This is not a political question. It is a LEGAL question. In a recent trial, much of the media reported that the defendant “crossed state lines with an AR-15”. This statement was actually incorrect, the firearm was already in the state. My question is why was so much emphasis placed on “crossing state lines” as if doing so was against the law?
I may be wrong here, but what i was told was that as a minor (17 years old) it was illegal for him to cross state lines with a firearm.
Again this is just what one of the 2A Youtube commentators stated, I have no idea if this is correct or not.
My personal guess is that the DA was throwing everything that he could, and hoped that at least something would stick