By Yang Ting-Yen, Attorney-at-Law & Yang Chia-Ling, Attorney-at-Law
Late at night in the courthouse holding room, the basement walls are always lined with yellow protective padding — a precaution against detainees harming themselves in despair or lashing out while trying to break free. In mandatory-defense cases, the young men referred for prosecution under the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act mostly wear the same expression of bewildered fear. Most keep their heads down. A few try to argue their way out; one even told me, “Counselor, as long as I keep the parts separate and never assemble them, I’m fine!” But I have to tell them the harsh truth: in Taiwan, the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act is a special criminal statute built around severe, heavily aggravated punishment.
Recently, Sun An-tso (now known as Sun Chien-hao) was ordered detained and held incommunicado by the Shilin District Court, and I caught that familiar scent of danger once again. This time, the matter is far more complicated and serious than many people imagine.
The Real Reason for His Detention: Not the Flamethrower, but the Guns Found at His Home
Many assume he was taken into custody simply because of that homemade “gas-powered flamethrower.” In legal practice, his act of shooting a massive jet of flame more than ten meters long on a riverbank embankment did indeed trigger public alarm, implicating the offense of intimidation of the public under Article 151 of the Criminal Code and endangering public traffic safety under Article 185(1). Yet the true reason Sun An-tso was detained and held incommunicado lies in what prosecutors and police subsequently seized in a search of his residence — he now faces serious felony charges of unlicensed possession of a non-standard hunting shotgun under Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act, and unlawful possession of a replica firearm under Article 20-1, Paragraph 4 of the same Act.
A Stark and Unforgiving Legal Red Line
As outsiders, we cannot know the full picture of the case or the real struggles within the Sun family. But based on the objective information disclosed so far by prosecutors, police, and the court, combined with our own practical experience, we feel compelled to issue a sobering appeal — to society at large, and to parents facing similar predicaments — on both the legal and the psychological-care fronts: this is no longer mere “playing with fire” or “a rich kid’s absurd antics.” A replica firearm, so long as it is capable of being converted into a lethal weapon, is illegal to possess at all; and if the seized “modified shotgun” is determined by the Criminal Investigation Bureau to have a muzzle energy exceeding the statutory threshold (20 joules per square centimeter), the offense carries a minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. This is a legal red line of the starkest and most unforgiving kind.
The Signals Behind the Behavior: A Widening Gap Between Psychological Strain and Social Adaptation
Beyond the cold letter of the law and its technical thresholds, what merits deeper reflection is the pattern of behavior Sun An-tso has exhibited over time. From his past intrusion into a private residence in Thailand, to strolling through Taipei’s Xinyi shopping district carrying a modified flamethrower, to his repeated claims of being “the strongest” and his intense obsession with weapons, and now to testing a dangerous device in a public place — these behaviors should not be hastily and arbitrarily labeled as signs of “mental illness” or “anime-fueled delusion.” Yet they are unmistakable signals of a serious and widening gap between psychological strain and social adaptation. They may well represent an extreme defense mechanism deployed in the face of overwhelming public scrutiny and anxiety over his own identity. As defense attorneys, we often find that what the young people who end up in courtrooms lack most in life is not merely an acquittal, but the companionship and care of their parents, and the professional support and guidance of mental-health care.
Advice for Parents: Boundaries Are the Most Loving “Mandatory Defense”
We therefore want to say this to every parent facing a similar predicament: unconditional love is a parent’s nature, but a child hovering at the edge of the criminal justice system often needs clear boundaries, not limitless leniency. In a criminal case, if the family merely spends a fortune hiring prominent lawyers to defend the legal bottom line, while refusing to confront the child’s psychological state and disconnection from society, then no matter how much effort is poured in, it may amount to nothing more than purchasing a belated ticket to prison.
Finally, we advise families to proactively bring in formal, professional psychological and medical resources. Through in-depth counseling and assessment, they can help their child identify the sources of stress underlying the behavior. This is not about using mental condition to evade legal responsibility; it is about giving the child a chance to re-learn society’s boundaries — to walk out of the armor of his own construction and back into the real world, and to establish boundaries for coexisting peacefully with society. That is the most loving and most important “mandatory defense” a parent can ever mount for their child.