Only in America- 5yo shoots/kills 5yo and it's an 'accident'

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Exactly - small kids (or any other kids for that matter) in the home, keep the guns locked up in a safe - trigger locks, etc - anywhere the kid can't get his chocolate-covered paws on it.

[Deleted]

It's just proof that more laws are not the answer... enforcement of existing laws is.

[EVT1]

Aug 12, 2014 19:45:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's just proof that more laws are not the answer... enforcement of existing laws is.

Except there is no law against leaving a loaded gun lying around in a lot of places. You could literally have a birthday party for a bunch of kindergartners and leave a loaded AR-15 in the corner- and if tragedy strikes- well, it's just an 'accident'.

Hoping prosecutors will find a way to charge people is not an answer- hence why no charges are being filed in these cases.  My point is there needs to be a legal duty with criminal penalties attached- and the idea of this is not punishment- it is as a deterrent.  Not even sure it would work as you can't fix stupid- but why not?  That little old law wouldn't bother anyone- wouldn't even know it was there.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2014 19:56:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 12, 2014 19:45:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's just proof that more laws are not the answer... enforcement of existing laws is.

Except there is no law against leaving a loaded gun lying around in a lot of places. You could literally have a birthday party for a bunch of kindergartners and leave a loaded AR-15 in the corner- and if tragedy strikes- well, it's just an 'accident'.

Hoping prosecutors will find a way to charge people is not an answer- hence why no charges are being filed in these cases.  My point is there needs to be a legal duty with criminal penalties attached- and the idea of this is not punishment- it is as a deterrent.  Not even sure it would work as you can't fix stupid- but why not?  That little old law wouldn't bother anyone- wouldn't even know it was there.

Incorrect. There are several laws (they vary from state to state), which, if followed would make the weapon impossible for the child to use.

[EVT1]

I know there are- I just think it should be in every state. TN law only punishes children that have weapons or use them, irresponsible adults that leave them lying around are in the clear.  That is wrong. 

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2014 21:42:32 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I know there are- I just think it should be in every state. TN law only punishes children that have weapons or use them, irresponsible adults that leave them lying around are in the clear.  That is wrong. 

Might want to check again...

Tennessee prohibits a parent or guardian from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly providing a handgun to a juvenile¹ or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun, if such parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that such juvenile will use the handgun to commit a felony.²

Tennessee also prohibits any person age 18 or older, including a parent or legal guardian, who knows that a minor or student is in illegal possession of a firearm in or upon the premises of a public or private school, in or on such school’s athletic stadium or other facility or building where school sponsored athletic events are conducted, or a public park, playground or civic center, from failing to prevent the possession or failing to report the possession to the appropriate school or law enforcement officials.³


1 “Juvenile” is defined as any person under age 18. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1319(a)(2).
2 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1320(b).
3 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1312(a).


SOURCE

ETA: I believe "Tennessee prohibits a parent or guardian from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly providing a handgun to a juvenile" (especially the bolded) covers access to one's guns in the home by a minor pretty well.

[EVT1]

You notice 'negligently' is not in there.  Plus- the conditional part- if they know there is a risk they will commit a felony.

Weak ass law- and it does not require weapons to be stored safely.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 11:07:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You notice 'negligently' is not in there.  Plus- the conditional part- if they know there is a risk they will commit a felony.

Weak ass law- and it does not require weapons to be stored safely.

I did notice that... did you notice that "knowingly" and "recklessly" are in there? I think if you combine the two, they pretty much cover any "negligently" you'd care to suggest.

The "conditional part" is a separate part of the statute (I guess that wasn't clear enough... even though there was a footnote with it's statute and clause number).

It requires them to be unavailable to "juveniles"... I think that covers your worry about "stored safely".

[EVT1]

Knowingly and recklessly are nothing close to negligently as far as the law is concerned.  

  

[EVT1]

The actual law it was referring to:

39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles -- Penalties.

(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of § 39-17-1319.

(b) It is an offense for a parent or guardian intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun to a juvenile or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun, if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony.


The conditional part is the law-it is not separate.

What it means is that TN has no law requiring safe storage and no way to criminally prosecute a negligent gun owner- as I said.

www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

[zibazinski]

Well, then if Tennessee gives a rats ass, they will change the law. If they don't, they won't. 

[EVT1]

It doesn't and we won't.  Not anytime soon at least.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 15:26:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The actual law it was referring to:

39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles -- Penalties.

(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of § 39-17-1319.

(b) It is an offense for a parent or guardian intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun to a juvenile or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun, if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony.


