Juveniles car

[twomillenium]

It's academic for me. My youngest is 22.

However, it's a situation some of my students will face. I want to give them the best advice possible. I used to recommend the give them an unloaded gun and separate magazine. (Not readily dischargeable. :) )

I just realized that is only a Class C. I'd like to know what the fine is. Less that $500 is interesting but not too helpful. Frankly, $200 for walking past a 30.06 sign sounds cheap to me. :)

It sounds crazy to accuse someone of being loony because they chose to allow their child to be able to defend themselves.

As to the argument:'You should obey the law.' I guess you think Black's should still have to ride in the back of the bus. Maybe we should still subjects of the Queen of England. It's nice to know where you stand if it does come to civil (or uncivil) disobedience.

The government has no business telling me how to raise/arm my kids.

How in the world did you correlate race and England into what I said?

[Mike S]

This thread seems to have gone sideways......

Here's what the General Counsel for the TSRA has to say on the topic: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... gb8fTmxtLw

As far as what a shrink might say, I'd imagine a good one would remind you that the frontal lobes of a female don't fully kick in until early 20's, & for males not until mid-20's. That's the part of the brain generally attributed to impulse control & decision making.

As for me, if a student were to ask this question I'd highlight page 2 of the TSRA paper above that lists all of the possible weapons violations that their minor could find themselves in (or not listed, such as expulsion from school if their minor drives themselves to school), or God forbid another minor gains access to the gun & someone is injured (Class A Misdemeanor for the Adult).

[mr1337]

I was told in another forum that that juvenile could be charged if under 18 w/a gun. They were talking about TX laws too, not fed.

I'm surprised that DPS has NEVER covered that w/instructors. :(

It's covered in class...

Penal Code Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age.

(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.

By this definition, a 17-year-old is not a child, and thus a parent cannot be charged with 46.13 for making a firearm accessible to a 17-year-old.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have to admit that I hadn't read anything in this thread until today. I regret that because a certain Member should have been banned in August! Taking a "statute of limitations" approach, this person will not be banned, but the very next personal attack will be their ticket off of the Forum. I have absolutely no patience for people who think their opinion/beliefs are so superior to others that they are compelled to engage in childish insults and personal attacks.

I won't go into federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(x)) because it has been covered. However, I think some folks are missing an element of the offense under Tex. Penal Code §46.13. The elements of the crime are 1) person fails to take reasonable steps to secure a "readily dischargeable" firearm from a child (person under 17); and 2) the child actually gains access to the gun. Both elements are required. Whether the crime is a Class A or Class C misdemeanor depends upon what the child does with the gun after gaining access.

There are several defenses, including using the firearm in lawful self-defense or lawful defense of property.

Chas.

Sec. 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.

[switch]

Thanks, Charles. (I hope I was not the one that should have been banned. I will try to do better.)

I used to tell students they could give their 16 year old an unloaded gun and loaded magazine. Tell them to keep it in the glove box and DON'T load it unless you have too. The parent should be not guilty because the gun is not 'readily dischargeable'.

I admit, that's splitting hairs and the DA in Austin or Dallas might not agree and (s)he might get a jury to agree. I'll pay the ticket. I am curious what the likely fine would be.

I recently decided I might be too cautious. Would you carry an unloaded gun, planning on slapping in the mag and dropping the slide when you needed it? I might decide to let my child (16 and driving) carry a loaded gun. Just pay the ticket. Still like to know how much $. :)

I'm glad to know that carrying past a 30.06/30.07 sign will only cost $200, 1/1/16. It might be worth it. I know I will quit worrying about signs.

I carried one in a courthouse once. :( Cost me $2,500. I won't do that again. OTOH, the DA has been educated, might not be that much of a problem for the next guy. :) The case was dismissed but they kept my gun. :(

[The Annoyed Man]

For me, it was a compromise. I taught my son to shoot when he was just 5 or 6 years old, and he has understood safety from the beginning. I trusted him around firearms, but the world around us often disagrees with raising our children this way. It shouldn't normally be an issue what other people think, but the problem is that when it comes to guns and children, there are significant legal repercussions accompanying what others think.

