Archived Posts » 59,672,804
That Didn't Take Long...Check Out Our Senate
2/27/2012 7:34:31 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2012&bill=6628
They were sure quick with this
ERic
They were sure quick with this
ERic
2/27/2012 7:43:42 PM
Proposed chage:
What's your problem with the law exactly?
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person is
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
What's your problem with the law exactly?
2/27/2012 7:55:36 PM
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
Proposed chage:
What's your problem with the law exactly?
Proposed chage:
...
What's your problem with the law exactly?
Yeah, seems justifiable to me.
2/27/2012 8:24:45 PM
So you are ok with them having a knee jerk reaction to something that happend in another state and using their clout to introduce legislation after this sessions cutoff?
ERic
ERic
2/27/2012 8:34:03 PM
Didn't a kid in obtain a firearm in Washington and have a negligent discharge in his back pack resulting in the injury of another kid in Washington last week?
2/27/2012 8:58:06 PM
Feelgood law.
Mom in Bremerton with a felony criminal recrd had a .45 ACP pistol that her 9 year old got ahold of. 9 year old had gun in backpack, and it fired, striking a small girl in the gut. Very sad.
Sadly, there was already a law, or laws, on the books that mom broke by having said .45 ACP firearm. Those laws did nothing to prevent this from happening.
I have no issue with having a penalty for a child's use of a firearm against the parent, but to think that the new law will stop it from happening, well, that is a bunch of bullshit.
Teach all kids about firearm safety, regardless of whether there are firearms in the home or not. That will do much more to save lives than this new law. That is fact.
Mom in Bremerton with a felony criminal recrd had a .45 ACP pistol that her 9 year old got ahold of. 9 year old had gun in backpack, and it fired, striking a small girl in the gut. Very sad.
Sadly, there was already a law, or laws, on the books that mom broke by having said .45 ACP firearm. Those laws did nothing to prevent this from happening.
I have no issue with having a penalty for a child's use of a firearm against the parent, but to think that the new law will stop it from happening, well, that is a bunch of bullshit.
Teach all kids about firearm safety, regardless of whether there are firearms in the home or not. That will do much more to save lives than this new law. That is fact.
2/27/2012 9:25:57 PM
I am embarrassed to say I forgot about the Bremerton shooting. I assumed that this was some in response to the shooting in Ohio. 
Still pisses me off that they can ignore their own calendar but if I am late on something it is unacceptable.
Eric
Still pisses me off that they can ignore their own calendar but if I am late on something it is unacceptable.
Eric
2/27/2012 10:16:18 PM
They can introduce it, but it will likely take place next year.
2/27/2012 10:24:14 PM
In general terms, laws in and of themselves do not prevent behavior, just criminalize it.... people choose to obey them or not, based on their own moral compass, or fear of penalties (or some sense of societal good)... this newly proposed law would not have prevented the shooting in Bremerton, it would just give prosecutors something else to charge the mother with.
2/27/2012 11:41:32 PM
Read down the rest of the text of the bill where they're also raising the fees for Concealed Pistol Permits, with the additional funds going straight into the general fund.
2/28/2012 12:18:42 AM
Originally Posted By AMESO:
Feelgood law.
Feelgood law.
Yep
2/28/2012 12:36:18 AM
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
Proposed change:
What's your problem with the law exactly?
Proposed change:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person is
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
What's your problem with the law exactly?
This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
2/28/2012 1:11:43 AM
Originally Posted By mordecai:
This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
Proposed change:
What's your problem with the law exactly?
Proposed change:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person is
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
What's your problem with the law exactly?
This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
The part in red says otherwise doesn't it?
2/28/2012 1:31:24 AM
Originally Posted By mordecai:
This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
Proposed change:
What's your problem with the law exactly?
Proposed change:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person is
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
12 guilty of reckless endangerment if the person stores or leaves a loaded
13 firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should
14 know, that a child is likely to gain access, and a child obtains
15 possession of the loaded firearm.
16 (3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply if:
17 (a) The firearm is secured in a locked box, gun safe, other secure
18 locked storage space, or secured with a lock or any device that
19 prevents the firearm from discharging;
p. 1 SB 6628
1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult;
2 (c) The child's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of
3 an unlawful entry; or
4 (d) The child's access to the firearm was in accordance with RCW
5 9.41.042.