The conditional part is the law-it is not separate.

What it means is that TN has no law requiring safe storage and no way to criminally prosecute a negligent gun owner- as I said.

www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

We both look at

I see "Potato"... you see "Cauliflower" (Basically we are reading/seeing the same thing and getting different results. I'm reading/seeing what's there... I don't know what you are reading/seeing).

The conditional part (b) is a completely separate offence from (a) which is the one that says that can't knowingly or recklessly provide a handgun to a juvenile.

Do you not see where BOTH (a) and (b) start out with "It is an offense..."? Part (b) does NOT start out with "(a) only applies upon the following condition..."... does it?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

@richardintn - you need one of these:

You can talk til you're blue, but won't change EVT's mind.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 18:28:17 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

@richardintn - you need one of these:

You can talk til you're blue, but won't change EVT's mind.

I'm used to ...

I used to be a member of Invisapeeps (still should be... but my illegitimate ban is a whole other issue... LOL).

[EVT1]

Aug 13, 2014 17:59:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 13, 2014 15:26:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The actual law it was referring to:

39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles -- Penalties.

(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of § 39-17-1319.

(b) It is an offense for a parent or guardian intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun to a juvenile or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun, if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony.


The conditional part is the law-it is not separate.

What it means is that TN has no law requiring safe storage and no way to criminally prosecute a negligent gun owner- as I said.

www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

We both look at

I see "Potato"... you see "Cauliflower" (Basically we are reading/seeing the same thing and getting different results. I'm reading/seeing what's there... I don't know what you are reading/seeing).

The conditional part (b) is a completely separate offence from (a) which is the one that says that can't knowingly or recklessly provide a handgun to a juvenile.

Do you not see where BOTH (a) and (b) start out with "It is an offense..."? Part (b) does NOT start out with "(a) only applies upon the following condition..."... does it?

Well that explains it- I am referring to the part " if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony." being conditional.  And I explicitly said that.

I assume you are referring to section a) and section b) correct?  In that case there is no disagreement- how could there be?

[EVT1]

And if you really want me to explain it in simple terms:

Section a) refers to providing the gun to a juvenile in violation of 39-17-1319 (which is the illegal possession of a gun by a juvenile except for certain circumstances) which in a nutshell means that if you hand them a gun while hunting, in a shooting match or other permissible activity you are not breaking the law under a)

Section b) refers to providing a gun with the knowledge that there is a risk that the juvenile might commit a felony.

If you ask me- section b) is covered by section a) but is qualified to 'parent or guardian' vs. 'person' under a).

I could look at the legislative history and possible cases where this distinction was relevant, but I am not wasting my time- the point I made stands- there is no way to prosecute a negligent gun owner in this state.  You can sue their ass into oblivion- and that is about it. 

[Deleted]

If "It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile...", I think the state could prosecute. Being that it's an offense and all.

And yes, I am referring to sections (a) and (b), but I am NOT combining the two as you seem to want o do... since they are each stand alone offenses.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 14:12:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 3, 2014 0:07:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I'm all for protecting kids, but believe we're going too far with these gun storage laws.
When one needs quick protection, an unloaded stored gun would be useless.
The answer is to educate our kids. We educate them against all kinds of dangers. How is this any different?

You sound like the NRA.  It is quite obvious we have not gone far enough with these laws as there aren't any in half the states.

It isn't that hard to keep a loaded gun out of the hands of a 5y/o- so why would you not want these idiots to pay for their stupidity by attaching some criminal penalties when people end up shot or killed when they leave their weapons lying around?

We already have child endangerment laws, so why do you we then need a specific gun storage law? 
And no, I am not an NRA member. 

[EVT1]

Aug 13, 2014 20:43:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If "It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile...", I think the state could prosecute. Being that it's an offense and all.

And yes, I am referring to sections (a) and (b), but I am NOT combining the two as you seem to want o do... since they are each stand alone offenses.

I never combined the two.  I know how the law works.  It was a misunderstanding.

Here is where it breaks down- the easiest way to prosecute would be using 'recklessly'- and that is a much higher bar than 'negligently'.

In fact- adding negligently to the law would be the only fix necessary.

Leaving a loaded gun in a nightstand drawer is not reckless.  Well- it could be if that nightstand was in a child's room.  It's a jury question normally- but you have prosecutors- like in this case- that are not going to bring charges because they know they will likely lose.  Maybe it is a societal problem in this country- that many refuse to believe this is a criminal act- that it is an accident since there is no obvious intention.  Well- people that drive drunk and kill people, the hot car example, etc. do not intend to kill people either- that is why we attach liability.  Say some dad of the year drives drunk, hits a light pole and his child is killed- same situation- he didn't intend to kill his child- but society will lock him up anyway and not give him a pass because he has to live with it.  Why is it when it is guns they get some special treatment?

