[RealGun]

http://us.cnn.com/2006/US/01/24/md.child.shot.ap/index.html

The reactions to this story that I have been reading and hearing are exactly the lead in to gun lock requirements that I feared, when the trigger lock amendment was added to the Gun Manufacturer's Lawsuit Protection bill. It is the perfect for-the-children opening for Feinstein and those of similar ilk. I will be expecting that much will be made of it, at least in Maryland.

[XD_fan]

I must be doing a pretty good job of educating my co-workers. I was hit with this first thing when I walked in yesterday by one of my extremely liberal gun-hating co-workers. Later on when CNN posted the part about the father being charged as felon in possession she came back to point this out and tell me that it not to hard to believe that someone who was a criminal already wouldn't be responsible enough to educate their child or ensure the child could not get to the gun. I never had to say a word either time. :rolleyes:

[silverbird]

Because there aren't enough anti's in MD already. This will make it sooo much easier for me to get a CCW :rolleyes: .

[mbt2001]

Actually, this article is proof that gun control doesn't work.

The dude was a felon and he had a gun... End of story. Gun control is for the simpleton liberal idiots who think that criminals really want to be good people, but banks keep tempting them to rob... It is a disease... :banghead:

[gc70]

It is a disease...Robbing banks or being a simpleton liberal idiot? :D

[mbt2001]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was funny.

Liberalism is a disease.... Savage is right on the money

[Old Fuff]

The anti-gunners, especially in the print media, are going to have a problem pushing this one...

Our side can point out that the father(?) had several guns in his house, apparently all unsecured and accessable to the child. This in and of itself was against a current law, but the statute didn't prevent him from doing what he did.

And at the same time he was a convicted felon many times over, and prohibited by both federal and state laws from having guns. Had he been serving time in the pen for his past misbehavior he wouldn't have been around - with his illegal guns - to contribute toward getting the youngster into trouble.

So let the anti-gunners explain why the laws now on the books didn't work? And why anything they might propose would work better? ;)

[Standing Wolf]

Some people believe laws prevent crime. Some people believe in the Easter bunny.

Frankly, I think the latter group are more rational.

[RealGun]

The anti-gunners, especially in the print media, are going to have a problem pushing this one...

Our side can point out that the father(?) had several guns in his house, apparently all unsecured and accessible to the child. This in and of itself was against a current law, but the statute didn't prevent him from doing what he did.

And at the same time he was a convicted felon many times over, and prohibited by both federal and state laws from having guns. Had he been serving time in the pen for his past misbehavior he wouldn't have been around - with his illegal guns - to contribute toward getting the youngster into trouble.

So let the anti-gunners explain why the laws now on the books didn't work? And why anything they might propose would work better? ;)

That wouldn't be my side. I wouldn't justify those laws.

The man has been gainfully employed for 13 years. "A convicted felon many times over" seems quite overstated.

Someone who is not in jail has a right of self defense in my book, and a gun is the right weapon.

I don't intend to support any argument that would support forcing me to disable all my guns, making it inherently criminal to provide effective self defense. Stuff happens. We don't need a Draconian law in response to every incident.

[GTSteve03]

The man has been gainfully employed for 13 years. "A convicted felon many times over" seems quite overstated.

Someone who is not in jail has a right of self defense in my book, and a gun is the right weapon.
I'm not so sure on this issue. While I don't agree with making a law that all felons automatically lose their gun rights, I also feel like something needs to be done against people such as this guy who have been convicted of gun-related crimes in the past.

Not every felon deserves to have their self-defense rights stripped but if you've shown in the past you don't know how to properly use a gun (i.e. for defense, not criminal use) then I think some punishment is warranted.

[K-Romulus]

So let the anti-gunners explain why the laws now on the books didn't work? And why anything they might propose would work better? ;)

Easy . . . if no one were allowed to legally own firearms, this guy's buddy wouldn't have sold him one . . .:rolleyes: (not what I think but what we would hear)

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=653038

Man Charged With Supplying Gun to Felon
Jan 25th - 9:11pm

ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) - A man has been charged with providing the gun used by an 8-year-old boy to accidentally shoot a 7-year-old a girl in the arm at a daycare center, police said.

Clyde Colmes Jr., 53, turned himself in Wednesday to face charges including knowingly transferring or selling a firearm to a person convicted of a crime of violence.

Police said Colmes is the registered owner of the .38-caliber Taurus revolver that the boy brought to the For Kids We Care daycare center in Germantown Tuesday morning in a backpack.

The boy's father, John L. Hall Sr., 56, obtained the gun from Colmes, police said. Colmes knew that Hall, a convicted felon, was prohibited from legally possessing a firearm, authorities said.

Earlier Wednesday at a court hearing, a prosecutor said Hall demonstrated for his son how to cock and "release" the handgun that was kept stored in a hatbox in a bedroom the pair shared.

Hall's family said it was unclear how the gun wound up the boy's backpack. A 15-year-old stepsister checked the backpack shortly before taking the boy to school and did not see it, said Darlene Hall, John Hall's sister.

Hall is charged with five counts stemming from the shooting, including leaving a gun in a place where his young son could access it and other gun crimes. Hall was being held on $75,000 bail, reduced by a judge from $750,000.

