Penalizing irresponsible gun owners?

Andy Blozinski

New member
I'm not a fan of mandatory gun storage or locks. The situation will not apply to many of us and is only oppression of the many to suppress the few. Plus, idiots that keep loaded firearms around toddlers aren't the kind that would follow said laws anyhow. Drunk drivers get prosecuted for making the decision that kills people. I gotta admit, I'm kind of in the same boat for idiots that make us look bad by not securing their firearms and getting their kids killed. Per the article below, I have no problems with this prosecution. The one concern I have is that this method could be abused and taken past this limited situation to target others as an agenda.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/crazy-mom-arrested-6-old-153543270.html?nhp=1
 
Yeah, I'm afraid I agree; the parent should be charged unless they took steps (i.e. a lock or a safe) to keep the firearm out of the hands of the child. Mine were always locked up when the children lived with us (except at night in my nightstand) and they get locked up when I'm not home even today.
 
I am always conflicted in cases like this. On the one hand, yes, people who are criminally irresponsible should suffer the penalty of law.

But on the other hand (and as a parent) isn't the death of YOUR CHILD due to YOUR irresponsibility, isn't that really, punishment ENOUGH???

This quote from a neighbor sums up many peoples attitudes, and seems right, but isn't.

So people should not have a gun around a four-year-old and a six-year-old.”

A 4 or 6 year old should not have a loaded gun. OR access to a gun AND ammunition (because, believe it or not, there are children in that age range who CAN figure out how to load and fire a gun).

Securing one, or the other, solves the problem, usually.

So does proper parenting, but no law can provide that.
 
While initially I tend to support holding gun owners responsible I wonder how far it might go.

For instance what if you have no children in your home and choose to keep a gun in an unlocked nightstand. A burglar steals the gun then “transfers” it to one of his associates who uses the gun during a bad drug deal to kill someone. Could some overly enthusiastic prosecutor come after the original legal gun owner because the gun was not secured in a safe? Also, could a focus on gun owner responsibility open the door for more law suits against legal gun owners over stolen weapons?

Again, not opposed to holding people accountable, but concerned about unintended consequences.
 
BarryLee said:
...could a focus on gun owner responsibility open the door for more law suits against legal gun owners over stolen weapons?...
Let's look at how a court in gun friendly Montana addressed gun owner responsibility in the context of civil liability. See Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):
...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

In a lawsuit for damages it will be up to a jury to decide if you stored your gun in a "safe and prudent" manner.
 
Here's one for you... I hired a contractor to tile our bedroom. We don't have a safe yet, the contractor was actually working up a quote to make an area where a safe could go. Anyway... the contractor sent his sub, who I met with before we left for a work thing that day. I left my mom there to baby sit... lol... we go to my work thing.

Mom calls and says the tile guy left for lunch and came back with his wife and two kids. When it was one guy who was working where my mom could watch I was not worried, but now his wife and 2 kids... my guns were in the closet down the master bath hallway. Granted they were packed up behind a shoe rack that will NOT come out of the closet... you would have to know they were there, but still....

Nothing happened, but what if? I have no kids that live at the house, so I don't worry about kids getting guns at my house, but never anticipated someone bringing children over unannounced when I was not even there to supervise!
 
I see absolutely nothing to be gained by prosecuting a parent after the fact. Only further destruction to the family. Maybe if it's an irresponsible 3rd party.

Guns need no special laws or to be singled out when it comes to safety and negligence. When you look at the range of things resulting in fatal childhood accidents because they are not under lock and key, I'm sure other items top the list, such as medications, cleaning supplies, car keys, power tools, stove and appliances, lawn and garden and gasoline, etc, etc, etc. I can't see mandatory gun storage laws accomplishing their intended purpose. You can't legislate stupid.
 
Drunk drivers get prosecuted for making the decision that kills people. I gotta admit, I'm kind of in the same boat for idiots that make us look bad by not securing their firearms and getting their kids killed.

I have a real problem with this analogy. The two situations couldn't be more different. A drunk driver who kills someone while driving is directly responsible for the injuries/deaths. The equivalent to this would be someone who aimlessly and recklessly fires his gun, not necessarily at someone, but also not knowing where those bullets will end up.

Not locking up a firearm simply is not the same thing as either of the above scenarios. In my state, I am under no legal obligation to lock up my firearms. For example, I am permitted to have an unlocked firearm at my bedside for my protection, which is not necessarily an unreasonable, reckless or irresponsible thing.
 
Skans said:
...I am permitted to have an unlocked firearm at my bedside for my protection, which is not necessarily an unreasonable, reckless or irresponsible thing.
Unless a jury decides that it is in the particular case in litigation. See post 5 for a Montana court's discussion of the standard of care applicable in a firearms context.
 
Aren't there already a ton of laws that cover child neglect and child abuse ? If you even get a DUI here, and there is a
child in the vehicle, you are also charged with an offense against children.
 
Back
Top