Anti's new strategy: charge the parent for the child's crime

[Delmar]

Charge the parents for the misdeeds of a 17 year old? I thought "corruption of blood" was forbidden by the constitution. Gee, if we are going to go that far, lets bring back drawing and quartering!

I grew up in Michigan in a house full of firearms, got my first while in grade school. Dad had a thing about firearms...misuse it in any way shape or form, point it at anyone or anything which shouldn't be shot, and he promised to make me break it into pieces while he watched. And you WILL break the action open upon approaching any human being in the field. That was all I needed to hear.

Joined the Army on my 17th birthday with my parents permission...the drill sergeants weren't as tough as my dad was lol.

I constantly hear the song "kids are different nowadays" but I don't buy it for a second. I raised mine and they made good grades, didn't join gangs, did do a bit of mischief as kids might do but nothing serious. I never thought about shoving the responsibility of teaching my kids on teachers or anyone else. That was my duty.

They are now my best friends as well as my sons. One is career Army over half way to retirement and the other is a Marine.

 

[herrwalther]

So are you advocating states pass laws preventing access to firearms for all citizens under 18? This is a tacit suggestion that firearms are inherently more dangerous and require more responsibility of teens than sexual activity, driving, and illegal drugs.

Not advocating anything. This is merely one of those areas where you can't win either way. Sure it would be more effective to hold parent's of minors responsible for improper gun use. But just like safe storage laws, how would lawmakers draw the line? Using those laws as an example, they would go too far.

 

[larryh1108]

A 17 year old, without any mental defects, is old enough to know right from wrong in all areas of life. If they do the crime, they should pay the price. It's called life.

 

[maxxhavoc]

The parents are being charged with the parent's crime.

California law says if there are under 18yo children in the house, the guns need to be in safes or have locks on them. You don't have to agree with the law, you just have to obey it if you are in California.

From CA's "tips for gun owners" page:
Summary of Safe Storage Laws Regarding Children
You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning.

The charges around the parent revolve around their failure to obey these laws. The child is also being charged, but details are sketchy, since it is a juvenile case.

If you live in CA and can't abide by their laws, there are many fine Interstates that will remedy your problem.

 

[SleazyRider]

Firearms notwithstanding, in my neck of the woods (Orange County, New York) a few days ago, our local rag brought news of a 10-year old child who murdered a 90-year old bedridden woman by placing a cane across her neck, then beating her to death with his fists. He's currently being charged as an adult, and per the family's request, being held without bail. He's been given coloring books to help pass the time.

( http://www.recordonline.com/article/20141015/News/141019682 )

My grandson is the same age, and though he is physically capable of an act of this sort, it is incomprehensible that he could do so. I'm not sure if anybody, including the courts and social services, have a solution. Do we of The High Road?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Not advocating anything. This is merely one of those areas where you can't win either way. Sure it would be more effective to hold parent's of minors responsible for improper gun use. But just like safe storage laws, how would lawmakers draw the line? Using those laws as an example, they would go too far.

Sure, parents should have civil liability for all aspects of misbehavior by their minor children. It's the criminal culpability that most people take issue with: charging parents with a crime, because a 17 year old teen committed a crime.

Safe storage laws might make sense for a 5 year old, but many states allow broad parental discretion regarding when a teen may be granted access to firearms. The definition of a "nanny state" is micromanaging parents in how they raise their children and taking discretion away from adults about how their lives and households operate.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The parents are being charged with the parent's crime.

California law says if there are under 18yo children in the house, the guns need to be in safes or have locks on them. You don't have to agree with the law, you just have to obey it if you are in California.

And you do not see the requirement to lock the guns up as an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?

Californians can keep arms, but they can only bear arms if there are no minors in the home.

 

[Derry 1946]

At common law, some jurisdictions placed the age of criminal intent at 7. Laws holding parents responsible for acts of children (in tort) have been around for a long time. Firearms aside, parents have, since time immemorial, been held civilly and/or criminally responsible for unsafe conditions that pose a hazard to their children. That's separate and apart from the debate over how much access to firearms children should have at what age.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

At common law, some jurisdictions placed the age of criminal intent at 7. Laws holding parents responsible for acts of children (in tort) have been around for a long time. Firearms aside, parents have, since time immemorial, been held civilly and/or criminally responsible for unsafe conditions that pose a hazard to their children. That's separate and apart from the debate over how much access to firearms children should have at what age.

There is tremendous duplicity in a state considering a teen to be old enough to decide to consent to sex and to reproduce, but not old enough to be trusted with a firearm.

Which is more likely to cause more harm to a teen, unbridled sexual activity or access to firearms? How much higher are the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in CA compared with the rates of firearms related injuries? 100 times? 1000 times? More?

 

[herrwalther]

Safe storage laws might make sense for a 5 year old, but many states allow broad parental discretion regarding when a teen may be granted access to firearms. The definition of a "nanny state" is micromanaging parents in how they raise their children and taking discretion away from adults about how their lives and households operate.

And that is largely my point. A law holding parents criminally responsible for the acts of a minor to include teenagers is a good idea in theory. But the application would be overbearing I like to think I have enough sense to keep my child(ren) away from firearms until they are ready. Baby gate, lockable door, alarm. And that is to just get in the room with the firearms.

 

[we are not amused]

" A 12-gauge shotgun was hidden behind a dresser. Two handguns — a Smith & Wesson .38 and a .44 magnum revolver — were inside a dresser drawer. A .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol was stashed in an unlocked kitchen cabinet, next to the sink."

I hope they charge her with SOMETHING.
c'mon folks... this is just crazy. 4 completely unsecured firearms in a house with a minor? A pistol in a kitchen cabinet?

stuff like this makes good and responsible gun owners look bad....

You are kidding... at least I hope you are kidding.

 

[we are not amused]

This is along the lines of:

Your 17(no drivers license) year old kid steals your car keys on the kitchen table. They take the car out, have an accident. Investigators find many unsecured car keys laying all over the house. Should the parents be charged? Should parents have to lock their car keys up in a safe?

Good point! I hope some of the gun banners on this site think about it.

 

[Derry 1946]

There is tremendous duplicity in a state considering a teen to be old enough to decide to consent to sex and to reproduce, but not old enough to be trusted with a firearm.



Which is more likely to cause more harm to a teen, unbridled sexual activity or access to firearms? How much higher are the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in CA compared with the rates of firearms related injuries? 100 times? 1000 times? More?

You'll get no argument from me. The teen years are very tricky. There is an age of consent to marry, an age of consent to consort, an age to drive, to drink, to vote, to fly an airplane, to enlist in the military and pledge and risk one's life in defense of country, an age of emancipation, and an age to be tried as an adult. The patchwork quilt of advancing responsibility and liability is not entirely logically consistent. Sometimes the parent is left to feel little more than a bystander. We can but try to raise them up in the right way and hope they walk the right path on their own, and maybe have a kind word for their old dad before it's all done.

 

[BobTheTomato]

Lock up your car keys, liquor, medications, knives, guns, chemicals you can huff, copies of the constution, ect

 

[Thermactor]

Lock up your car keys, liquor, medications, knives, guns, chemicals you can huff, copies of the constution, ect

And to add to that, tobacco, sugar, butter, and dare I say, the holy Bible?