TexasCHLforum.com

I was just having a look over at

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#46.13.00

and have a few questions. If I read this correctly, if my daughter walks into the room with my loaded .45 or it is otherwise accessible it's a Class A.

Can someone please clarify this.

I'm very very big on gun safety with my daughter as well as taking the mystery out of guns. Heck, I grew up in a house where there was a loaded gun in just about every room and kids were running around everywhere. This just seems sort of alien to me.

Also seems counter-productive for self defense reasons.

Input.

LedJedi wrote:I was just having a look over at

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#46.13.00

and have a few questions. If I read this correctly, if my daughter walks into the room with my loaded .45 or it is otherwise accessible it's a Class A.

Can someone please clarify this.

I'm very very big on gun safety with my daughter as well as taking the mystery out of guns. Heck, I grew up in a house where there was a loaded gun in just about every room and kids were running around everywhere. This just seems sort of alien to me.

Also seems counter-productive for self defense reasons.

Input.

I think the key line is: A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:......

If they do not gain access to the firearm (i.e. have control of it) then you have not committed an offense.

Other interpretations??

This law is intended to be prosecuted when (1) a child gets access to a weapon and hurts someone, or (2) when someone gives a firearm to a child for criminal purposes.

The police aren't going to knock your door down because you keep a loaded shotgun in your bedroom.

- Jim

Lets say for instance, we're getting ready to head out the door. I generally keep the .45 in the bedroom. If i were to send my daughter to the back to grab it for me that would be a Class A?

That's what i'm reading it as. This is completely backwards from how I grew up and generally contrary to my overall philosophy of taking the mystery out of guns for kids.

LedJedi wrote:Lets say for instance, we're getting ready to head out the door. I generally keep the .45 in the bedroom. If i were to send my daughter to the back to grab it for me that would be a Class A?

That's what i'm reading it as. This is completely backwards from how I grew up and generally contrary to my overall philosophy of taking the mystery out of guns for kids.

No. It's only a Class C, unless there's serious injury or death...Then it becomes a Class A. Personally, I wouldn't worry about that. As long as say, your daughter's friends aren't ever allowed in there, then it's fine.

Beyond what Jim said (which I agree with) I think the other time you could get in trouble is if a friend of your daughter's sees a gun unsecured, and tells her parents who could then potentially file a complaint with the police which may or may not go anywhere.

LedJedi wrote:Lets say for instance, we're getting ready to head out the door. I generally keep the .45 in the bedroom. If i were to send my daughter to the back to grab it for me that would be a Class A?

That's what i'm reading it as. This is completely backwards from how I grew up and generally contrary to my overall philosophy of taking the mystery out of guns for kids.

By the letter of the law, if she is under age, it is a Class C if no injury, Class A if injury or death. It really depends:

How old is your daughter? If she is 15 or 16 and shoots, it might be one thing, but if she is 5 or 6, why would you send them in for it?

It boils down to a judgement call on their knowledge and handling of firearms and the safety training they have received. I personnaly would go back myself as I am the one who should be in control of it at all times.

Xander wrote:... I think the other time you could get in trouble is if a friend of your daughter's sees a gun unsecured, and tells her parents who could then potentially file a complaint with the police which may or may not go anywhere.

I agree that there are some flaky parents who might call the police because their kid saw a <gasp> gun; but the kid could not testify that it was loaded.

- Jim

Not that it matters on the topic being discussed, but it looks like the link cited is maybe the 2005 version of the sections - not Sept. 1, 2007, where some of the others have changed.

Note definition of "loaded" includes magazine in place, whether or not round is in chamber. Mag out = unloaded, although not necessarily "safe" for various circumstances ...

This section of law did not change this year.

But you may have missed the section giving the affirmative defense of being supervised by a parent while engaged in sporting or other lawful purpose or the second defense of being use for a legal defense of a person or proeprty.

So, leaving it in the house where she knows where it is and can get it is not a crime. Letting her get it to bring to you (IMHO) is not a crime (getting it for you is a lawful purpose and she was supervised by you). Her getting it to defend against a burglar is not a crime.

The law was really intended to punish people who leave guns unsecured and never bothered gun-proofing their kids by teaching them ANY safety or rules. This will almost always end up with a person, usually another kid, getting hurt.

If it helps, there is almost always a loaded pistol in my house and my kids know where it is and how to use it. They also know not to touch it without permission (and that an emergency relieves them of the permission rule).

srothstein wrote:But you may have missed the section giving the affirmative defense of being supervised by a parent while engaged in sporting or other lawful purpose or the second defense of being use for a legal defense of a person or proeprty.

Rather than the affirmative defense, what about focusing on this part of the definition:

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

Wouldn't it be possible to show that it is not criminally negligent if said child is properly trained in firearm safety and handling, and displays more responsibility than many people who are legally old enough to possess said firearm?

KD5NRH wrote:Rather than the affirmative defense, what about focusing on this part of the definition:

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

Wouldn't it be possible to show that it is not criminally negligent if said child is properly trained in firearm safety and handling, and displays more responsibility than many people who are legally old enough to possess said firearm?

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.

"Recklessness" is a much higher standard and the evidence must show that the defendant was aware of a substantial risk and ignored it. The jury doesn't get to use their own standard of conduct as with "criminal negligence." Here is the definition of "recklessness" from the Penal Code:

TPC §6.3(c) wrote:(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards 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 its disregard 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.

Chas.

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?

KD5NRH wrote: 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?

I think that if Junior has been trained in handling the firearm and is handling it responsibly, there is no recklessness, no negligence, and no violation. I can't see a cop trying to make an arrest in the scenario you described.

Well, I looked around and I didn’t see any reference to any one be charged or arrested, except after a shooting.

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


People take kids to the, farm, range, and hunting all the time.

Worried?



Note his finger control. This was between round 4 and 5 of a 5 round string.



My oldest grandson, this past weekend.

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