This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore cat2009. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Your information is incorrect again.
A charge of child endangerment has nothing to do with the age at which one is allowed to possess a firearm (and I don't know what that age is in California, but it's irrelevant). It has to do with the fact that a child died in a preventable accident and the parents are deemed negligent--as they clearly were in this case. In such cases they would be prosecuted for child endangerment, whether the accident was a home fire, a gun death, a poisoning, an electrocution, or any other cause. The surviving child would be taken into protective custody, and the parents would face charges.
It is illegal in California for parents to allow their small children access to loaded weapons. It is their responsibility to secure the weapons and provide a safe home. Period.
This child received his gun at age four. You think age five is a bit young? Really? But age eight is fine?
In California the parents would be prosecuted for child endangerment. I don't know what the criminal penalty would be, but child endangerment usually results in prison time and the surviving children being taken out of the home.
Regardless of what Kentucky does, these parents will be paying the highest price for the rest of their lives. They bear absolute responsibility for not ensuring that their children were safe. I suspect they realize it.
WELL? SHOULD IT, OR NOT?
WHAT LEGAL PRECEDENTS EXIST FOR EACH SIDE?
NO, I CAN'T SEE THE UTILITY OR HUMANITY IN PROSECUTING PARENTS WHO HAVE LOST A CHILD, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WHO ALLOWS THAT SHOULD LOSE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS FOR LIFE. PERIOD.
Posted by alferdpacker
Posted by cat2009
That's not necessarily true. Neither the State of California or the Federal government has established a minimum age limit to possess long guns[rifles and shotguns] although there is an age limit of 18 to buy one. If the parents had a practice of normally keeping the ammunition where the child couldn't get at it then in California it would have been deemed an accidental death. The parents punishment would be the loss of their daughter. Child endangerment would have looked into it but just because the child had possession, perhaps even keeping it in his room, would have absolutely no bearing on it as long as the ammo wasn't available.
I have lived in California since 1941 and was given my first .22 rifle, a Premier single shot at age 8. My parents kept the ammo and I was only allowed to fire it when supervised. I was allowed to keep the ammo in my room beginning at age 10 when I was given my first shotgun. At age 14 I got my first pistol a .22 and began to collect antique firearms, my first a Kentucky flintlock rifle. As long as parents teach a child respect, proper care and use of a firearm and supervise them until they show they have good sense and can handle them properly, there's nothing wrong with it. I do think 5 is just a bit to young though.
Posted by concerned75