TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:If he were here in California, he would be heading off to the stony lonesome for the kid accessing it, not secured.

PC §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;

v-rog wrote:I'm glad that the kids are OK and their was a favorable outcome!

On the other side of the argument, this is another example of Parents not locking-up their firearms and/or keeping the weapons from underage children; similiar to what occured in Sandy Hook. Turn the table a little bit and say that this 15 y/o male had ill feelings toward friends & those in authority. He could use that same firearm to inflict trauma and death on others.

IMO, we have to have a uniform voice concerning our argument and when addressing the anti(s). We don't need more gun legisltaion, a weapons ban, or an EO, we need responsible citizens to account for their firearms & use them in a lawful manner.