RICHMOND, Va. (CN) - A North Carolina man who taught explosive training argued before the Fourth Circuit Wednesday that a federal statute he was prosecuted under - a terrorism charge -  is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and an overly broad restriction of speech.

Christopher Arthur, an Army veteran, created a military gear company named Tackleberry Solutions before he shifted focus in 2018 and began training people to defend themselves and their property. But, he argued, he never advocated for overthrowing the government or for the murder of federal agents.

Arthur trained 58-year-old Joshua Blessed, a Virginia man who died in a shootout with police, and gave him six self-authored manuals, including one named "Quick Reaction Force, Modern Day Minutemen, Improvised Explosives." Blessed, who led police on a two-hour chase after a failed traffic stop, had 14 live pipe bombs built according to Arthur's instructions in his home that police recovered after his death. 

Arthur also trained "Buckshot," an FBI confidential informant, in explosives and tactics, including lethal methods to keep federal agents out of his home. 

He was arrested and convicted by a grand jury in April 2020 on nine counts: teaching the making or use of explosives, knowing that the recipient intended to use the education to commit a federal crime of violence, seven counts of possessing a firearm that was not registered to him, and one count of knowingly possessing a firearm with an altered serial number. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024. 

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 842(p)(2)(B) -  within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - makes it illegal for a person to teach the making or use of an explosive knowing that a person intends to use the knowledge to commit a violent federal crime.

The statute goes "far past punishing incitement and regulates a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech," Arthur said.  

But the statute isn't overly broad, the government argued, nor does it burden a substantial amount of protected speech. The statute legitimately restricts speech that is integral to criminal conduct, and the lower court correctly found that Arthur's knowledge that the Buckshot intended to commit a crime was a crime itself, it said.  

U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory, a Bill Clinton appointee, appeared unswayed by this argument. Couldn't a "destructive device" or "weapon of mass destruction" be extended to apply to a cigarette lighter, he asked. 

"I would be afraid to give a speech to anybody about a cigarette lighter," he said, questioning whether the government would feel someone sitting in the audience wearing a shirt labeling themselves as a pyromaniac would serve as proof that the speaker had knowledge that they planned on using the information for harm.

Knowledge is held to a higher standard than that, attorney Joseph Minta argued for the government, and involves knowing the particular criminal intent of another person.

"It's knowing that you're giving this information to somebody who is going to use it to kill federal officers," he said. "That's the extremely rare circumstance that the statute reaches. It's very narrowly tailored to fill the gap where aiding and abetting might not yet be found, and that's why it complies with the First Amendment." 

"Christopher Arthur taught Buckshot how to kill federal agents," Minta said. "And he did that believing that Buckshot intended to do so. The First Amendment does not immunize this conduct, which lies at the heart of what the statute legitimately prohibits." 

"Even though you're going to use it in a narrow enforcement way, (that) does not change the breadth of its chilling effect, of the statute itself," Gregory said.

This is the first time this statute has been prosecuted, Andrew Desimone, an assistant federal public defender and counsel for Arthur, told the panel.

"The law punishes vast swaths of valuable protected speech without demanding that the speaker have criminal intent," Desimone said. 

The education is valuable, he said, not just to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of explosives within construction fields, but to keep people who work with explosives safe, including those working in fields that involve roadway clearing, mining, fireworks, construction or manufacturing and on bomb squads, SWAT teams and in police departments. A newspaper could run a series on home bomb makers, and someone could write in saying the information will be helpful to make bombs for their next crime. Would that force the newspaper to stop the series, he asked the panel. 

"Just the possibility that this information could fall into the wrong hands might chill publication of this speech," he said.  

The law was carefully crafted, the government said, because the person wanting to teach bombmaking would be "required only to withhold its distribution to particular persons who pose an apparent risk, and otherwise would be able to continue general publication."  

"This offense is substantially overbroad on its face because it punishes speech and expression - that is, teaching, demonstrating, and distributing information - without requiring the government to prove the necessary components of incitement ... which are intent, imminence, and likelihood of violence," Arthur said in his brief. 

"The statute reaches far beyond explicitly teaching the making or use of explosives. If it is a federal crime to share information with mere knowledge that an audience member intends to (at any time) use the information being shared in furtherance of a crime of violence, physics teachers may well refrain from teaching their students basic concepts related to explosions, and military instructors may decline to perform their jobs," he added.

The jury heard evidence that Arthur knew Buckshot planned to try to murder federal law enforcement, Arthur said in the briefing, but he did not intend to promote terrorism or for his teaching to be used to kill federal agents. And the terrorism enhancement was "highly prejudicial" to the gun possession counts he was also charged with, he said. He asked for his judgment to be vacated, while the government asked for it to be upheld.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge G. Steven Agee, a George W. Bush appointee, and U.S. District Judge Roderick C. Young, a Donald Trump appointee from the Eastern District of Virginia, also served on the panel. 

Counsel for both parties did not reply to a request for comment.  

Source: Courthouse News Service