BAD: CCW Negligent Discharge injures child

[jchill17]

SAIP: Guy in line at Walmart reaches into his pocket for his wallet and discharges his .40 Springfield, shooting (grazed) himself in the leg. Bullet then hits the floor and sprays a concrete shrapnel injuring a kid and her mom. The article says the weapon was "holstered" in his pants. I don't see how it was in a quality holster and this happens though.

Worst part was he then fled the scene. He is now under arrest.

Comments suggest that the offender doesn't have a current license. Either way, be careful out there.

http://www.khou.com/news/Walmart-sho...163573226.html

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[jchill17]

Mods please merge.

[L3git]

I was going to say accidental would have been one thing, but fleeing when an off duty tried to confront him? What a moron, hope his permit gets taken away.

[Jollymann]

Probably was Mexican Style Carry. Probably had it on the same side as the billfold. Reached down inside the pants instead of inside the pocket. Tripped the trigger. I've carryed Mexcan Style before. Sometimes you just want to get the thing on and do your business and not do the whole belt up routine. Sometimes it's raining and you don't want to stand there in it getting wet. In any case if you're doing Mexican style carry, you have to be extra careful about the belt tension for one, since if it's too loose it dislodges, and two, the trigger being more exposed.

D.J.

[Sixthertz]

Was it either an XD or XDM? Both guns have the grip safety so he would have to have a solid hold of the grip and hit both pieces of the trigger. Not familiar with other springfields.

[Hiram25]

He should not have anymore guns.

[Ram Rod]

Can we award a gold star for stupid, or should we just form a posse and take care of things?

[BugDude]

Ummmm, infractions are routinely passed out for discussing illegal activity you have participated in. Score one fail and one face-palm.

[suntzu]

doublefacepalm.jpg

[BugDude]

I hope and pray this guy did NOT have a concealed permit. If anyone finds out for sure one way or the other, please post. If he did, the columnist I argue with all the time will never let it go.

[Jollymann]

Might as well point out that the prohibitionists like the idea of denying guaranteed firearms rights for an expanding base of reasons such as you're an ex felon, you've been in a mental hospital, you've beat your wife, you've committed a sex crime (Including streaking, or underage sex even if she was simply hot and 17 in some states, and didn't say.), and sometimes accidental discharges, if somehow it's classified ridiculously as a felony. When you start saying that you like their base of reasons, you empower them to keep expanding it and including more and more against guaranteed rights. Make no mistake, if the people who like denying rights as they have been doing since the 1968 Gun Control Act are allowed to keep at it and aren't stopped and reversed, it will eventually boil down to denying rights for the ultimate ends of general prohibition. You'll have rights denied for speeding tickets. You'll have rights denied for littering. You'll have rights denied for parking violations. You'll have rights denied for having a fight in grade school. How does that sound to you? Make you feel safer that all those bad people can't have guns now? As far as I'm concerned it was an accident where no one was killed or gravely injured. It's not right to say that he can't have guns anymore. Just like it's not right to deny rights on the basis of streaking. If he pays a fine OK. If he goes to jail for six months. OK. If he loses his CCW card for a while. OK. But not denying rights for that. That actually could happen to anyone since there was no criminal intent. Probably not if you're not sloppy, but it still could.

D.J.

[Toorop]

One more reason why I feel signs should have the force of law. It is incidents like this that make businesses want to prohibit carry in their property. I have read many statements on here that suggest that if a business prohibits carry then they should be liable for people getting shot or killed on their property, well wouldn't the opposit also be true? That if a business allows carry and someone gets shot on their property, shouldn't they be also be liable as the argument could be made that if they are ok with guns they are accepting responsibility for their property and what happens on it.

[Jollymann]

Sorry for putting it into context to make a point. Not everyone lives in a free state like I do now. It's necessary sometimes to act on your rights sometimes even if it's against the letter of the law in the state where you live. Like if you lived in New Jersey or California. You don't have to be so snotty about it "Bug Dude", whatever your name is.

D.M. Jolly

[CLASS3NH]

Can we award a gold star for stupid, or should we just form a posse and take care of things?

+1 on what Ram Rod said.

[BugDude]

Sorry for putting it into context to make a point. Not everyone lives in a free state like I do now. It's necessary sometimes to act on your rights sometimes even if it's against the letter of the law in the state where you live. Like if you lived in New Jersey or California. You don't have to be so snotty about it "Bug Dude", whatever your name is.

D.M. Jolly

OK, leave it there...I was just trying to save you from getting infraction points for breaking the forum rules. Ask me how I know.