwise why would he go out of his way to entice people to him so he could break their backs? What does he feel insecure about? What is he compensating for? What does he think he has to make up for with blind, inchoate rage?

I wonder.

And just in case you were unclear on exactly what James Yeager is threatening to do, here are his exact words in a phone conversation with a /k/ denizen:

So why don’t you step up to the f—–g plate, like I f—–g asked you to, and come and say it to my f—–g face so I can f—–g kill you?

I must admit, with four years of Navy service under my belt, I am sorely unimpressed with Yeager’s wholly unimaginative, repetitive, and clumsy attempts at profanity. But that is besides the point.

jamesyeagerisacowardIf nothing else, we are well into the realm of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", but even looking past that brief literary aside, does a person who threatens to murder (and, yes, what James Yeager describes is unquestionably murder, as we will get to in a moment) another human being over name-calling strike you as a particularly courageous individual? Would such a person be brave? Would such a person be so much as responsible, rational, or even reasonable?

I dare say not. In fact, I would go so far as to describe a person who threatens to murder other people over being called a name as a "coward", along with "bully", "thug", "sociopath", and a raft of other wholly-appropriate-and-accurate terms. He is too afraid and too insecure to man up and go on with his life while ignoring his detractors, so he instead tries to intimidate them into silence with threats of unlawful violence. Hell with that.

And speaking of unlawful violence, I will give Tennessee credit – they make it very clear what is and what is not a "self-defense" situation. The important things to note is that accurately calling James Yeager a "coward" is not "using or attempting to use unlawful force" against him, and even if it were, he has already repeatedly "consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual", per his incessant videos and comments on the topic. In other words, if he does kill someone for daring to call him a "coward", he will be incapable of claiming self-defense with any degree of credibility.

On the other hand, Tennessee also makes it quite clear what first-degree murder is:

A premeditated and intentional killing of another

Now, I am not a lawyer, and I make absolutely no claim at having a solid understanding of all these laws and how they interact, but so far as I can tell, Yeager has already demonstrated premeditation and intent to kill someone who dares call him a "coward". My understanding is that he has to demonstrate premeditation and intent to kill a specific person for this to be 100% applicable, rather than anyone who does X, but then we just get down to second degree murder: "A knowing killing of another." Given his mercenary background, I dare say Yeager would have a hard time arguing that he did not know he was killing a person while he was doing so.

Speaking more generally, I have to wonder if the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be interested that James Yeager was making telephonic threats… if the /k/ denizen was not in Tennessee, it seems as though things could get a touch complicated.

So why am I poking the unbalanced whackjob when I do not care about what happened on Route Irish and have absolutely no intentions of ever taking a class with or from that sociopathic imbecile? Well, on the one hand, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to share a state with him, and having to share a culture with him, and it is always a good idea to distance yourself from such albatrosses as this nimrod.

But, more importantly, I hope this post serves as a warning to those folks who do consider taking classes from him. James Yeager may be the best thing to happen to firearm training since Colonel Jeff Cooper himself, but the simple fact is Yeager is threatening to murder someone over being called a name. Is that really the kind of person you want teaching you or anyone you know about the lawful use of force, the deadly force triangle, stand your ground, castle doctrine, or anything even remotely related to lawfully carrying and employing a firearm in civilized society? Or, worse yet, do you want this violent school-yard-bully who never actually grew up, only got bigger, and his various threatening YouTube videos to be presented as evidence at your self-defense trial as the person who taught you how to gun down that choir boy who was just asking for change for a pay phone?

Think about it.

(And this is all without even beginning to touch on James Yeager’s patently unsafe history of putting photographers downrange during live-fire drills and dickish backstabbing of folks who lawfully exercise their rights in a fashion he does not like.)

baldr odinson outs himself

By now, regular readers of my weblog should be familiar with the name “Baldr Odinson” – that spineless, dishonest, cowardly troll who so very much hates it when his own methodologies and tricks are used against him (speaking of, I need to put his poll back up at some point).  Regular readers of the pro-rights community would also be aware that Baldr Odinson condoned, if not outright supported, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s vicious, vindictive, and generally bullyish “outing” of various pro-rights activists, myself included; for example: 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgoreoutingOne pro-gun blogger, Wer’d Beard, is sensitive about his real name being "outed" by CSGV. Poor guy, but I’ll abstain as a fellow blogger.

That tweet used to include a link to the CSGV’s weblog wherein they did the outing, until such time as Weer’d requested Baldr take it down.  One cannot mistake the sentiment in those short sentences, though. 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgore1baldrodinsonjasonkilgore2Well, it would appear as though Baldr Odinson has beaten all of the rest of us to the punch, and gone and “outed” himself on Facebook – say hello to Baldr, everyone… or should I say “Jason Kilgore”? 

Now, normally, I would not go posting the personal information of folks who choose to use a screen name while they make use of the Intertubes – being one of those folks myself, I fully understand the motivations involved.  However, in this particular case, I feel as though it is particularly warranted for a variety of reasons. 

First, as you can see to the left, he “outed” himself, on a public page, on Facebook.  He put his screen name right next to his carbon name, in a place where anyone and everyone could see it.  And, lo and behold, someone did. 

baldrodinsonjasonkilgore3Second, as previously mentioned, he condoned / supported / encouraged / facilitated the CSGV when they were going on their mass “outing” spree a few months ago, and personally leveraged some of the outcomes of that despicable activities for his own gain.  The shoe is now on the other foot. 

Third, he has been using either his screen name or his carbon name to sock-puppet for the other, as seen in the two screen captures to the right (the first is available here, the second is available here).  Trying to make yourself look more popular, more appreciated, more widely-recognized, and more agreed-with by generating additional screen names / accounts / etc. is a time-honored tradition of the Intertubes, but not a particularly honorable one. 

Fourth, he actually gave an interview, to a television station, using his screen name as his identification: 

Really Jason?  Really?  Welcome to being a “public figure” (as your Facebook profile claims, by the by); once you assume that mantle, any semblance of “privacy” goes right out the window.  (Of course, the misspelling is all the more amusing, given the circumstances.) 

Fifth and finally, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”) decided to get his panties in a wad over the lawful use of the above-left Facebook image.  As you all know, I am a firm believer in individual rights, including the right to intellectual property ownership; however, as I said in comments

He cannot even claim that. He did not take the picture!

That, right there, is the key element.

Baldr was in a public place, acting as a public figure. As such, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy when that photograph was taken. As such, he has no copyright claim, whatsoever, to that picture, despite being the subject of it.

The only person who originally owned the copyright was the person behind the camera that took it. Did Baldr have that person’s permission to put the picture on his Facebook page?

Seemingly petty though that question may be, it is invaluably important, given Facebook’s rather… demanding… copyright rules, in that they claim ownership of anything and everything that is posted on their domain, regardless of who owned it previously.

Unless Baldr has a notarized power of attorney (or equivalent documentation) from the person who took the picture, or from Facebook themselves, he simply has no standing.

IANAL and all that.

… And as Tango followed up with

That’s not the key. You didn’t reuse his picture. You captured the picture with the surrounding page because what you wrote is specifically about that exact picture and the article associated with it. You wrote an article ABOUT the picture, so reproducing it as such is very very clearly covered under fair use.

So welcome to the club of “outed” webloggers, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”).  If you had not gone to the effort of Streisanding yourself, maybe this all would have blown over and no one would have been the wiser.  As it is, given your encouragement of the CSGV when the started violating people’s privacy, you are, as I believe the saying goes, not-so-respectfully invited to “suck it”. 

(Oh, and what the hell is with the Heaven’s Gate outfit?)