Penalty for unsecured gun?

[MTregre]

Knew it would be good, its a post that includes a article from MSN on a firearm forum.

how secure does a firearm have to be to to appease the OP? "enough to where the firearm is useless in any situation where you would need it"

 

[A5Mag12]

I don't know of much of anything I couldn't get into as a kid and have known how to load a gun for as long as I can remember. I never shot anyone because I was taught about guns about the same time I was potty trained. If you want to pass a law that will help this type of thing then make gun safety classes mandatory in all grades Pre-K through 8th.

 

[Gus McCrae]

If your gun is not on your person or being used, keep it locked up. It's not that hard. We don't need a law for it, but we do need people to take responsibility for their actions.

If you have kids, teach them to respect firearms early.

 

[US Infidel]

I let my kids see my guns whenever they ask. They know how they all work. If I were to leave a gun unattended (not that I do) they do not touch it. I take away the curiosity and mystery when they are young. Of course still be safe with the guns, friends over etc....

 

[MTregre]

If your gun is not on your person or being used, keep it locked up. It's not that hard. We don't need a law for it, but we do need people to take responsibility for their actions.

If you have kids, teach them to respect firearms early.

Proved my point. At 3am and you need it, it shouldn't be locked up. Correct , "its not that hard" to teach children about firearms and firearm safety. I too learned when I was very young. I never had a BB gun or pellet gun, I started with a crack barrel 410.

 

[MTregre]

And another thing; I can point to several recent cases where a child (under 12) used a firearm in house to defend a family or themselves. Kids, children, have the same right to self defense as those of us posting here. I for one will make sure to not only teach my child about firearm safety but teach them to shoot and hunt from an early age

 

[PPBart]

Proved my point...

Many of the responses here just echo the "not my fault" mindset. True, "it's not that hard" to teach kids about guns -- but there are many parents who don't own guns, don't want their children exposed to such teaching. Some here would obviously argue that if one of those children picked up a gun left unsecured by them and shot himself, the fault must be with those other parents(?)

FWIW, I've been a gun owner since age 5 when my parents gave me a .410 shotgun. I've owned guns (plural) for the 60 years since (but never shot anyone), and am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I just don't think the 2nd Amendment is something to hide behind or use to excuse one's own lack of responsibility. I have a CHP, and carry when I feel it is appropriate. My guns are always on my person, in my hand, or otherwise secured.

 

[PPBart]

Knew it would be good, its a post that includes a article from MSN on a firearm forum...

Interesting comment -- it would be even more interesting if someone would point out any demonstrable untruths in the article.

 

[MTregre]

Many of the responses here just echo the "not my fault" mindset. True, "it's not that hard" to teach kids about guns -- but there are many parents who don't own guns, don't want their children exposed to such teaching. Some here would obviously argue that if one of those children picked up a gun left unsecured by them and shot himself, the fault must be with those other parents(?)

FWIW, I've been a gun owner since age 5 when my parents gave me a .410 shotgun. I've owned guns (plural) for the 60 years since (but never shot anyone), and am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I just don't think the 2nd Amendment is something to hide behind or use to excuse one's own lack of responsibility. I have a CHP, and carry when I feel it is appropriate. My guns are always on my person, in my hand, or otherwise secured.

Nice way to add words to my post. At no time did I say anything about parents who dont own guns having one or being obligated to teach their children about guns. Whatever the political, pussified, or departed from reality mind set a parent is in, it should be taught. A gun owner should teach their child about guns as should the none owner teach their child not to touch **** that isn't theirs.

I find it curious that a child, obtaining property that is not theirs, injuring themselves with it, could be anyone's fault besides that child and/or their parents. I can see now why home invaders can injure themselves during the invasion and then seek compensation from the victim.

I do agree, as a firearm owner their is no reason to be responsible with these tools. I do have a safe that stays locked, the weapon I use for home defense does not stay locked. To some how say it must be is ridiculous and a detachment from the reality that is our world.

 

[MTregre]

Interesting comment -- it would be even more interesting if someone would point out any demonstrable untruths in the article.