6 (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged
7 violation of subsection (2) of this section, the prosecuting attorney
8 may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence
9 to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no
10 public purpose, would defeat the purpose of the law in question, or
11 would result in decreased respect for the law.
12 (5) For the purposes of this section:
13 (a) "Child" means a person under the age of twelve years; and
14 (b) The definitions in RCW 9.41.010 apply throughout this section.
15 (6) Nothing in this section shall mandate how or where a firearm
16 must be stored.
What's your problem with the law exactly?
This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
Not if you don't have kids... That said, feel good law that doesn't actually protect anyone from anything, and the fact that it raises fees for a license I should not have to get in the first place equals opposed to it...
ETA: is the fee really a tax? So does it need 2/3rds? I mean, the cost of processing a license app didn't suddenly go up, did it?
2/28/2012 11:14:11 AM
It won't make a difference.
11 years ago on March 5
I was one of the first LEO's to arrive at Santana High School
A kid had broken in to his dad's locked gun cabinet and stole a .22 pistol
Then took it to school and shot 14 people, killing two
This was CA with the country's strictist gun laws.
11 years ago on March 5
I was one of the first LEO's to arrive at Santana High School
A kid had broken in to his dad's locked gun cabinet and stole a .22 pistol
Then took it to school and shot 14 people, killing two
This was CA with the country's strictist gun laws.
2/28/2012 12:05:24 PM
Originally Posted By John_H:
Read down the rest of the text of the bill where they're also raising the fees for Concealed Pistol Permits, with the additional funds going straight into the general fund.
Read down the rest of the text of the bill where they're also raising the fees for Concealed Pistol Permits, with the additional funds going straight into the general fund.
You are right:
(6) The nonrefundable fee for the renewal of such license shall be
26 ((thirty-two)) thirty-four dollars. No other branch or unit of
27 government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the
28 renewal of the license.
29 The renewal fee shall be distributed as follows:
30 (a) ((Fifteen)) Seventeen dollars shall be paid to the state
31 general fund;
26 ((thirty-two)) thirty-four dollars. No other branch or unit of
27 government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the
28 renewal of the license.
29 The renewal fee shall be distributed as follows:
30 (a) ((Fifteen)) Seventeen dollars shall be paid to the state
31 general fund;
I will panic and write my congress critter over something elce, that 4 dollar change every 5 years I can live with.
2/28/2012 12:11:48 PM
Originally Posted By mordecai:This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
No actually that's not what the law says. That's what you want it to say so you can get all
over it.
The law says, if you DO leave a loaded firearm out unsupervised (ie when you are not home, where do you guys even come up with this stuff to get your panties in a wad from, you even read the change?) were a kid gets a hold of it and a child obtains possession of the loaded firearm you're a fucking idiot and need your cock slapped for it.
And I agree with that.
2/28/2012 2:24:47 PM
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
And I agree with that.
And I agree with that.
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
2/28/2012 3:41:57 PM
Originally Posted By CavVet:
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
And I agree with that.
And I agree with that.
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
WELL SAID!
+1
2/28/2012 5:46:06 PM
Originally Posted By CavVet:
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
And I agree with that.
And I agree with that.
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
Sorry.
I don't agree with you on this one Cav.
2/28/2012 8:10:16 PM
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
Sorry.
I don't agree with you on this one Cav.
Originally Posted By CavVet:
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
And I agree with that.
And I agree with that.
I dont for a couple reasons.
Keep the .gov the fuck out of my house. They have crossed the line of infringed yet again.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
More laws wont stop the felon Moms shitty boyfriend from illegally possessing a gun. Go after the real criminals and leave lawful citizens alone.
And as for the 4 dollars....TAXED ENOUGH ALL-FUCKING READY.
Sorry.
I don't agree with you on this one Cav.
Which part?
You dont agree that they have already crossed shall not be infringed?
You dont agree if they had stayed out of our homes in the first place parents would still whip kids into minding instead of kids calling childrens services?
You dont agree that the shitty boyfriend in Bremerton wouldnt have broke yet one more law instead of the few he already broke?
You dont agree we are taxed enough already????
This is just like the cell phone law- we already had a rule to cover those actions. Reckless Op was more than good enough for doing other stuff than driving, yet they had to make another rule.
