laws holding gun owners responsible for letting child get loaded gun?

[fredtoast]

Recently here where I live an 11 year old boy took his father's shotgun and killed an 8 year old neighbor.  This started a move to pass a law holding gun owners responsible for not securing their guns and keeping them out of the reach of children.  The law only included loaded guns (or guns and ammo together), and as little as a trigger lock was all that was required to satisfy the law.  To me this seemed logical and I felt all responsible gun owners would agree.  However since the NRA opposed it the State House Committee rejected it and it was not even close.  The vote was 2-7 with 2 democrats voting in favor and all 7 republicans (with NRA nuts on their chins) voting against it.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/politics/house-committee-kills-makaylas-law-2ea4f252-b738-7228-e053-0100007f36b4-373082741.html

I own a gun.  I am not against gun ownership.  But the NRA are a bunch of evil bastards.  How the hell can they be AGAINST punishing people who allow kids to have access to loaded weapons?

[GMDino]

Because the NRA pushes the false flag fear that ANY gun law will lead to another one with the goal of taking yer gunz away.

It is totally stupid.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Yes, irresponsible gun owners should be held responsible if their child or any child gets ahold of a loaded gun, period. I'm not just talking about injuring or killing another person, but if the child grabs a loaded gun and the authorities catch them, the gun owner should be held responsible and there be stiff penalties.

The NRA is totally stupid and irresponsible for not backing this.

[*bfine32*]

These types of laws are were Conservatives and Liberals switch positions. These laws take away the personal freedoms of the gun owner. Nobody wants a young child handling a loaded firearm and especially one that ends in such a tragedy. What do we do if a child gets a knife out of the kitchen drawer and accidentally stabs another youngster?

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 08:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  These laws take away the personal freedoms of the gun owner.

What freedom?  Adults would still be able to possess and use guns anyway they see fit.  Hard to argue that an adults right to possess and use a gun is being violated when this law only applies to the times that an adult is NOT possessing or using the gun.

(03-23-2016, 08:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote:   What do we do if a child gets a knife out of the kitchen drawer and accidentally stabs another youngster?

Although you are unable to see the difference, luckily every general assembly in every state is smarter than you.  The law regarding loaded guns in the hands of adults are already treated much differently than knives because guns are so much more dangerous than knives.

So since adults are already held to different standards regarding the use and possession of knives and loaded guns I don't see why the same difference should not apply with this law.

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2016, 10:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Although you are unable to see the difference, luckily every general assembly in every state is smarter than you.  The law regarding loaded guns in the hands of adults are already treated much differently than knives because guns are so much more dangerous than knives.

Then what are you whining about if the Laws already address the issue? 

[*Nately120*]

As long as there is a single case of a kid grabbing a loaded, easily-accessible gun and shooting a bad guy thousands of kids can use firearms irresponsibly with no change in the law.

Remember, any gun law is based upon what "might happen" and not what happens thousands of times per year.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah that's pretty stupid to oppose that. I'm assuming the law doesn't include teaching a younger person how to use and fire a weapon, but leaving a weapon where an unsupervised child can get to it and use it.

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then what are you whining about if the Laws already address the issue? 

Because negligent adults are not being held responsible.

Where is that guy who is always up on his high horse preaching about consequences for bad behavior.  I wish he would show up in this thread.  Or maybe he doesn't really mean what he says about consequences and is just a big hypocrite.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-23-2016, 06:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Recently here where I live an 11 year old boy took his father's shotgun and killed an 8 year old neighbor.  This started a move to pass a law holding gun owners responsible for not securing their guns and keeping them out of the reach of children.  The law only included loaded guns (or guns and ammo together), and as little as a trigger lock was all that was required to satisfy the law.  To me this seemed logical and I felt all responsible gun owners would agree.  However since the NRA opposed it the State House Committee rejected it and it was not even close.  The vote was 2-7 with 2 democrats voting in favor and all 7 republicans (with NRA nuts on their chins) voting against it.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/politics/house-committee-kills-makaylas-law-2ea4f252-b738-7228-e053-0100007f36b4-373082741.html

I own a gun.  I am not against gun ownership.  But the NRA are a bunch of evil bastards.  How the hell can they be AGAINST punishing people who allow kids to have access to loaded weapons?

Question: does this law mean that if you were a responsible gun owner and you wanted to teach your child proper gun safety that if at any point they were to hold a loaded weapon, you'd be guilty of breaking this law? Or is it only if the child steals your gun and uses it against another person?

And I'm not talking the spirit of the law but the actual wording of the law.

I honestly don't know and just trying to figure out where the NRA might be coming from (can't read the article, BTW, won't load on my work PC)

[*bfine32*]

(03-24-2016, 11:18 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because negligent adults are not being held responsible.

Where is that guy who is always up on his high horse preaching about consequences for bad behavior.  I wish he would show up in this thread.  Or maybe he doesn't really mean what he says about consequences and is just a big hypocrite.

Oh I absolutely believe Laws should punish. If a child if found to have committed a crime due to parental negligence, then that parent should be severely punished. The gray area come when we start to regulate how they sould be responsible parents, sorta infringes on parental rights.