He had "his own" 1911 at age 17 that he was very good with, but when he asked me if he could keep it in his car, I said no, for the simple reason that being caught with it could affect his entire future gun rights. Within a day or two of turning 18, he bought his own Mossberg 500 tactical shotgun. He asked me if it would be OK to keep it in his car, and I said yes, so long as it resided in the trunk.

BTW, at age 18, he was already 6' tall and about 220 lbs, so he wasn't exactly easy pickins anyway.

[C-dub]

I used to tell students they could give their 16 year old an unloaded gun and loaded magazine. Tell them to keep it in the glove box and DON'T load it unless you have too. The parent should be not guilty because the gun is not 'readily dischargeable'.

I'm sorry, but if I were on that jury I would say that gun was readily dischargeable. To me, there is very little difference between your scenario and having the magazine inserted and a round not in the chamber.

I am proud to admit that for as much angst as we might have over kids talking and all that, my own relatively new teenager has kept tight lipped about our firearms and her use of them. And hopefully, those on this forum that have met her would also agree that she's an intelligent and level headed kid. The only other parents of her fiends that know anything about them are those that I have spoken with and invited to the range with their daughters to teach them about firearms and to shoot. It was always after they had expressed some interest in the subject before I even thought about broaching the subject with them in the first place. I would not provide my daughter with a firearm to keep in the car, when she does start driving, until she's legally old enough to have one. Even then, that decision will be up to her. She has martial arts training and is quite capable of hand to hand self defense already anyway.

[sjfcontrol]

I used to tell students they could give their 16 year old an unloaded gun and loaded magazine. Tell them to keep it in the glove box and DON'T load it unless you have too. The parent should be not guilty because the gun is not 'readily dischargeable'.

I'm sorry, but if I were on that jury I would say that gun was readily dischargeable. To me, there is very little difference between your scenario and having the magazine inserted and a round not in the chamber.

And you would be wrong. PC §46.13(a)(2) defines...

"Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

If the magazine is not in the firearm, it is unloaded. Inserting the magazine (containing rounds) loads the firearm.

[baldeagle]

After having read every post in this thread, I have something to say. If the shoe fits....

For the life of me I can't figure out why some people can't seem to refrain from insulting other people. If you really think your opinion is superior to someone else's (I often think that, so it's not like I haven't had any practice), then express your opinion without attacking the other person. If your opinion really is superior, others will see that and agree with you. But when you insult other people while expressing your opinion, you simply make yourself look like a jerk and you are less likely to find that people will agree with you.

Just because you are nameless and faceless behind a keyboard doesn't mean you should behave like a jerk. Be a better man. Step away from the keyboard, cool down, then come back when you can type something pleasant to read and on point to the discussion. Always preview every post before submitting, and ask yourself, is this something I would say to someone's I care about? If it's not, erase it.

In case anyone thinks I'm full of myself, I have had my own moments when I was less than I could be. They are getting fewer and farther between as I grow older and realize that 100% of people are never going to agree with a single thing you say.

[baldeagle]

To answer the OP's question:

Sec. 12.23. CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.

[C-dub]

I used to tell students they could give their 16 year old an unloaded gun and loaded magazine. Tell them to keep it in the glove box and DON'T load it unless you have too. The parent should be not guilty because the gun is not 'readily dischargeable'.

I'm sorry, but if I were on that jury I would say that gun was readily dischargeable. To me, there is very little difference between your scenario and having the magazine inserted and a round not in the chamber.

And you would be wrong. PC §46.13(a)(2) defines...

"Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

If the magazine is not in the firearm, it is unloaded. Inserting the magazine (containing rounds) loads the firearm.

Wow! That is an interesting distinction and opens up so many possibilities that would really perturb so many liberals. Thanks for the reminder.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In this section:

• (2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

"Readily dischargeable firearm" is a statutorily-defined term and no juror can use their own definition. Doing so would ignore the judge's instruction and could constitute jury misconduct.

Chas.