There should have been more specific details on the laws rather than the fear mongering followed by a few examples of people impacted. If there are thousands of people impacted by this every year, shouldn't they have done some more research on the laws prone to abuse and listed them down?
Yes, I have to remain skeptical of the true "danger" posed to most of us by these laws.
However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.
No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
It's probably not a bad thing to have laws against abandoning dangerous materials - but like the article states there should be provisions relating to the intent of the accused and the actual danger to the community, not simply a vague set of circumstances that someone might fall into.
There are specific circumstances given in the actual law. The article conveniently ignores those circumstances.
For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards.
These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.
Now that their party is out of office, they're going back to the woods as some sort of populist/anarchist pro-militia media outlet. Maybe they can grab a few of the mainstream anti-authoritarians in the process.
