Thread by @JohnFPfaff

This is bad, but there's something much worse lurking in this bill.

It makes knowingly providing supplies that can be used as weapons a Class D felony. One to 5 years in prison.

If you think this isn't terrible, let's talk about water bottles.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1367841323605139459

You're a Good Samaritan. You bring some water bottles to a protest, both for people to drink, as well as to pour in people's eyes when the police launch tear gas that is banned in war but legal for domestic policies.

But you also know people might throw them.

Now, "knowing" is an important word here. Under the narrowest reading, you have to be practically certain (but not desire!) that they be used as a weapon.

A broader reading? You just have to be practically certain that they COULD be used as a weapon. Everyone meets this def.

"But it's just a plastic water bottle!" you say.

Here's a case from Texas where two guys were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The weapon? A 17 oz plastic water bottle.

The way this is written doesn't target the people THROWING water bottles--we already have all sorts of ways of going after them--but people who provide "things" that can be weapons.

And the "dangerous instrument" statute is, well... broad.

So bring anything to a protest that you know someone else might be able to use as a weapon--and given human ingenuity, what can't?!--and you're guilty.

And wait... reading more, and it gets FAR FAR WORSE.

First, it introduces a mandatory minimum of 4 years--just for the supply!!--and a $5,000 fine AND a loss of benefits.

Second, if I'm reading this right....

if you are at the protest, bring supplies, and someone else hurts someone else using... anything, not even what you brought...

you're guilty.

Part (1)(b) doesn't require the the supplied "weapons" or the supplier cause the harm. Right?

Obviously, courts could interpret it to try to link (a) to (b) and require some degree of connection between the supplies and the harm, but the plain statutory language does not seem to require that!

This is a direct shot at any sort of protest.