Drizzt
February 19, 2003, 05:29 PM
University Wire
February 18, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: COLUMN
LENGTH: 916 words
HEADLINE: Armed, dangerous and only 12 years old
BYLINE: By Jeremy Voros, Daily Utah Chronicle
SOURCE: U. Utah
DATELINE: Salt Lake City
BODY:
On a roll after smashing House Bill 28, a proposal to increase traffic safety through seat belt wearing, last week our Wild West state Legislature once again shot down a bill to improve the safety of Utah's children. Last Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled Senate Bill 38, which would have penalized gun owners if their weapons were used in the accidental killing of a child. Salt Lake City Democratic Senator Paula Julander submitted the bill for the fifth year in a row. This year was the first that the bill even made it to committee.
Gun control is a hot-button issue nationwide. On one extreme of the spectrum are advocates of making assault weapons and handguns entirely illegal; on the other end are those advocating an armed populace. Admittedly, I lean more toward the first extreme of tight gun regulation. But, before I anger the entire concealed-weapon-carrying contingent of the law school, let me also explain that I respect others' right to bear arms. I think that the ever-quotable Benjamin Franklin was absolutely correct when he said, "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I don't want a gun, but if you do, and you're not a violent criminal -- another issue entirely -- then by all means, lock and load. But Senate Bill 38 was not about criminalizing guns, as Sen. Chris Buttars claimed, it was about responsibility and negligence.
According to The Associated Press, Julander's bill "would have made it a class B misdemeanor if gun owners did not prohibit minors access to their weapons, punishable by up to six months in jail and $ 1,000 in fines." Effectively, this means that if a child injured or killed himself or another with an improperly maintained firearm, then the owner of said weapon would be held at least partly liable. The law would also require gun sellers to post notice of this liability and the need for compliance.
Julander went to special lengths to include exemptions to preserve the rights of lawful gun owners and placate the gun lobby. One exemption specified weapons kept on the person or within an arm's reach, protecting concealed weapons holders. Other exemptions to the penalty included stolen weapons, weapons of a law enforcement officer and owners who reasonably believe no child would have access to their house.
From my point of view, restricting children's access to guns is a no-brainer. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in the year 2000, 16 Utah children were killed in gun accidents. Prescription drugs come in childproof containers. Cigarette lighters have safety switches. Why shouldn't guns, which are designed to kill things, have similar safety measures?
But the need for Julander's proposed statute is not quite as easy to see. Other than reminding gun-buyers at the time of purchase of the need to store their firearms responsibly, the statute would do little to prevent child-related gun accidents. According to Franklin's aforementioned quote, preserving essential liberty is always preferable to governmental limitations passed under the guise of increased safety. And granted, education and awareness have been proven to increase gun safety. According to the National Rifle Association's Web site, "the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 74 percent" since 1930.
In one scenario, reported in January 2002 by the New Hampshire Union Leader, a 38-year-old man was killed when his 8-year-old son pointed a gun at him and it accidentally discharged. Statute or no, that man paid the price for his negligence.
But in another story reported by the Florida Times Union just one day later, a 10-year-old boy unintentionally shot his 13-year-old friend with a .30-06 hunting rifle. What sort of recourse do the family members of the killed 13-year-old have against the irresponsibility of the 10-year-old's gun-owning guardians? None. This situation illustrates the need for Julander's law.
Under Utah case law, if someone violates a statute, such as Julander's proposed regulation, negligence is presumed. While the class B misdemeanor and accompanying $ 1,000 fine seem hardly adequate for the lost life of a child, presumed negligence evidenced by the violation of state law would provide a major advantage to injured parties seeking legal recourse in a civil suit. Julander's bill foresaw such a use of the statute and capped civil damages at a maximum of $ 500,000. This cap represents only a fraction of the amounts awarded by courts to plaintiffs suing tobacco companies, and hardly seems worth the life of a child, but at least it allows some restitution for the huge amount of damage that one person's irresponsibility can cause.
Furthermore, Senate Bill 38 was similar to other long-standing laws. Utah has child abuse laws stating that if one party negligently permits another to inflict physical injury on a child in their custody, they are guilty of a class C misdemeanor. If the case involves serious physical injury, it becomes a class A misdemeanor. Enacting similar statutes specifically regarding guns is consistent with current law.
Julander's proposed legislation was not an attempt to criminalize gun ownership. It was an attempt to clarify and improve state law. It would not punish gun owners for their personal defenses or hobbies; it would only make gun owners responsible for their potentially lethal belongings.