Actually the article does support what I think is the general feeling of this community. It is the father/owners responsibility as he is guilt, as pleaded, for that particular crime. You've expanded upon that fact. In the event that my child abtains one of my firearms and harms himself or someone else, I should be accountable. I should not be forced by law to have each of my firearms secured at all times. Doing so would be directly in spite of the reason to have the firearm for use is home defense. Likewise, if my neighbors child obtains (theft) my firearm from within my home, there is no other responsible party besides that child and their parents.

The comment about MSN was more so in regards to their openly anti gun agenda vs this sites seemingly openly pro gun agenda...

 

[PPBart]

...if my neighbors child obtains (theft) my firearm from within my home, there is no other responsible party besides that child and their parents...

I'm certainly not an attorney and don't claim to know much about the law... but your opinion seems to directly contradict the legal doctrine of "attractive nuisance". From one of the legal websites:

"The attractive nuisance doctrine was developed as an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser except to refrain from causing willful and wanton injury. The doctrine mainly stands for the benefit of children. The doctrine recognizes that children, because of their various ages and levels of maturity are incapable of understanding or appreciating dangers or risks on the premises.

According to the doctrine, a landowner will be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land, if the injury is caused by any hazardous condition or object on the land, that is attractive to curious children who are unable to understand the risk involved in such condition or object... Hence, the doctrine, as a general rule, obligates landowners to exercise reasonable care to safeguard children from dangerous conditions on their property..."

That's the legal issue my insurance company cited when insisting that I put a fence around our swimming pool. Seems reasonable that the same responsibility and liability would follow unsecured firearms -- which we all know are "attractive to curious children." Regardless, I certainly hope you never have to argue that point in court!

 

[GulfCoastKAT]

This is why my sons don't have toy guns.. Because you can "shoot" your friend with your toy gun and he plays dead for a second....

My boys are taught about guns each time I have mine in my hand, holster or even just getting a box of bullets. We talk about what is right and wrong, what is safe and not safe, what to do if they see a gun out and no adults are around, etc. They have been around guns their whole lives.

I agree that more laws still won't teach responsibility. Yes, we have a constitutional right to bear arms but with that we (gun owners) bear a responsibility to secure our guns from being misused by others in our home.

 

[Lyle Savant]

Poor up-bringing and training; plus it is the parents responsibility to secure the firearms.

 

[JadeRaven]

Yes. You have the right to own the weapon, you have the responsibility to secure it from improper access. Otherwise, aren't you just another example of "it's not my fault, blame someone else"? Certainly, if you've taken "reasonable" (always hated that word usage) measures to secure the weapon and your neighbor's teenage son breaks into your home and sledge-hammers his way into your locked gun cabinet, that's a very different situation from one in which you leave your gun on the kitchen counter while you're taking a shower and your 6-yr old grandson picks it up and shoots himself.

So you really want to put grandpa away for years in prison after he just lost his grandson??

Barring absolute senility, why is grandpa going to recklessly leave his guns around for his grandkids to play with? In what universe is that same reckless idiot grandpa going to then be motivated to lock them up because of some new law on the books?

"I don't give a **** about the kids, but I better remember that new law that was just passed." Yeah, right.

 

[JadeRaven]

I'm certainly not an attorney and don't claim to know much about the law... but your opinion seems to directly contradict the legal doctrine of "attractive nuisance". From one of the legal websites:

"The attractive nuisance doctrine was developed as an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser except to refrain from causing willful and wanton injury. The doctrine mainly stands for the benefit of children. The doctrine recognizes that children, because of their various ages and levels of maturity are incapable of understanding or appreciating dangers or risks on the premises.

According to the doctrine, a landowner will be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land, if the injury is caused by any hazardous condition or object on the land, that is attractive to curious children who are unable to understand the risk involved in such condition or object... Hence, the doctrine, as a general rule, obligates landowners to exercise reasonable care to safeguard children from dangerous conditions on their property..."

That's the legal issue my insurance company cited when insisting that I put a fence around our swimming pool. Seems reasonable that the same responsibility and liability would follow unsecured firearms -- which we all know are "attractive to curious children." Regardless, I certainly hope you never have to argue that point in court!

So do you think all gun owners should have to put fences around their homes?