TexasCHLforum.com

mcub wrote:I'm just wondering why we are worried about it????

Because there are rogue prosecutors, bad neighbors, ignorant people and general foolishness. In this age of liability and political correctness, it's hard to turn around without worrying about getting sued or charged with something. Texas is better than most states, but we've still got busybodies with nothing better to do than harass good folk.

jrosto wrote: My oldest grandson, this past weekend.

This is how we keep our children safe around firearms, teach them proper firearm safety.

I completely agree man. what comes to mind though is some liberal somehow witnessing her exposure to this stuff and having a dairy farm about me teaching my daughter safe handling practices. I can just see said liberal calling the cops as soon as she finds out I've even let my 7 year hold daughter hold a .45 and help me clean it much less anything else.

That's pretty much what spawned the question, but i didn't want to put specifics of my situation up at first because it seemed like a good topic for the board in general. I didn't want the discussion to get nailed down specifically to my situation too early.

It sounds like it would basically boil down to the attitudes of the jury / judge and their opinions on firearms and safety training. I can easily see several liberals i know coming unglued at the thought of anyone 10 and under even touching a gun, supervised or not.

I do believe in hands-on experience at an early age. It builds familiarity, helps to take the mystery / taboo out of the situation and lays a good foundation for safety if the training is right. We started about a year ago with "why daddy has a gun, needs a gun, etc and letting her watch me clean it".

We eventually moved on to letting her hold the gun (unloaded) and she knows she can hold it / see it anytime so long as she asks an adult and the adult gives it to her. She knows she's not to touch it at all right now unless specifically told to do so and even if told to do so she won't touch it even then if it's not in it's holster. I've actually intentionally left it out of the holster a few times and sent her to fetch it (unloaded) watching to see what she would do.

Sometime very soon i'm planning to take her out and let her watch me shoot a few watermelons and give her a little first person perspective on what a gun can do to a person. I remember the impression / respect that taught me when my grandfather did it with us. The concept of a firearm ceased to be a toy that very day.

Probably at 9 or 10 we'll go out with a 22 and start live fire stuff and some additional training.

I guess I was just looking for a benchmark on the law, children and firearms. sounds like we should be very careful who we let know we practice this at her age. I'm not wild about my freedom or a criminal record being on the line by teaching her this stuff and putting a weapon in her hand, even supervised, but the alternative in my mind is to have a kid running around waving a loaded weapon because she hasn't been taught any better, or worse, not having the security of a loaded weapon around at all.

I realize opinions/mileage may vary here and some folks, even here, may gasp at a 7 year old holding a weapon, but I honestly started even earlier.

Now when there's another kid around I don't know / haven't trained... you better bet it gets unloaded and/or secured.

Anyone else care to share their experiences training / working with children? Perhaps that's another thread?

LedJedi wrote: I completely agree man. what comes to mind though is some liberal somehow witnessing her exposure to this stuff and having a dairy farm about me teaching my daughter safe handling practices. I can just see said liberal calling the cops as soon as she finds out I've even let my 7 year hold daughter hold a .45 and help me clean it much less anything else.

Never happen. As you describe it you are supervising her so there is no violation. I doubt if a cop would even respond if called by a crank liberal like that.

LedJedi wrote: It sounds like it would basically boil down to the attitudes of the jury / judge and their opinions on firearms and safety training. I can easily see several liberals i know coming unglued at the thought of anyone 10 and under even touching a gun, supervised or not.

Here you must be referring to when you sue the cops for false arrest, right? 'Cause that's the only way a judge and jury would be getting involved in this one.

LedJedi wrote: I do believe in hands-on experience at an early age. It builds familiarity, helps to take the mystery / taboo out of the situation and lays a good foundation for safety if the training is right.

Absolutely.

LedJedi wrote: Probably at 9 or 10 we'll go out with a 22 and start live fire stuff and some additional training.

FWIW I started my kids at around 6 or 7 with a bolt action 22 rifle.

I agree with Frankie. Millions of families shoot with their kids, sometimes well under age 10. Some of those kids nominally own their weapons. Busybodies can wring their hands about it, but the cops are not going to pay attention to them.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

LedJedi wrote: I completely agree man. what comes to mind though is some liberal somehow witnessing her exposure to this stuff and having a dairy farm about me teaching my daughter safe handling practices. I can just see said liberal calling the cops as soon as she finds out I've even let my 7 year hold daughter hold a .45 and help me clean it much less anything else.

Never happen. As you describe it you are supervising her so there is no violation. I doubt if a cop would even respond if called by a crank liberal like that.

Depends on where you're at; I know of at least two deputies here that would probably respond, just to let the kid check out their full-auto rifles :)

My 4 year old is proud to tell that the Crickett is his gun (and it is).

KD5NRH wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I would certainly argue this, but "criminal negligence" is defined pretty broadly. It's a much lower threshold than "recklessness." Unlike "recklessness," the jury gets to decide what the defendant should have known and that's going to be based upon their own standard of conduct. Here is the definition of "criminal negligence" from the Penal Code:

TPC §6.3(d) wrote:(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. 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 actor's standpoint.

OK, I think we're approaching two different situations here; you appear to be assuming that the child has done something bad with the firearm after obtaining it. I'm looking at it as simply the child's possession of the gun being the issue; for example, Junior's sitting in the garage cleaning his shotgun unsupervised when the cops drive by. Would a reasonable person take measures to prevent him from doing so?

No injury or other bad acts or results are required in order to constitute a violation of TPC §46.13(b). Simply not taking steps to prevent someone age 16 or under from getting possession of a "readily dischargable firearm" is a violation of TPC §46.13. Discharge of the weapon and/or injury or death to someone is not required, although those facts increase a violation from a Class C Misdemeanor to a Class A.

As Stephen and others have mentioned, there are numerous defenses to prosecution, some of which seem contradictory to both the express provisions of the statute, as well as the spirit of the law. (This was not accidental.) For example, TPC §46.13(c)(2) applies to a "child's" access to a readily dischargable firearm to use for self-defense or defense of property. For this fact pattern to be possible, then the firearm could not have been "secured" as required by subpart (b).

But note, the "other lawful purposes" defense set out in TPC §46.13(c)(1) does require supervision by someone over the age of 18 years.

This is what the statute requires. However, from what I've seen, its application has been under a "no harm, no foul" approach by law enforcement and prosecutors.

Chas.

Here is the entire statute:

TPC §46.13 wrote:§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In this section:

• (1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of
  age.
  (2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm
  that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the
  chamber.
  (3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable
  person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable
  firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm
  in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm
  inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.

(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:

• (1) failed to secure the firearm; or
  (2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
  knew or should have known the child would gain access.

(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the child's access to the firearm:

• (1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of
  age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
  (2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people
  or property;
  (3) was gained by entering property in violation of
  this code; or
  (4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged
  in an agricultural enterprise.

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under
this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious
bodily injury to himself or another person.

(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor
before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is
committed if:

• (1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by
  Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the
  firearm; and
  (2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the
  death of or serious injury to the child.

(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous
position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign
that contains the following warning in block letters not less than
one inch in height:

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."