February 18, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: COLUMN
LENGTH: 916 words
HEADLINE: Armed, dangerous and only 12 years old
BYLINE: By Jeremy Voros, Daily Utah Chronicle
SOURCE: U. Utah
DATELINE: Salt Lake City
BODY:
On a roll after smashing House Bill 28, a proposal to increase traffic safety through seat belt wearing, last week our Wild West state Legislature once again shot down a bill to improve the safety of Utah's children. Last Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee tabled Senate Bill 38, which would have penalized gun owners if their weapons were used in the accidental killing of a child. Salt Lake City Democratic Senator Paula Julander submitted the bill for the fifth year in a row. This year was the first that the bill even made it to committee.
Gun control is a hot-button issue nationwide. On one extreme of the spectrum are advocates of making assault weapons and handguns entirely illegal; on the other end are those advocating an armed populace. Admittedly, I lean more toward the first extreme of tight gun regulation. But, before I anger the entire concealed-weapon-carrying contingent of the law school, let me also explain that I respect others' right to bear arms. I think that the ever-quotable Benjamin Franklin was absolutely correct when he said, "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I don't want a gun, but if you do, and you're not a violent criminal -- another issue entirely -- then by all means, lock and load. But Senate Bill 38 was not about criminalizing guns, as Sen. Chris Buttars claimed, it was about responsibility and negligence.
According to The Associated Press, Julander's bill "would have made it a class B misdemeanor if gun owners did not prohibit minors access to their weapons, punishable by up to six months in jail and $ 1,000 in fines." Effectively, this means that if a child injured or killed himself or another with an improperly maintained firearm, then the owner of said weapon would be held at least partly liable. The law would also require gun sellers to post notice of this liability and the need for compliance.
Julander went to special lengths to include exemptions to preserve the rights of lawful gun owners and placate the gun lobby. One exemption specified weapons kept on the person or within an arm's reach, protecting concealed weapons holders. Other exemptions to the penalty included stolen weapons, weapons of a law enforcement officer and owners who reasonably believe no child would have access to their house.
From my point of view, restricting children's access to guns is a no-brainer. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in the year 2000, 16 Utah children were killed in gun accidents. Prescription drugs come in childproof containers. Cigarette lighters have safety switches. Why shouldn't guns, which are designed to kill things, have similar safety measures?
But the need for Julander's proposed statute is not quite as easy to see. Other than reminding gun-buyers at the time of purchase of the need to store their firearms responsibly, the statute would do little to prevent child-related gun accidents. According to Franklin's aforementioned quote, preserving essential liberty is always preferable to governmental limitations passed under the guise of increased safety. And granted, education and awareness have been proven to increase gun safety. According to the National Rifle Association's Web site, "the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 74 percent" since 1930.
In one scenario, reported in January 2002 by the New Hampshire Union Leader, a 38-year-old man was killed when his 8-year-old son pointed a gun at him and it accidentally discharged. Statute or no, that man paid the price for his negligence.
But in another story reported by the Florida Times Union just one day later, a 10-year-old boy unintentionally shot his 13-year-old friend with a .30-06 hunting rifle. What sort of recourse do the family members of the killed 13-year-old have against the irresponsibility of the 10-year-old's gun-owning guardians? None. This situation illustrates the need for Julander's law.
Under Utah case law, if someone violates a statute, such as Julander's proposed regulation, negligence is presumed. While the class B misdemeanor and accompanying $ 1,000 fine seem hardly adequate for the lost life of a child, presumed negligence evidenced by the violation of state law would provide a major advantage to injured parties seeking legal recourse in a civil suit. Julander's bill foresaw such a use of the statute and capped civil damages at a maximum of $ 500,000. This cap represents only a fraction of the amounts awarded by courts to plaintiffs suing tobacco companies, and hardly seems worth the life of a child, but at least it allows some restitution for the huge amount of damage that one person's irresponsibility can cause.
Furthermore, Senate Bill 38 was similar to other long-standing laws. Utah has child abuse laws stating that if one party negligently permits another to inflict physical injury on a child in their custody, they are guilty of a class C misdemeanor. If the case involves serious physical injury, it becomes a class A misdemeanor. Enacting similar statutes specifically regarding guns is consistent with current law.
Julander's proposed legislation was not an attempt to criminalize gun ownership. It was an attempt to clarify and improve state law. It would not punish gun owners for their personal defenses or hobbies; it would only make gun owners responsible for their potentially lethal belongings.