If you’re not concerned about anti-2A bureaucrats and politicians trying to steal your 2nd Amendment rights, then, you’re not paying attention. Sure, there have been significant moves forward to protect those rights (over half the states in the Union have some form of Constitutional or permit less carry in place), and that’s good. But history shows us that anti-gun people will simply try different ways to steal your guns if their first attempt didn’t work.
And that’s what we’re going to talk about today: another way that the state is trying to take away people’s gun rights.
So, here’s the scenario: A person takes your gun and commits a crime (in this case, a heinous crime). That person didn’t have permission to have your gun, and what they did was both illegal and evil.
So, you may ask, “What does that have to do with them taking my guns?” Chase Smith tells us. Smith writes,
The two parents who were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after their son killed four of his classmates at Oxford High School in 2021 were sentenced to 10–15 years in prison on April 9 in Pontiac, Michigan.
James and Jennifer Crumbley are the first parents in the United States to be held criminally liable for a school shooting committed by their child, both having been found guilty in separate jury trials earlier this year.
Smith continues:
The parents do not stand accused of having had knowledge of their son’s plan to murder the teenagers. However, prosecutors said they did not take adequate measures to lock up the gun used in the killings at their home in addition to having ignored warning signs relating to the mental health of their son.
That’s right. They didn’t pull the trigger or even provide the guns to their son. No, they just didn’t do enough (according to the prosecutor) to prevent their son from getting the guns to commit the crimes.
It’s not hard to imagine how they’ll next hold gun owners accountable for not making it harder for criminals to steal their guns to commit crimes.
Because in the minds of anti-2A zealots, shootings are to blame on guns and legal gun owners but not on the person who pulled the trigger.
Yes, you’ll likely see these kinds of laws rolled out to other parts of the country as another way that they’ll try to steal your guns by making you a felon for not doing enough to prevent criminals from committing crimes that they decided to commit.
We truly live in a backwards world.
By their ‘reasoning’ Mrs. Lanza should be held ‘accountable’ as well since she didn’t do ‘enough’ to prevent Adam from (allegedly) shooting up the Sandy Hook school. Oh wait, she is beyond reach because he murdered her to gain access to the guns used;
What is next on the agenda? Will someone have their car stolen which then used to run over a crowd of parade participants and be held accountable? I could ‘almost’ see that happening IF they left the keys in that car. Hmm, will Val Demings be held accountable if her service weapon ultimately gets found after it it used in a crime?
This is why we homeschooled out children. And taught them how to safely use a firearm.
Actually, I read that the parents bought the 9mm handgun for their son, knowing full well that he had mental problems. So it was more than they failed to properly secure it. They gave it to him.
I fear the Dems will continue to try to control (or remove) all the guns and the 2nd amendment. No surprise.
They, Dems, want to be sure nobody can stop them.
We will be slaves .
Are they willing to die as a response to their violation of the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens?
There needs to be a test case.
Law enforcement does NOT have to enforce unconstitutional laws HOWEVER they are to HONOR there oath of office, otherwise they are committing a felony, taking tax payers money under false pretenses. That’s a felony Check out Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 &1333 then look up the penalty.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C.
You don’t have to wait to vote them out of office.
ruralcounsel has pointed it out: these two aren’t simply guilty of carelessness in allowing their homicidal son access to a weapon-they also ignored many indications that he was seriously thinking of committing murder.
I totally agree with ruralcounsel and Richard p. McArthur that this is not just a case that involves parents due to their relationship with the perpetrator of this heinous crime. No reasonable person would have ignored the warning signs (not very subtle) and the pleas from their son for help from a doctor, and the notifications from the school. To also purchase a gun for an underage boy, who couldn’t buy, or own it legally himself, (and give it to him!) was an act of enabling beyond the pale! It was these considerations that led to the trials, and sentences that occurred. I can’t imagine that this will result in innocent people being falsely accused in the future.
“We truly live in a backwards world”, posted by the editor should probably read
“We honestly live in an upside-down world”
Just sayin