[EVT1]

Aug 13, 2014 21:11:29 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 3, 2014 14:12:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

We already have child endangerment laws, so why do you we then need a specific gun storage law? 
And no, I am not an NRA member. 

Are people being prosecuted under those laws for these acts?  That's an interesting point- maybe they could be- maybe they have- I don't know- do you?

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 21:18:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 13, 2014 21:11:29 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

We already have child endangerment laws, so why do you we then need a specific gun storage law? 
And no, I am not an NRA member. 

Are people being prosecuted under those laws for these acts?  That's an interesting point- maybe they could be- maybe they have- I don't know- do you?

I was never involved in a case that involved a gun, so I wouldn't know. However, in our county the court doesn't take child endangerment lightly.
The solution is not in making more laws but rather putting teeth into the laws we already have.

[EVT1]

Looked into it- the only mention of guns is this section:

     39-15-402. Haley's Law -- Aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect or endangerment -- Definitions.

      (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect or aggravated child endangerment, who commits child abuse, as defined in § 39-15-401(a); child neglect, as defined in § 39-15-401(b); or child endangerment, as defined in § 39-15-401(c) and:

      (1) The act of abuse, neglect or endangerment results in serious bodily injury to the child;

      (2) A deadly weapon, dangerous instrumentality, controlled substance or controlled substance analogue is used to accomplish the act of abuse, neglect or endangerment;

Therefore 39-15-401 defines it:

     39-15-401. Child abuse and child neglect or endangerment.

      (a) Any person who knowingly, other than by accidental means, treats a child under eighteen (18) years of age in such a manner as to inflict injury commits a Class A misdemeanor; provided, however, that, if the abused child is eight (8) years of age or less, the penalty is a Class D felony.

     (b) Any person who knowingly abuses or neglects a child under eighteen (18) years of age, so as to adversely affect the child's health and welfare, commits a Class A misdemeanor; provided, that, if the abused or neglected child is eight (8) years of age or less, the penalty is a Class E felony.

     (c) (1) A parent or custodian of a child eight (8) years of age or less commits child endangerment who knowingly exposes such child to or knowingly fails to protect such child from abuse or neglect resulting in physical injury to the child.

So again- there is no law in TN to prosecute negligent gun owners- but I was rooting for you

[Deleted]

You must be confused. You post three subsections that enable prosecution of negligent gun owners (they just don't use that particular word)... and then state "there is no law in TN to prosecute negligent gun owners".

I'm confused... are the laws you posted there... or aren't they?

[EVT1]

Aug 13, 2014 22:44:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You must be confused. You post three subsections that enable prosecution of negligent gun owners (they just don't use that particular word)... and then state "there is no law in TN to prosecute negligent gun owners".

I'm confused... are the laws you posted there... or aren't they?

That particular word means everything when it comes to the law.

If you would like an analogy in a criminal case- Intentionally=murder 1, knowingly=murder 2, recklessly= voluntary manslaughter, negligently= involuntary manslaughter.

It is a serious legal distinction.

 

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2014 22:53:12 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 13, 2014 22:44:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You must be confused. You post three subsections that enable prosecution of negligent gun owners (they just don't use that particular word)... and then state "there is no law in TN to prosecute negligent gun owners".

I'm confused... are the laws you posted there... or aren't they?

That particular word means everything when it comes to the law.

If you would like an analogy in a criminal case- Intentionally=murder 1, knowingly=murder 2, recklessly= voluntary manslaughter, negligently= involuntary manslaughter.

It is a serious legal distinction.

If you note the bolded... (assuming you are correct) they both tie to some form of "manslaughter". So there's a punishable offense. That's all I'm trying to get through to you...

You continue to say there's no way to prosecute. You are wrong.

[EVT1]

You can prosecute a reckless gun owner.  That's the best you are going to get in this state.

 

[EVT1]

Well looking back at the story- and I can't beleive I skipped over this you appear to be right:

39-13-212. Criminally negligent homicide.

(a) Criminally negligent conduct that results in death constitutes criminally negligent homicide.

(b) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class E felony.

That could cover a lot of things- didn't work last time but it is there.

[EVT1]

Just to add the TN definition:

"Criminal negligence” means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint

[Deleted]

It's nice to be on the same page about this...