"The NRA and groups like that have made it so people have the right to have as many guns as they want in their homes. Right or wrong, that's the law," Hanlon said.
I'd hate to have this Hoople defending me with that mindset. Sure sounds like an anti to me.
STORY
San Bruno Father Faces Prison Term After Son Threatens Classmates
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
A 49-year-old San Bruno father pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges that he had lent guns to his 17-year-old son, who was arrested in May for allegedly pointing guns at friends' heads and threatening to "do a Columbine" at Mills High School in Millbrae.
Under a plea bargain the teenager accepted last week, the son admitted to committing one act of felony brandishing of a loaded gun in a rude, angry or threatening manner.
He is now under house arrest, awaiting a Sept. 18 hearing when he may be sentenced to the California Youth Authority for up to three years.
The father, whom The Chronicle is not naming in order to protect the juvenile's anonymity, was arraigned in San Mateo County Superior Court yesterday on charges of illegally supplying the teenager with weapons.
If convicted, the father could be sentenced to up to three years in state prison, prosecutors say. A trial has been set for Dec. 4. The father's defense attorney, Stuart Hanlon of San Francisco, said yesterday that the case against his client is far from simple, thanks to the complex gun laws on the books in California.
The father maintains that his son took a gun from the home without permission and against house rules, Hanlon said, and prosecutors will have a hard time proving that the father broke any laws - or even defining what the father allegedly did wrong. "The NRA and groups like that have made it so people have the right to have as many guns as they want in their homes. Right or wrong, that's the law," Hanlon said.
"The law doesn't say you have to lock them up in a safe if you have a gun, the law doesn't say you have to hide them from your children, the law says you can't loan guns to your children," he added. "How do you define that?"
San Mateo County District Attorney Jim Fox declined to analyze Hanlon's interpretation of the law, stating simply that his office brought charges against the father because there was evidence that the father had broken a state law that says: "No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor." "We believed that there is sufficient evidence that would lead the jury to conclude that the father knowingly provided the gun to his son," Fox said. "The evidence will speak for itself."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
©2000 San Francisco Chronicle
I'd hate to have this Hoople defending me with that mindset. Sure sounds like an anti to me.
STORY
San Bruno Father Faces Prison Term After Son Threatens Classmates
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
A 49-year-old San Bruno father pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges that he had lent guns to his 17-year-old son, who was arrested in May for allegedly pointing guns at friends' heads and threatening to "do a Columbine" at Mills High School in Millbrae.
Under a plea bargain the teenager accepted last week, the son admitted to committing one act of felony brandishing of a loaded gun in a rude, angry or threatening manner.
He is now under house arrest, awaiting a Sept. 18 hearing when he may be sentenced to the California Youth Authority for up to three years.
The father, whom The Chronicle is not naming in order to protect the juvenile's anonymity, was arraigned in San Mateo County Superior Court yesterday on charges of illegally supplying the teenager with weapons.
If convicted, the father could be sentenced to up to three years in state prison, prosecutors say. A trial has been set for Dec. 4. The father's defense attorney, Stuart Hanlon of San Francisco, said yesterday that the case against his client is far from simple, thanks to the complex gun laws on the books in California.
The father maintains that his son took a gun from the home without permission and against house rules, Hanlon said, and prosecutors will have a hard time proving that the father broke any laws - or even defining what the father allegedly did wrong. "The NRA and groups like that have made it so people have the right to have as many guns as they want in their homes. Right or wrong, that's the law," Hanlon said.
"The law doesn't say you have to lock them up in a safe if you have a gun, the law doesn't say you have to hide them from your children, the law says you can't loan guns to your children," he added. "How do you define that?"
San Mateo County District Attorney Jim Fox declined to analyze Hanlon's interpretation of the law, stating simply that his office brought charges against the father because there was evidence that the father had broken a state law that says: "No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor." "We believed that there is sufficient evidence that would lead the jury to conclude that the father knowingly provided the gun to his son," Fox said. "The evidence will speak for itself."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
©2000 San Francisco Chronicle