As mordecai pointed out, we already have reckless endangerment laws on the books. As migradog pointed out, even with more strict laws we cant stop this from happening.
I know if my kid steals one of my guns- just like if I had stole one of my Dads guns- they will damn sure already have a plan on killing themself- before I do.
And I guess the tax part really gets me. I watch the gov fuck off more money in a day than we make in a year. That really burns my ass. Fuckers.
2/28/2012 8:12:58 PM
Originally Posted By AMESO:
Feelgood law.
Mom in Bremerton with a felony criminal recrd had a .45 ACP pistol that her 9 year old got ahold of. 9 year old had gun in backpack, and it fired, striking a small girl in the gut. Very sad.
Sadly, there was already a law, or laws, on the books that mom broke by having said .45 ACP firearm. Those laws did nothing to prevent this from happening.
I have no issue with having a penalty for a child's use of a firearm against the parent, but to think that the new law will stop it from happening, well, that is a bunch of bullshit.
Teach all kids about firearm safety, regardless of whether there are firearms in the home or not. That will do much more to save lives than this new law. That is fact.
Feelgood law.
Mom in Bremerton with a felony criminal recrd had a .45 ACP pistol that her 9 year old got ahold of. 9 year old had gun in backpack, and it fired, striking a small girl in the gut. Very sad.
Sadly, there was already a law, or laws, on the books that mom broke by having said .45 ACP firearm. Those laws did nothing to prevent this from happening.
I have no issue with having a penalty for a child's use of a firearm against the parent, but to think that the new law will stop it from happening, well, that is a bunch of bullshit.
Teach all kids about firearm safety, regardless of whether there are firearms in the home or not. That will do much more to save lives than this new law. That is fact.
Werd
2/29/2012 12:22:56 AM
Not going to change a thing and is a waste of time.
2/29/2012 5:33:42 AM
Originally Posted By CavVet:
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
We had loaded guns around the house growing up, and I knew better under penalty of death. If they had stayed out of our homes before (corporal punishment, kumbaya and you) perhaps kids these days would still understand penalty of death from Dad.
Yep, I knew better. I knew where Dad or my Grandparents kept their loaded guns but I didn't touch them under penalty of a major ass woop'in. I was also allowed to shoot firearms unsupervised in the woods as young as 7 or 8 and I knew not to fuck up that privilege. Most kids don't have no clue now a days what to do or not do if a firearm is in the house. They aren't taught gun safety or read the riot act if they mishandle one. My three year old see's me gun handling all the time and I let him play with the one I have at the time if he asks, but he's told every time never to touch it w/o permission. If you're a gun owner start'em young so they don't have that unhealthy curiosity later.
2/29/2012 4:24:14 PM
Originally Posted By JoshAR:
No actually that's not what the law says. That's what you want it to say so you can get all over it.
The law says, if you DO leave a loaded firearm out unsupervised (ie when you are not home, where do you guys even come up with this stuff to get your panties in a wad from, you even read the change?) were a kid gets a hold of it and a child obtains possession of the loaded firearm you're a fucking idiot and need your cock slapped for it.
And I agree with that.
Originally Posted By mordecai:This pretty much says you can't have a loaded gun at the ready in the house when you are home.
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
I mean, how is Reckless Endangerment not already applicable?
No actually that's not what the law says. That's what you want it to say so you can get all
over it.
The law says, if you DO leave a loaded firearm out unsupervised (ie when you are not home, where do you guys even come up with this stuff to get your panties in a wad from, you even read the change?) were a kid gets a hold of it and a child obtains possession of the loaded firearm you're a fucking idiot and need your cock slapped for it.
And I agree with that.
I think, and this is just my lowly opinion, you might want to take a deep breath of air. My panties are the wadless style and if you think what is written in those words is how they will be interpreted, well then I'm not sure how I can be of help. That said, I have no desire to parse the bejesus out of the thing, suffice to say, several of the conditional terms of the proposed language leave a lot to be desired.
As you pointed out, wouldn't "1 (b) The child's access to the firearm is supervised by an adult; " preclude my claim from being valid?
I would ask, would an adult with a loaded firearm at the ready, say on his nightstand while sleeping, be considered someone who is supervising a child? Has anyone successfully supervised anyone while sleeping, will be the question to the court.
Perhaps I'm just not big on fattening up laws that already seem to have things handled.
