TR Member Perks!

The Pokémon World Championships were threatened this weekend in Boston Massachusetts, when two participants were arrested for carrying concealed firearms in their car.

Boston police found two firearms, a 12-gauge shotgun and AR-15 Rifle, along with several hundred rounds of ammunition and a hunting knife. The two suspects, 18-year-old Kevin Norton and 27-year-old James Stumbo, did not have licences to carry these firearms. 

Both men would be arrested on Friday evening in their hotel in Saugus, which is North of Boston, where the weapons were found in the trunk of their car after the police produced a search warrant.

It has been reported that the two men made violent social media threats to the people attending the Pokémon World Championships. The conventions security reported the threats on Thursday, and even stopped both Norton and Stumbo from entering into the Pokémon World Championships later that evening. 

Photo courtesy of the Boston Police Deparment

The firearms recovered from the suspects trunk. Photo courtesy of the Boston Police Department.

The threats on social media included images on the Facebook page titled “Mayhem Pokémon Crew,” a public Facebook group for Pokémon trading card game enthusiasts. An image posted by Stumbo showed a white sedan with two military-styled weapons crossed over the trunk. 

“Kevin Norton and I are ready for worlds Boston here we come!!!” wrote Stumbo. When a group member posted wishing the two men luck, Norton responded, “With killing the competition?”

Other threats were allegedly made, according to the Boston police.  Rachel MaGuire, a spokesperson for the police, did not go into details but stated, “they were violent in nature.” 

Over the weekend, security at the convention center remained tight, with security guards and police officers lining up along the entrances to the Pokémon World Championships. Random bag checks were also in effect throughout the day. 

The Pokémon World Championships are a gathering of the best players in the Pokémon game. Both the video games and the card game are played in several tournaments, which are now streamed on twitch. This was the first time the event was held in Boston.

The two suspects are currently being held on illegal firearm possession, unlawful possession of ammunition, and other firearm-related charges. 

The Pokémon Company International released a statement regarding the actions of the police force of Boston. “Due to quick action, the potential threat was resolved. The Pokémon Company International takes the safety of our fans seriously and will continue to ensure proper security measures are a priority.”

So are you glad this threat was resolved? What else is there to say? Leave your comments below.


Robert Grosso

Staff Writer

A game playing, college teaching, erudite-minded scholar who happens to write some articles every so often. Have worked as a journalist, critic, educator and blogger for over five years now, with articles published (as user editorials) on Game Revolution and Giant Bomb as well as a contributor for the websites Angry Bananas and Blistered Thumbs. Now making TechRaptor my home.



  • jennytablina

    Don’t have much to say on the subject other than I’m glad the two were apprehended before they did anything awful. Hope they get some help for whatever mental issues they have that made them believe this was okay.

    But I mostly came here to give kudos to the Pokenerd that used an image from the un-translated “Legend of Dratini” episode. Nice one ; )

  • Robert Grosso

    You’re welcome.

  • Mark Andrew Edwards

    I know ‘everything is illegal in Massachusetts’ but “unlawful possession of ammunition”? That’s weird. The article makes a big deal that the two adults didn’t have a license to carry the guns…which were in their trunk…so…yeah. If these guys get a good lawyer, they’re getting out.

    Don’t get me wrong, if they were planning some spree killing at a…Pokemon tournament (I guess worse things have been tried), I’m glad they were stopped. But this reminds me why I Carry.

  • Jake Martinez

    Unless you are a dealer, you need to have a gun license or a FOID in order to own/possess ammunition in MA.

    Oh and carrying around unlicensed guns is not a “so…yeah” in MA. It’s 2 years of jail time. In order to carry a gun anywhere in the state outside of your own home, you have to have the appropriate license – and yes, that includes transporting it in a car.

    Hint: Get a gun license. It’s really not that hard.

  • Mark Andrew Edwards

    Interesting, wasn’t aware of MA law. So you need a license to even transport a gun, in a car trunk? I’m used to WA laws which are more lax. So are IA laws, so far as I can recall, at least for long guns, there was no registration requirement for guns there (I’m from IA originally).
    Thanks!

  • Robert Grosso

    New York, where I live, is more or less the same as Massachusetts.

  • “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    While I agree that getting a gun license is infact really easy, the second amendment is at odds with the requirement to have a license.

  • Robert Grosso

    The amendments are also designed to be amended further. The myth is that they are fully ironclad…

    For example, congress is currently in debate over amending the 14th amendment, granting those in the LGBT community basic rights as African-Americans; citizenship rights that prevent discrimination.

    So the 2nd amendment can just as easily be, well, amended, to require licenses.

