This is a discussion on Parents will be prosecuted within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Ron So, I guess my point is that we need to lead the charge to try to get gun owners to exercise ...
This was passed 7 to 0, from the public safety committee. This is the same committee that considered the CHL bill that session. So, looks like what we had here was purely a concession to the anti-gun lobby to gain passage of the CHL bill.
I am suggesting that each time a child is killed because a gun owner was careless, gives them more of an argument to ban guns.
It is not, IMO, an answer to say too late. If that is the general attitude of gun owners, then, indeed, it is too late.
"It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."
J. R. R. Tolkien
The story we're talking about here is a 12 year old shooting and killing his friend with a shotgun. Just because a child was killed, doesn't mean the gun owner was careless.I am suggesting that each time a child is killed because a gun owner was careless, gives them more of an argument to ban guns.
You said:It is not, IMO, an answer to say too late. If that is the general attitude of gun owners, then, indeed, it is too late.
So, gun owners should lock up their guns and render them inoperable in order to keep the anti-gun crowd from doing it? I think what gun owners ought to do is to stop advocating and supporting the anti-gun rights position.So, I guess my point is that we need to lead the charge to try to get gun owners to exercise greater care, lock up their guns if not on their hip or in their pocket, because like it or not folks, if we don't do it, you can bet the farm that under the current administration, it is going to be done for us.
It's not that regular law abiding gun owners are doing that brought about the law. It's what 15 and 16 year old criminals have been doing. They're illegally taking firearms out of the home and killing each other over drugs and gang activity. That's where all these "accidental" shootings come from that the anti-gun rights supporters were talking about.
Like I said, law abiding citizens didn't do anything to justify having this law passed against them. We weren't careless and irresponsible in handling our firearms to the outrage of society. All we did was ask the legislature to stop infringing our right under the Texas constitution and to respect our right to keep and bear arms in public.
The only time a loaded firearm should be accessible to a child is on the range, when that child (of an appropriate age, say 9 or 10 or so) is being taught to shoot safely by a responsioble adult.
Any other time a child can get his or her hands on a loaded weapon, without strict parental supervision, it's the parents' fault, and the parents would most certainly be certifiably stupid and/or insane to ever let such a thing happen.
"Bad spellers of the world - untie!"
DAV Life member, NRA Life member
Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact
Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
Plenty of young'uns have used firearms to defend their homes and family, when the older folks were not there. Now and again, even in this day and age, you see a story in the news from time to time, about exactly that. It all depends on the training and competency. Which is why I think so many lament the days when firearms were a part of our lives as a society, just one of the many tools everyone learned how to use. Why? Because they can be bloody useful, even to a 9yr old, so long as that person isn't a modern-day twit with a spoiled upbringing and not clue one about guns beyond the silver screen's terrible facsimile.
And, GWH, them's fightin' words to Texans, in case you haven't learned that already, here.The only time a loaded firearm should be accessible to a child is on the range
It was a pretty big price to pay to get only some of our public possession right back. We let the state government infringe on our right to firearm possession within the sanctity of our own home. If you want to avoid any potential prosecution, and you have children under 17, you have to come very close to submitting to a DC style ban on all firearms in your home. We're minus the onerous registration for possession, but what good is an unloaded or inoperable gun? Who is going to keep a loaded gun like a shotgun on their person 24X7?
Where did they get the authority to pass such a law? What part of any of this had to do with the wearing of firearms?