TexasCHLforum.com

It seems to me the laws on "Safe Storage" for firearms are, in the main, merely a "tack-on" charge, a placeholder, or something you charge someone with if they "need jail time." If it was truly enforced, then every adult that leaves a firearm where a kid can get it would serve time. We hear about the idiots that leave a loaded gun on the coffee table where their toddler can grab it and shoot himself/parent/family cat/etc. We shake our heads. We hear about the parents that leave a gun available or give their kid the safe combination, and the kid winds up using that firearm to defend life and property. We clap our hands. We hear about the teen that in a fit of adolescent angst, grabs his dad's gun and does something awful, and we shake our heads again.

In ALL those cases, the letter of the law has been broken. But tell me, how many of them are actually prosecuted for it?

With the carelessly-armed toddler, a fairly good case for child neglect can be made there. Any injuries, damage, or deaths as a result of the parents' carelessness around their child can already be laid at the parents' legal feet. Why do we need an additional tack-on charge? Does the fact that a firearm was used make it any worse than if the kid had gotten hold of a power saw or the car keys? No.

With the child defending life and property, we applaud, and properly so. Self-defense and defense of others may be a defense against prosecution, but that doesn't mean the parents -can't- get charged and prosecuted. Why is this technically against the law, if it can result in otherwise lawful use in defense? I maintain that it shouldn't, and the fact that such "discretion" exists proves the law's not intended to be taken seriously.

And in the case of the angsty teen that grabs hold of his parents' revolver and commits a hastily ill-thought act, I don't think throwing a Failure to Secure charge at the parents would have any legal benefit.

Realistically, I know there's not much chance of repealing this law, but in my opinion, Safe Storage laws are dumb, potentially dangerous, and on very shaky legal ground. They realistically serve no purpose, as they do not change behavior, and the thing the law is aimed at is not in itself harmful. They are dangerous, as the strict adherence to the law can actually prolong the danger from a criminal to the law-abiding, due to the time needed to access the gun. And they are shaky, because it IS a law that is selectively enforced, laying a pretty fair ground for discrimination. I think we haven't seen a legal challenge to it yet for the simple reason that prosecutors only select people already charged with other stuff to enforce this on; it becomes something else to pile on to encourage a plea deal. Once some over-ambitious prosecutor decides to use it in a "contempt of cop" situation, with no actual crime committed, I'd expect to see a bit more of an uproar.

But seriously, is there any realistic reason to have these laws, other than as "Feel good" legislation designed to soften and blunt the true anti-gun attacks? If there is, I haven't seen it.