  • That’s an interpretation issue, and not an amendment of an amendment issue.

    In specific, the line in question is “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

    Legally banning something just because someone is gay or trans would be denying them equal protection under laws.

    While it is true that congress could literally change the 2nd amendment with a vote, they haven’t, and until the 2nd amendment is changed, it doesn’t apply.

    The issue is with the word infringe. In the 14th amendment case, the wording agrees with lgbt issues, while in the 2nd amendment case, the wording disagrees with licensing.

    It is defined as
    “act so as to limit or undermine”

    Requiring a license is to apply a limit, as in you are limited from access unless you have the license.

  • vivianjames

    Gamers got threatened = Reported to the police
    SJW got threatened = Post about it on social media with their Patreon link

  • GrimFate

    I’ve seen a couple articles with titles like this one and it feels… odd to me. It reads like “people carrying guns where they shouldn’t”, rather than “potential mass shooting averted”. Is it that intended for some reason?

  • Jake Martinez

    Don’t tell it to me. Break the law and then challenge the prosecution with appeals all the way to the supreme court. That’s the only way you’ll be proven right.

  • dsadsada

    I think it’s because while there is strong implication that they were planning to do a mass shooting, they’re still only suspected of doing as such. It’s not as clear as that one guy who was stopped in the subway. At least that’s my understanding.

    They were stopped before they could even enter the venue or bring their guns with them then later the cops found more guns than should be necessary for a Pokemon tournament in their car. And of course, some facebook posts that could be construed as threats (I only know of the one with a picture of their guns on their car) were also reported though the threats were less than vivid. So I suppose the articles are just trying to avoid jumping the gu-…shark until things have been properly confirmed.

    From what I’ve been able to gather though on what has been reported, yeah, a potential mass shooting has been averted.

  • dsadsada

    I’m not American and so I’m unfamiliar with the laws and cultures regarding firearms there but wouldn’t having a license just mean that you have been found physically capable of handling a firearm and responsible and knowledgeable enough in its uses, dangers, and necessary safety precautions to avoid potential accidents? It’s not as if a license will actually ensure avoiding accidents but still.

    Frankly I’d feel safer having a militia that’s been found to be appropriately trained and responsible if I’m expecting them to be capable of upholding security of a free state. I mean heck, you’re not allowed to drive without a license so it’s strange to me that guns are expected to get a free pass, second amendment or no.

    Anyway, this is just the two cents of a non-American on a part of the American constitution so feel free to ignore me.

  • Basically how it works, we have a constitution, and any and all laws created that are conflicting with that constitution, when challenged in court, legally can be considered by the court to be unconstitutional, rendering that aspect of the law invalid.

    That means anything that violates “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” automatically is unconstitutional, therefore invalid, regardless of reason, need, or sense behind it.

  • dsadsada

    I get that much since I understand how constitutions work. My own country has its own share of them after all. Being unfamiliar with American laws was more to say that if I misunderstood something then that unfamiliarity is why, and not that I don’t understand how constitutions work.

    What I mean is that from a logical perspective, a license makes more sense to me than “anybody can have a gun, skills or discipline be damned”. And since I’m unfamiliar with American gun culture where the latter seems to be accepted by a large part of the population, I’m unable to process how the second amendment makes sense in today’s world though I can understand that it probably made sense for its time. The comparison with driver’s licenses especially has me head scratching. So like Robert Grosso said earlier, it feels like the second amendment needs some looking into in context of today’s world.

  • I don’t particularly have a problem with licenses, I just have an issue with laws existing that violate the consitution. If there are problems with the constitution, that should be addressed directly instead of having violations.

  • Robert Grosso

    Problem is most laws can violate the constitution, and do so because of how the constitution is malleable enough to interpret laws.

    Basic theory on government by guys like John Locke talked about how it’s a Social Contract; the Government is the protector and we recognize that some freedoms will be sacrificed for protection. Take too many away, we have the right to rebel at best, or fight to change it at least.

    Today we see a lot of people talking about the sanctity of the Constitution, yet our own founding fathers were wise enough to know when to change it. After all, the first pass at a government system did fail. So there should be changes and those changes sadly need to be challenged at this point.

    At least, thats how I feel about it. So laws violating the constitution should go to court and determine their “constitutional” value. Or we can at least make further amendments.

  • I’m totally fine with further amendments.

    Part of the problem with constitutionality… gag orders preventing people from going to court about gag orders…can’t challenge the constitutionality of it, if you can’t take it to court

  • dsadsada

    “If there are problems with the constitution, that should be addressed directly instead of having violations.”

    Yeah, I can agree with that.