Now excuse me while I feed my horse.

[GMDino]

(03-24-2016, 11:32 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Question: does this law mean that if you were a responsible gun owner and you wanted to teach your child proper gun safety that if at any point they were to hold a loaded weapon, you'd be guilty of breaking this law? Or is it only if the child steals your gun and uses it against another person?

And I'm not talking the spirit of the law but the actual wording of the law.

I honestly don't know and just trying to figure out where the NRA might be coming from (can't read the article, BTW, won't load on my work PC)

I'd imagine they would work a line in that would exclude training or target shooting but would still hold the adult responsible for what the child did with the gun at that time.

I might be allowed to take my son to a gun range for target practice but if he suddenly turns and starts firing at other people that would be on me make sure it doesn't happen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-24-2016, 11:32 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Question: does this law mean that if you were a responsible gun owner and you wanted to teach your child proper gun safety that if at any point they were to hold a loaded weapon, you'd be guilty of breaking this law? Or is it only if the child steals your gun and uses it against another person?

And I'm not talking the spirit of the law but the actual wording of the law.

I honestly don't know and just trying to figure out where the NRA might be coming from (can't read the article, BTW, won't load on my work PC)

These would be my questions as well.  What degree of precaution shields you from liability?  The DA has broad discretion when charging someone, if the law is not worded specifically then the law could open up many people who took reasonable precautions to criminal liability.

[*bfine32*]

(03-24-2016, 11:32 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Question: does this law mean that if you were a responsible gun owner and you wanted to teach your child proper gun safety that if at any point they were to hold a loaded weapon, you'd be guilty of breaking this law? Or is it only if the child steals your gun and uses it against another person?

And I'm not talking the spirit of the law but the actual wording of the law.

I honestly don't know and just trying to figure out where the NRA might be coming from (can't read the article, BTW, won't load on my work PC)

That is my question; What laws to we enact to enforce responsible parenting?

[fredtoast]

(03-24-2016, 11:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I absolutely believe Laws should punish. If a child if found to have committed a crime due to parental negligence, then that parent should be severely punished. The gray area come when we start to regulate how they sould be responsible parents, sorta infringes on parental rights.

How can you punish a behavior without regulating that behavior?

[GMDino]

(03-24-2016, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These would be my questions as well.  What degree of precaution shields you from liability?  The DA has broad discretion when charging someone, if the law is not worded specifically then the law could open up many people who took reasonable precautions to criminal liability.

Use the new NC law that describes who can use a bathroom:  They added a line that a parent can bring their child in to the "wrong" bathroom.  (I don't remember if they added an age limit.)  They can make it as specific as they like.

[fredtoast]

(03-24-2016, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These would be my questions as well.  What degree of precaution shields you from liability? 

I will look up the bill.  But the story said that even a trigger lock would satisfy the law. So it is not requiring everyone to buy a gun safe.  Some of the Sheriffs Departments in Tennessee  give away trigger locks for free.  And it only applies to loaded weapons.  So just locking up the bullets would work.

[fredtoast]

(03-24-2016, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I will look up the bill. 

It is taking me a while to find an exact copy of the proposed bill, but the legislative history show it was amended to remove a provision that made a "temporary leaving" of a loaded firearm an offense.  So it looks like they were bending over backwards to make sure it was more about "gun storage" than just randomly leaving a gun unattended for a moment.

And I can agree with that.  I thought I was a very attentive parent, but I honestly can not say that my kids never got a hold of something that could have been dangerous.  Horrible tragedies happen sometimes that are just accidents.

Also debate about making the penalty greater if the gun was discharged by the child.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-24-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is taking me a while to find an exact copy of the proposed bill, but the legislative history show it was amended to remove a provision that made a "temporary leaving" of a loaded firearm an offense.  So it looks like they were bending over backwards to make sure it was more about "gun storage" than just randomly leaving a gun unattended for a moment.

And I can agree with that.  I thought I was a very attentive parent, but I honestly can not say that my kids never got a hold of something that could have been dangerous.  Horrible tragedies happen sometimes that are just accidents.

Also debate about making the penalty greater if the gun was discharged by the child.

I appreciate the effort but I don't think that answers all of the questions.  I keep a firearm readily accessible in my home.  There is a loaded magazine in it but I don't chamber a round.  Would that prevent liability?  As I read it, no.  How about keeping a loaded magazine in a separate location from the firearm?  I don't have kids so this isn't an issue for me but I will say that many firearms related legislation is written by people with minimal to zero knowledge of firearms.  Here in CA, especially, some of the proposed gun laws are beyond idiotic.  Governor Brown, not know as a particularly right leaning governor had to veto an especially moronic one.  Gavin Newsome, the biggest POS on two feet, is attempting to get a proposition on the ballot that would effectively ban the sale of ammunition and make rifles with detachable magazine illegal.  There's a lot of overreach on the anti 2nd amendment side so incidents like the one in OP need to always be taken with a grain of salt IMO.

[*bfine32*]

(03-24-2016, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can you punish a behavior without regulating that behavior?

Easy, we punish people for murder, but don't stop them from buying knives.