TexasCHLforum.com

On the morning of Dec.1, Demari DeReu drove to Columbia Falls High School in Montana and parked her blue-green Honda Accord in the lot, just as she does every morning. The 16-year-old honor roll student, class treasurer and varsity cheerleader walked in to school, forgetting entirely about the unloaded hunting rifle locked in the trunk of her car.

Later that day, there was an announcement telling students contraband sniffing dogs were scouting the parking lot, sparking her memory. She immediately told administrators that she’d forgotten to remove her scoped hunting rifle from the trunk following a Thanksgiving family hunting excursion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/09/ho ... latestnews
Hopefully she will be okay. It sounds like the school district superintendent has a rational head on his shoulders.

The best thing that could happen in this case is for the adults involved to admit what a terminally stupid law it is that makes it a crime to have an unloaded gun locked in the trunk of your car. Unfortunately, the number of lucid politicians is far outweighed by the number of braindead ones.

It absolutely blows my mind that this is happening in Montana. Montana? Man this country has gone down hill.

It'll be alright. Montana and guns just kinda' go together.

EDIT:

Gotta love that Big Sky Country and the farmers and rancher people in it. The newly arrived city and movie people - not so much.

Oldgringo wrote:Montana and guns just kinda' go together.

Yeah, I thought everyone in Montana carried a rifle to protect themselves from bears.

As silly as this seems, the young lady did admit the rifle was in the trunk after the announcement of the dogs in the lot. This indicates to me that she knew the rules and chose not to follow the rules. We as CHLer's discuss laws and rules on ourselves, what is the difference here? If I choose to carry past a legal, valid 30.06 sign and get caught, will there be the same outcry?

When I was in school (a long time ago), I always carried a shotgun to hunt pheasants after school. This isn't the same as the California boy that went duck hunting before school and chose to park off school property to keep this from happening to him. The school officials here had to go off property to catch this kid.

Again, I think this whole thing is absurd, but there has to be some consequences to broken rules.

Do I need my Nomex suit?

It said she had forgotten about the rifle in the car and hearing about the drug dog search made her remember. Her honesty got her caught. If she would have not said anything the dogs probably would not have alerted on her car. If she had then remembered it would have looked more innocent, but she panicked and thought it would be better to tell. She didn't intentionally break the rules out of convenience.

Let's try this. I forgot I was packing and carried past a legal, valid 30.06 sign. I get caught. Now, in the eyes of this forum, I'm the stupid one for forgetting that I was packing and breaking the law and getting my CHL revoked.

Is there a difference? Are we doing what the liberals do by running on emotion in this case? As I stated in my prior post, this whole thing is stupid, but where does the personal accountabilty come in. Why are we running for the pitchforks and torches for the high school girl, yet when I walk past a 30.06 or break some other CHL law, I'm just stupid?

I could understand if some other family member had placed the rifle without her knowledge, I'd be there with my pitchfork and torch, too. Not so much now, providing all the story is being told in the article.

mikeintexas wrote:As silly as this seems, the young lady did admit the rifle was in the trunk after the announcement of the dogs in the lot. This indicates to me that she knew the rules and chose not to follow the rules. We as CHLer's discuss laws and rules on ourselves, what is the difference here? If I choose to carry past a legal, valid 30.06 sign and get caught, will there be the same outcry?

Again, I think this whole thing is absurd, but there has to be some consequences to broken rules.

The articles indicates that Montana shool policy allows (maybe even promotes) rational thinking rather than "zero tolerance" policies. Please remember that this happened in Columbia Falls, MT rather than in Austin, Dallas or Houston, TX.

Montana is not Texas.

mikeintexas wrote:Let's try this. I forgot I was packing and carried past a legal, valid 30.06 sign. I get caught. Now, in the eyes of this forum, I'm the stupid one for forgetting that I was packing and breaking the law and getting my CHL revoked.

Is there a difference? Are we doing what the liberals do by running on emotion in this case? As I stated in my prior post, this whole thing is stupid, but where does the personal accountabilty come in. Why are we running for the pitchforks and torches for the high school girl, yet when I walk past a 30.06 or break some other CHL law, I'm just stupid?

I could understand if some other family member had placed the rifle without her knowledge, I'd be there with my pitchfork and torch, too. Not so much now, providing all the story is being told in the article.

In my opinion, there is a very BIG difference. You are an adult who CHOSE to get your CHL and agreed to abide by the rules (laws) that go along with that.

