TexasCHLforum.com

And who thinks a law requiring age of 21 to purchase would have deterred this 17 year old?

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North ... 10673.html

I wonder who made that rifle accessible to a minor?

Just my thatisagainstthelawdontyaknow .02,
LeonCarr

LeonCarr wrote:I wonder who made that rifle accessible to a minor?

Just my thatisagainstthelawdontyaknow .02,
LeonCarr

That was my first thought too. Lets just hope justice will get a hold of the enabler too!

Well, considering he had enough drugs that "a Dallas County magistrate set the $1 million bond on the drug charge" alone...

The article didn't mention federal authorities until the end. I was wondering how they filed UCW charges for having a gun in a "gun-free school zone" since the Texas law isn't a stand-alone crime. Ours is a penalty-enhancement provision. It can be used to enhance the drug charge. Apparently he's being changed under federal law.

Chas.

to the Rowlett Police on this one!

You see! That's why we shouldn't have teachers, staff, or other LTC carrying in schools!

</sarcasm>

I get the fact he's not old enough to purchase the rifle. That would be 18 which is considered the age at which legally you are an adult. You can join the military, vote, buy a rifle, buy a lottery ticket, a pack of smokes... How is it a 17 year old is considered an adult when he does something against the law? I've heard the excuse because he knew it was against the law or wrong. My 4 year old knows certain things are wrong and when she does them, should she be punished as an adult? She knew better. It seems the courts like to pick and chose when someone is legally an adult when the outcome benefits someone other than the individual.

jason812 wrote:I get the fact he's not old enough to purchase the rifle. That would be 18 which is considered the age at which legally you are an adult. You can join the military, vote, buy a rifle, buy a lottery ticket, a pack of smokes... How is it a 17 year old is considered an adult when he does something against the law? I've heard the excuse because he knew it was against the law or wrong. My 4 year old knows certain things are wrong and when she does them, should she be punished as an adult? She knew better. It seems the courts like to pick and chose when someone is legally an adult when the outcome benefits someone other than the individual.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 32226.html

jason812 wrote:I get the fact he's not old enough to purchase the rifle. That would be 18 which is considered the age at which legally you are an adult. You can join the military, vote, buy a rifle, buy a lottery ticket, a pack of smokes... How is it a 17 year old is considered an adult when he does something against the law? I've heard the excuse because he knew it was against the law or wrong. My 4 year old knows certain things are wrong and when she does them, should she be punished as an adult? She knew better. It seems the courts like to pick and chose when someone is legally an adult when the outcome benefits someone other than the individual.

Last I knew, a 17 yo who hasn't been in trouble as a juvenile is automatically charged as an adult. A 17 yo who has been in trouble is a juvenile until 18 unless adjudicated an adult.

"Home schooled"? Looks like his next topic of study is going to be the federal legal system.......

LeonCarr wrote:I wonder who made that rifle accessible to a minor?

Just my thatisagainstthelawdontyaknow .02,
LeonCarr

Possession of a rifle by a 17 year old is not a crime. Also, allowing access is restricted to younger than 17, so no crime committed there either.

Keith B wrote:Possession of a rifle by a 17 year old is not a crime. Also, allowing access is restricted to younger than 17, so no crime committed there either.

This is the part of the story that has me wondering if we didn’t just read another edition of the Minority Report. If indeed he was not committing a crime by simple possession of the firearm, then ever other charge is fruit of the poisonous tree. The PD arrested him based on possession and then found some sort of drugs and 100rds during an illegal search.

Don’t get me wrong, I also think that whatever he had planned we are probably better off that they prevented him from doing it. However if the whole story is what is in that article a decent defense atty should be able to get him off with no charges or court costs.

Keith B wrote:

LeonCarr wrote:I wonder who made that rifle accessible to a minor?

Just my thatisagainstthelawdontyaknow .02,
LeonCarr

Possession of a rifle by a 17 year old is not a crime. Also, allowing access is restricted to younger than 17, so no crime committed there either.

In a school zone?

OlBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:

LeonCarr wrote:I wonder who made that rifle accessible to a minor?

Just my thatisagainstthelawdontyaknow .02,
LeonCarr

Possession of a rifle by a 17 year old is not a crime. Also, allowing access is restricted to younger than 17, so no crime committed there either.

In a school zone?

Read Charles' post above.