TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:

CainA wrote:Is it just me or do others just cringe when they see her name?

No. It isn't just you.

warhorse10_9 wrote: For the record, I oppose this bill, that being said. Here is the actual text of the relevant section:

`(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), any person who--

• (A) keeps a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any one of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person;
  
  (B) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child is capable of gaining access to the firearm; and
  
  (C)
  • (i) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that a child will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) to the child or any other person; or
    
    (ii) knows, or recklessly disregards the risk, that possession of the firearm by the child is unlawful under Federal or State law,

if the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury to the child or any other person, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.


(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply if--

• (A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;
  
  (B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
  
  (C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; or
  
  (D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.

The law only requires that there is no reasonable expectation that a child will gain access to the firearm.

warhorse10_9 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to apologize up front here. I know she's mostly a nut job, but I'm not really seeing anything that horrible in here except the age stuff. Isn't some or most of it already illegal? I'm all eyes, please point out the really bad parts.

Aside from the fact that, as you said, the age stuff is bad, the bill is horribly written, using terms that are defined nowhere in the present code without bothering to even include the definitions. Examples of undefined terms are "semi-automatic assault weapon" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device."

The firearms education could be used to preach the fact that "guns are evil, go tell an adult if you see one. Don't touch they will make you want to kill"

Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.

Increases penalties for: (1) a second or subsequent violation by a juvenile of Brady Act provisions or for a first violation committed after an adjudication of delinquency or after a state or federal conviction for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a serious violent felony; and (2) transferring a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is under age 21, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to use it in the commission of a crime of violence.

Prohibits any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke any firearms license, or to subject the licensee to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, if the licensee has knowingly violated this prohibition.

Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Requires the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.

Authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children.

Expresses the sense of Congress that each school district should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Am I the only one who reads that red part as meaning that "theoretically, if there were a child in my house (even though there isn't), he could access the loaded handgun and shotgun I keep by the bed (if he snuck into my house), and therefore I am in violation of the law? IF there were a child in my house, those two guns would be unsecured and accessible to him.....assuming I did not put them away for his benefit. And so since it is theoretically possible that my guns are accessible to a child (even though there is no child in my house), and since her bill does not state that the child must be in the house for this to apply, then I am theoretically in violation.

I know that is crazy talk, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the way that her bill is worded.