OK Teen Does Negligent Homicide / Suicide

[mikeb302000]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-teen-shoots-one-then-turns-gun-on-self-20111020,0,4397759.story">The local news reports on what they're calling a murder/suicide, but it doesn't sound like that. 17-year-old Jonathan Buss Jr. somehow shot two people, one of them died, and turned the gun on himself. "Witnesses said his reaction to the shooting makes them believe it was a complete accident."

But here's the classic reaction from gun-owning dad.

"When this happened, he wasn't supposed to have my gun and he knew it," Buss Sr. said

Everyone seems to agree the boy had some problems. He'd dropped out of high school and was thinking about joining the Marines, they said he'd had all the normal 17-year-old problems. Yet the gun was accessible to him.

The dad should be arrested for failing to secure his firearms properly. He should suffer the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">One-strike-you're-out penalty of permanent loss of gun rights. It should apply to the whole family, creating in effect a gun-free zone around that home.

Is that too severe? Is that more severe than the unnecessary loss of two lives due to gun availability and stupidity? I don't think so.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. If the gun was unsecured, then the owner will get charged for it.

It's a Felony to supply an unsupervised minor with a firearm.
Since it's a felony, it's most likely reasonable he will lose gun rights.

[reggie the dog]

4. are you sure it is a felony in all states ?

dont some states like montana permit teens over 14 or 16 to go out hunting on their own for example?

"Montana law prohibits purchase or possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of certain felonies or an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction. A minor child under the age of 14 years cannot carry or use firearms in public without adult supervision."

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_per-government-gun-laws-prohibited-persons

"Oklahoma law prohibits transfer of a firearm to a person who is under 18 years of age (except in limited circumstances), to any convicted felon or adjudicated delinquent, or to any individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or is mentally or emotionally unbalanced or disturbed. It is unlawful for a firearm to be possessed or controlled by a person who is a convicted felon, adjudicated as a delinquent child or a youthful offender, or subject to Department of Corrections supervision, probation, parole, or inmate status."

it would seem that so long as the minor is not an adjudicated delinquent or a mentally or emotionally unbalenced person then there is no law which has been broken, would you define all teenagers having trouble with school and waiting to turn 18 to become a marine to be unbalanced?

in vermont you can buy guns at age 16 without parental consent "Vermont law prohibits a person, firm, or corporation, other than a parent or guardian, from selling or furnishing a firearm to a child under the age of 16 years. A handgun cannot be possessed by a child under the age of 16 years without the consent of a parent or guardian."

[gejohnston]

6. true but federal law

trumps all of that.
It is a federal felony for any convicted felon or adjudicated mental incompetent to possess any firearm. Has been since 1938, made mandatory min five years in 1968
Must be 18 to buy long gun from FFL
Must be 21 to buy handgun from FFL
Must be 18 to buy handgun from private person
Federal law also prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing a handgun.

[reggie the dog]

10. but would federal law be enforced?

in montana i carried a pistol while out in the woods as a teen, many of the local teens did too, to ward off wild animals if need be. I hadnt heard of anyone talking about local cops enforcing federal gun law as opposed to state and local law.

i have been to many many gun ranges and seen under 18s with pistols while under adult supervision so is that unsupervised possession which is illegal?

[gejohnston]

17. has been federal law

only since 1993 and there exceptions (my kids are 19+, have not looked them up). I did the same in Wyoming as a kid to hunt small game. Of course, in a holster out in the wilds of Wyoming and Montana is different than driving around Newark with it under the seat.

It only means unsupervised. Just like you can buy for your kid, but not their friends. The spirit of the law has more to do with gangs. I don't picture the ATF hanging out at ranges to hassle 12 year olds with the parents or hiking the Sawtooth Mountains looking for 17 year old backpackers.

[mikeb302000]

8. that's certainly the way it should work

but I'm afraid it usually doesn't go like that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. Think again.

Not every state has that kind of psychotic mentality.

He wont be charged with a felony in OK.

[beevul]

2. What do I think? I think you are an extremist.

"The dad should be arrested for failing to secure his firearms properly. He should suffer the One-strike-you're-out penalty of permanent loss of gun rights. It should apply to the whole family, creating in effect a gun-free zone around that home."

One can only assume you'd assess the same penalties for speech...suffering the One-strike-you're-out penalty of permanent loss of speech rights (in cases of unlawful/dangerous speech), and it should apply to the whole family, creating in effect a speech-free zone around that home...


Now you know how ridiculous you sound.

[mikeb302000]

9. no, I don't. Comparing what I say to the

1st Amendment right to free speech is the ridiculous part.

We're talking about raising the bar with regards to proper gun ownership and security. We're talking about enforcing strict gun control laws which would save thousands of lives each year. Why would you oppose something like that and compare it to something like my restricting free speech?

You must be an extremist about gun rights.

[beevul]

12. That you don't, is the real tragedy in this.

"Comparing what I say to the 1st Amendment right to free speech is the ridiculous part."

No, comparing the restrictions you'd place on rights protected by the second amendment, and knowing for certain that you wouldn't place those same restrictions, or even use the same criteria for restrictions, on the right to free speech.

Now, go ahead, claim that speech has never killed anyone, genius.

"We're talking about raising the bar with regards to proper gun ownership and security."

No, "we" aren't. YOU are talking about making it so difficult to exercise a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right, that by your own words, half that currently do, wouldn't be able to.

Apply that same standard to speech. Go ahead. Show yourself for the authoritarian would be dictator we all know you are. Or backtrack and show yourself to be a hypocrite.

"We're talking about enforcing strict gun control laws which would save thousands of lives each year."

No, YOU are talking about laws which people would be deprived of constitutionally rights under color of, and proposing those things for a nation, a land, in which you do not live.

Why?

"Why would you oppose something like that..."

Because it is contrary to the ideals which THIS country (thats the one YOU dont live in) stands for.




"and compare it to something like my restricting free speech?"

You need to learn to read, and comprehend, grasshopper. By showing that you do not or would not regulate EQUALLY other constitutionally protected activity "for the children", it shows you to be the anti-gun extremist you are.

But you knew that didn't you.

How about you worry about the laws where you live, and those of us in America will worry about our laws here, eh?

[msongs]

3. second amendment has NO provision for loss of gun rights. would be a violation nt

[ileus]

5. Is there really such a thing as an NH?

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Insufficient evidence for your conclusion.

We'll see what happens when more info appears.

[Uncle Omar]

11. Negligent Homicide

We could make a law that one has to be 18 or older to own a rifle and 21 for a handgun. Thus the kid would not have taken his fathers firearm.

[DrDan]

13. agree completely - arrested for negligence

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. Wont happen

You feel free to dance in the blood of the dead though.

The sad part is not that the kid got hold of an evil gun, but that the kid is dead.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. Civil law will take care of this kind of problem.

If your minor child goes out and commits crimes, very often the parents are held responsible, especially if parental negligence can be shown.

The parents may not lose their gun-ownership rights, but the legal costs may make it so that they can never afford to buy a firearm again.