Interesting verdict related to 2A

[SAJ-99]

It seems in many cases there are laws on the books about firearms legally being required to be inaccessible to minors. That makes it less about being responsible for the childs actions and more about, according to the laws on the books, an adult having enabled actions not securely storing something they legally were required to securely store and the minor should not legally be able to access.

A couple of years ago some minors in Colorado were driving around in a truck throwing large landscaping rocks at oncoming cars late at night on a rural highway. They killed a 20 year old girl.

The parents didn't get in trouble for that. Though technically one of them did get in trouble for interfering with law enforcement during his sons arrest. And those kids are now in jail for the rest of their lives (charged as adults). Now, if those kids had taken one of their parents handguns that was supposed to be inaccessible tot hem and shot at oncoming cars killing the same girl, the gunowning parent(s) would be in a heap of trouble.

Weirdly, the result is the same, dead girl. But, guns are technically more deadly than rocks. And usually when a minor sneaks away with his dad's handgun it's to try and pile up bodies at school, not indiscriminately shoot at cars. The stakes are indeed higher.

The firearm stuff often hinges on a "reasonable assumption" premise regarding the psychological profile of the kid. Ie, should the parent have known. The jury has to make that decision, but read through the ones in the article below and some more clear than others.
All I can say is that if you are questioning the stability of the kid's current metal state, a gun is not the answer. But then I question how many kids we have that just go to the military and hand them a gun. The whole thing is so complicated and sad.

Georgia dad is the latest parent to be convicted when a child is accused of gun violence

A jury in Georgia quickly convicted a man who gave his son a gun linked to the fatal shooting of two students and two teachers.

www.ksat.com

 

[LopeHunter]

When I was a wee land before we walked on the moon, I recall seeing the local police driving slowly with their lights flashing as a drunk driver slowly DROVE home from the bar. The bar owner would call the police and the drunk driver would either drive himself of an officer would drive. The point is responsibility for yourself as an adult was mitigated if you were drunk. Same if you hit someone and killed them while you drove drunk as you were impaired so can't be held accountable. And, this one does not involve alcohol but when a husband would beat the crap out of his wife the police would say, well, the boss chewed his rear end or he got fired so can't hold the husband accountable for being mad then the wife made him more mad. Crazy, yet true, in rural Bible Belt.

Today, the police will not be helping you get home from the bar (unless you are also LEO) nor giving you a pass if you hit kids in the crosswalk while impaired nor give you a pass if you beat up your wife (unless you are also LEO).

The case noted by the OP steps into another realm beyond the adult being held accountable for their own actions, impaired by alcohol or angry at the world. Now, you might be responsible for the actions of someone under your care. Someone who has the legal right to access and use an item which they might own outright or have borrowed from the home.

I had friends "borrow" the family car to sneak out late at night and sometimes were underage without a driver's license. Should the parent have secured the keys in a safe? What if the kid has a valid driver's license? Is an adult liable for my actions?

I snuck a beer or two from the refrigerator of friend's parents without their knowledge (as my home kept zero liquor around) then was my buddy's parents supposed to lock up the refrigerator? What if I jump on my bicycle after a six pack and crash into an elderly women who hits her head on the crosswalk and dies? Is an adult liable?

If I "borrow" my mother's deer rifle without her knowledge and go shoot at beer cans and a bullet hits a hiker beyond the beer can then should my parents kept the rifle locked up? Is an adult liable?

If I ask to use the rifle to go shoot up my school and my mother says have a nice day then is she liable?

I think the adult is liable if gives permission.

 

[Alpine01]

Took 11 posts to transition to different topic. Congrats. Might be a new record.

Per your earlier comment, take guns/2A out of the equation - what I see as the underlying issue is if parents can/are held responsible for their underage children's actions (bad, good, indifferent), then parents also need to have clear authority over their children in all aspects. That includes the area that Dave N alludes to. That is one "rule of life & work" that I have come to expect - responsibility and authority have to come as a pair. One cannot be responsible for something if they have no means (authority) to impact it and one cannot have authority over something with no responsibility if things go bad down the road. Give me both or give me neither.

 

[morley.tyler]

For the most part I agree and I think it depends on the kids at that age. However an AR style weapon doesn't really have much to do with it. Imo.

I do. Respectfully. Sincerely, I’m not coming back at you with anger or spite.

I have a 14yo son. He is an athlete, he runs XC in the fall, he skis his balls off all winter, then runs T&F in the spring. He is a honor roll student, with straight A’s in honors/AP classes, and he volunteers for multiple charities while attending private Catholic Prep school.
I’m not bragging, wait for it…
The kid I just described is a Tier 1 14yo. I say all of this to explain that 14yo boys are the WORST OF OUR SPECIES. They have underdeveloped frontal cortex’s, they are irritable, vulnerable, full of false bravado, and generally 1/3 as smart as they think they are. Think back for a minute.

I had rifles in my closet as a kid (pre gun safe era) , and yes, in those days I could buy a box of 22lr at the hardware store for a buck, or a brick for $10. Age didn’t matter.

The difference is, I didn’t have access to 30rd mags when I got pissed. Plus, you had to run a bolt when you pulled the trigger. It matters the type of gun, and to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Show me a school shooter armed with a H&R topper. I’ll wait.

 

[morley.tyler]

This brings up a unique thought experiment- at what point are parents/guardians held liable/responsible? Take theft- If parents know of their intent to steal vs knowledge of it after the fact? Slippery slope indeed.

I don’t think this is hard to figure out. I’m responsible for my kids until they are 18. Period. Cost of being a parent.
I’m sure I’ll feel responsible for them until the day I die, but legally it’s 18.

 

[cwitherow]

I don’t think this is hard to figure out. I’m responsible for my kids until they are 18. Period. Cost of being a parent.
I’m sure I’ll feel responsible for them until the day I die, but legally it’s 18.

I guess the question is more at what point are you held responsible from a legal them breaking the law standpoint. I wouldn’t expect to be punished if my daughter gets a speeding ticket someday.

 

[SAJ-99]

I guess the question is more at what point are you held responsible from a legal them breaking the law standpoint. I wouldn’t expect to be punished if my daughter gets a speeding ticket someday.

Thats the point i asked earlier. Seems that “reasonable assumption” is where the line is drawn and the jury will decide if it was crossed. That line is different for a gun, or alcohol, or a car, etc.

Opinions on scenarios tend to vary in gray area. Parent purchases a handgun for the kid’s 18bth bday and two weeks later a tragedy occurs, the parents are going to have a tough case. The kid buys a shotgun himself through an FFL dealer (which I think is 18 min) and maybe it’s a different result. Just seems “jury of peers” are getting more comfortable enforcing accountability.