Hall, who appeared by closed circuit television from the county jail, spoke only to answer simple questions. His public defender, Samantha Sandler, denied that Hall was responsible for his son's role in the shooting.

The boy, whose name was not released because he is a minor, also had a hearing Wednesday, the record of which was sealed by a judge.

The boy has been charged in the case, but prosecutors would not provide details. The Department of Juvenile Services has custody of the boy.

The injured girl was released Wednesday from a hospital.

[Old Fuff]

Real Gun (and others):

I didn't say that I necessarily supported laws that automatically disarm former felons regardless of circumstances, although am far less forgiving when it comes to second or more offenders. Nor that I think everyone’s guns should be locked up. However I do believe that precautions need to be taken when there are children (yours or their friends) in the household.

What I said was that if anti-gunners try to exploit the story to push they're agenda, "out side" can present a rebuttal that will undercut them.

A lot of facts are lacking in this story, either because the media has intentionally deleted them, or the authorities have not released them. But it appears that various firearms were distributed throughout the house, rather then collected in a safe, locked closet, or some other secure place. While there may be many reasons to explain this, it also suggests the possibility of a drug operation. Unfortunately we'll never know. I noticed that the authorities took the most unusual step of charging the 8 year-old. This I think, is a ploy to take custody for an extended period of time, and also suggests that there is more to this then we know.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What does the trigger lock amendment have to do with this? Are you suggesting that if the same scenario had happened without that amendment that anything would be different from the anti propaganda perspective?

[RealGun]

What does the trigger lock amendment have to do with this? Are you suggesting that if the same scenario had happened without that amendment that anything would be different from the anti propaganda perspective?

Those who trivialized the trigger lock amendment will find out soon enough where it leads. It is from the same play book as mandatory seat belts and helmets. Now that trigger locks are officially a good idea, all they need now is a couple for-the-children incidents to move to the next play. It may not be a conspiracy as much as a natural progression, the usual problem with unfortunate precedents.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You didn't really answer the question I asked. I am going to guess you chose not answer it because you are smart enough to realize it made no difference in the type of propaganda the antis would have used.

If it made no difference in the type of propaganda the antis would have used, how is it going to make a difference in the type of legislation they hope to pass?

[RealGun]

You didn't really answer the question I asked. I am going to guess you chose not answer it because you are smart enough to realize it made no difference in the type of propaganda the antis would have used.

If it made no difference in the type of propaganda the antis would have used, how is it going to make a difference in the type of legislation they hope to pass?

Apparently I am not smart enough to understand the question or the point.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Will the antis not propose legislation of this nature without first getting the amendment you are referencing?

[Trip20]

Will the antis not propose legislation of this nature without first getting the amendment you are referencing?
Yes, of course they will - I agree with you. However, with each small victory (i.e., trigger lock amendment), they're that much closer to the end-goal.

Each gain, no matter how small, makes it that much easier to "propose legislation of this nature," and win.

[Peet]

Those who trivialized the trigger lock amendment will find out soon enough where it leads. It is from the same play book as mandatory seat belts and helmets. Now that trigger locks are officially a good idea, all they need now is a couple for-the-children incidents to move to the next play. It may not be a conspiracy as much as a natural progression, the usual problem with unfortunate precedents.Listen to the man. Listen very carefully.

The scumbags that run Mass. for the benefit of the unwashed masses (A.K.A. "General Court") have just added primary enforcement to the seatbelt law.

In fact, a seatbelt law (non-primary) happened before, but a ballot initiative resoundingly defeated the law and removed it from the books. The scumbags came back year after year after year and finally (ignoring the will of the people) rammed another mandatory seatbelt law through by promising it would never be primary enforcement.

We see how that promise worked out.

The latest batch of lies from the scumbags is "well, it IS primary enforcement, but we promise it'll never show up as an insurance surcharge". Lying scumbags. I wait with a worm on my tongue[1].

This is the future of the safe storage crap. (Just look at that poor bastard in Canada!)

Peet

1: "Baited" breath.:neener:

[RealGun]

Will the antis not propose legislation of this nature without first getting the amendment you are referencing?

As always, the chances of getting what they want are better if approached incrementally. The first step was to insert a Trojan Horse that seemed so innocuous as to gain support from or get a pass from the pro-gun vote.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I don't really see it as much of a Trojan horse.

Before the amendment, you faced civil liability if you did not make some attempt to secure your weapon and a third party used it to injure someone. If you made no attempt at all, you also faced civil liability.

After the amendment, you no longer face civil liability if you make some attempt to secure your weapon and a third party still manages to use it to injure someone. If you make no attempt at all, you still face civil liability.

It is going to take a lot of horses to get enough Trojans behind the walls using that method... and if gunowners allow it then they deserve what they get (and would likely have gotten it anyway since it will totally depend on their apathy to pass).

[RealGun]

After the amendment, you no longer face civil liability if you make some attempt to secure your weapon and a third party still manages to use it to injure someone. If you make no attempt at all, you still face civil liability.

Yeah, we've had this debate before, and I expected you to make some of the same effort to discredit the concerns.

The inverse of the language above is that if you don't use a lock you will face civil liability. While there may not have been negligence grounds before, there are now.

The ultimate goal is to have insurance companies abandon gun owners.