She is a 16-year-old who had no choice about going to school. There are lots of good reasons she is not able, at 16, to do many things an adult can. It's called being allowed to grow up and grow into responsibilities.

Maybe I was tougher on my kids in the rules and punishments department.

The young lady indicated that the rifle was in the car after the dogs were looking. That tells me she knew the rilfe was in the car and not allowed on school property. She chose to not remove the rifle before going to school, thus know she was breaking the law/rules and only admitting after the possiblity of being found out. The story says she is 16 years old. Old enough to be a responsible driver, but not old enough to understand there may be consequenses for bringing a rifle to school?

Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? Is speeding breaking the law? Is a CHLer carrying past the 30.06 breaking the law? Is carrying a rifle to a school parking lot breaking the law? I'm trying to get past the emotion and to the letter of the law. I don't think she should be put in prison or have her college years ruined.

That's all I'm trying to point out here. Am I making any sense?

mikeintexas wrote:Maybe I was tougher on my kids in the rules and punishments department.

The young lady indicated that the rifle was in the car after the dogs were looking. That tells me she knew the rilfe was in the car and not allowed on school property. She chose to not remove the rifle before going to school, thus know she was breaking the law/rules and only admitting after the possiblity of being found out. The story says she is 16 years old. Old enough to be a responsible driver, but not old enough to understand there may be consequenses for bringing a rifle to school?

Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? Is speeding breaking the law? Is a CHLer carrying past the 30.06 breaking the law? Is carrying a rifle to a school parking lot breaking the law? I'm trying to get past the emotion and to the letter of the law. I don't think she should be put in prison or have her college years ruined.

That's all I'm trying to point out here. Am I making any sense?

; however, let the punishment fit the offense. In this case, and in this place, the offense is so minor as to not be an offense (the Principal/Supt. said so). Guns and hunting are still a way of life in parts of the mountain west, thank goodness. These people neither need, nor want, our "zero tolerance" big city thinking. They sure don't need Shep (GUN!) Smith, Michael Bloomberg or Bill O'Reilly telling them what to do.

If this happened in a metropolitan non-outdoorsey/hunting area; i.e., LA, Dallas, NYC, Detrot, Austin, Denver, San Fran, etc.; it would, IMO, be a different matter altogether. IOW, "different strokes for different folks".

Oldgringo wrote: ; however, let the punishment fit the offense. In this case, and in this place, the offense is so minor as to not be an offense (the Principal/Supt. said so). Guns and hunting are still a way of life in parts of the mountain west, thank goodness. These people neither need, nor want, our "zero tolerance" big city thinking. They sure don't need Shep (GUN!) Smith, Michael Bloomberg or Bill O'Reilly telling them what to do.

If this happened in a metropolitan non-outdoorsey/hunting area; i.e., LA, Dallas, NYC, Detrot, Austin, Denver, San Fran, etc.; it would, IMO, be a different matter altogether. IOW, "different strokes for different folks".

Thanks OG. Guns and hunting are still a way of life here in Texas, in Iowa where I grew up and I'd say most everywhere else that zero tolerance doesn't carry much weight.

I believe it has been posted here (no, I didn't do a search), but 30 years ago if you brought your rifle to school, you and the principal compared weapons. Today, there is a lock down, SWAT team and federal charges...

mikeintexas wrote:Maybe I was tougher on my kids in the rules and punishments department.

The young lady indicated that the rifle was in the car after the dogs were looking. That tells me she knew the rilfe was in the car and not allowed on school property. She chose to not remove the rifle before going to school, thus know she was breaking the law/rules and only admitting after the possiblity of being found out. The story says she is 16 years old. Old enough to be a responsible driver, but not old enough to understand there may be consequenses for bringing a rifle to school?

Isn't breaking the law, breaking the law? Is speeding breaking the law? Is a CHLer carrying past the 30.06 breaking the law? Is carrying a rifle to a school parking lot breaking the law? I'm trying to get past the emotion and to the letter of the law. I don't think she should be put in prison or have her college years ruined.

That's all I'm trying to point out here. Am I making any sense?

Once, I carried a guitar around in my trunk for four days because I forgot it was in there. Suppose I go to school in a "guitar free zone", and somebody announces that dogs are sweeping for banned stuff. Did I "choose not to remove the guitar"? No, I'd forgotten it was still in there, and hearing the announcement caused me to actually think about what was in my car. "Oops, my bad, I've got my guitar with me."

No one's arguing guilt, but you're ascribing intent where there's no evidence of it (there isn't any against it, either, though).