• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Dem Sen. Murphy Calls for National Safe Storage Gun Law to Hold Parents ‘Accountable’

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,003
Likes
20,273
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” called for a national safe storage law when reacting to James and Jennifer Crumbley being charged with involuntary manslaughter after their son 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley was charged for terrorism and murder in the school shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan.


Anchor Jake Tapper said, “The prosecutor in Michigan is doing something unusual. She’s charging the parents of the alleged gunman with involuntary manslaughter. Not only did they buy him the gun. They ignored his disturbing behavior, searching for ammunition on his cellphone, drawing violent pictures at school. The school alerted them, and they didn’t seem to care much. Should more prosecutors be holding parents responsible when they are not doing enough to keep their guns out of the hands of children who use them for violent ends?”

Murphy said, “If parents violate the law, they should be held accountable. I don’t know the details of the Michigan law. It looks as if these parents bought a gun for their child, who shouldn’t have ever possessed it. If parents are in violation of state law, they should be held accountable. I do think this should make us think hard about safe storage laws. In Connecticut, we have on the books a law that requires parents to safely store their guns. If those guns aren’t locked up with minors in the house, they can be held accountable without question. Michigan doesn’t have that law on the books. But we should pass that on a national basis. I think we would get a lot of gun owners to support us, to say, if you have minors in the house, if you have weapons, you have to keep those weapons locked up. If we made that change, not only would that prevent some of these horrific mass shooting incidents.”

He added, “A safe storage law may be the thing that could draw bipartisan compromise, that could get support of a lot of common-sense gun owners. It’s not about taking anybody’s weapons away. It’s just about saying if you are going to own the weapon, store it safely.”

 
Translation time:

“It’s common sense” = “I want to take your guns away”

“It’s not about taking anybody’s weapons away” = “I want to take your guns away”

“I think we would get a lot of gun owners to support us” = “I want to take your guns away”

“bipartisan compromise” = “I want to take your guns away”

Safe storage laws are not a federal issue.

States like NH have a simple safe storage law - don’t negligently store guns when there are minors in the house. Doesn’t say you have to lock them up per se (which defeats the purpose of being able to act in self defense).
 
It's the kid's fault he killed people, he pulled the trigger and if his parents bought the gun specifically for him, they are at fault. I had access to multiple guns as a kid and didn't bring any to school and shoot people, so what the hell does mandating a safe storage law do? Just allows gov't to find a way to prosecute people, not even parents whose kids steal a gun to shoot others, but anyone who steals a gun of theirs.

Like every other Democrat, Murphy can go snort Anthrax.
 
In this specific case I don't think a safe storage law would have done anything. Given the information the parents supposedly had from the school and observing the behavior of their kid and given the fact they still bought the kid a pistol I think it can be reasonably assumed they would have ignored any safe storage laws.
 
In this specific case I don't think a safe storage law would have done anything. Given the information the parents supposedly had from the school and observing the behavior of their kid and given the fact they still bought the kid a pistol I think it can be reasonably assumed they would have ignored any safe storage laws.
No way man, more laws always helps!!
 
In Connecticut, we have on the books a law that requires parents to safely store their guns. If those guns aren’t locked up with minors in the house, they can be held accountable without question.
Was the Connecticut law in effect pre-Sandy Hook?

Eta Looks like post SH, but those guns WERE secured anyway.
 
Last edited:
Typical Dem response to a single tragedy caused by irresponsible dipshits. More laws for everyone!

Draconian storage laws in Mass will probably get a violent crime victim killed, if it has not happened multiple times already. For sure those laws have F-ed up the lives of otherwise 100% law abiding, productive citizens only because a 911 call resulted in po-po snooping around the house. Imagine such a scenario for the entire country.
 
The thing I don't understand about this charging the parents stuff, and when this stuff gets into court we will see the real facts (I'm withholding judgements until then).

They are charging the kid as an adult, honestly I always hate that, especially at 15 when this isn't a borderline situation. But OK assume he is acting as an adult. Why is it then the parents fault? Seems contradictory to me - either he is a kid under the parents care where sure maybe they were negligent, or he is an adult making bad decisions on his own - it really can't be both. Charging someone with a straw purchase, sure that is logical but manslaughter no.
 
The thing I don't understand about this charging the parents stuff, and when this stuff gets into court we will see the real facts (I'm withholding judgements until then).

They are charging the kid as an adult, honestly I always hate that, especially at 15 when this isn't a borderline situation. But OK assume he is acting as an adult. Why is it then the parents fault? Seems contradictory to me - either he is a kid under the parents care where sure maybe they were negligent, or he is an adult making bad decisions on his own - it really can't be both. Charging someone with a straw purchase, sure that is logical but manslaughter no.
It's not a straw purchase. The 4473 explicitly allows bona fide gifts from person to person
 
It's not a straw purchase. The 4473 explicitly allows bona fide gifts from person to person

Ok but at 15 if he couldn't legally own the gun, not sure? Whatever the case I feel the premise of charging the kid as an adult but the parents also for manslaughter is the prosecutor having their cake and eating it too. The entire circumstance of the parents being guilty requires they were parenting the mentally incapable in that direction, but no he was acting as an adult.
 
Translation time:

“It’s common sense” = “I want to take your guns away”

“It’s not about taking anybody’s weapons away” = “I want to take your guns away”

“I think we would get a lot of gun owners to support us” = “I want to take your guns away”

“bipartisan compromise” = “I want to take your guns away”

Safe storage laws are not a federal issue.

States like NH have a simple safe storage law - don’t negligently store guns when there are minors in the house. Doesn’t say you have to lock them up per se (which defeats the purpose of being able to act in self defense).
That's actually not what the NH law says, but I agree about it being a state vs federal issue. The Feds always think they have the one-size-fits-all solution for everything.
 
So, if the parents bought the kid a car and he went out and killed someone they would be responsible for the death?

Yea....no

Edit: The fed gov has about as much authority to mandate storage bs as they do to mandate jabs......ie nada

Haha sure that too - what if it was a car that was too "fast" or too "big" :). Or what if they let their kid take Karate therefore weaponized their son?

More specifically I guess some narrative where the parents tell the mentally incompetent to do a specific bad thing, maybe that is the parents guilt of manslaughter or shoplifting or something. But not if the child is actually acting as an adult. Not if they are just shitty parents and failed to control a kid who's mind was warped.
 
That's actually not what the NH law says, but I agree about it being a state vs federal issue. The Feds always think they have the one-size-fits-all solution for everything.

Posting the key points of NH.. Basically it states if you do the incredibly stupid and the child does something bad, it's a $1000 fine, otherwise no foul. And if you don't have kids around you are not liable for what some kid does by illegally entering your premises.

Any person who stores or leaves on premises under that person's control a loaded firearm, and who knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or guardian, is guilty of a violation if a child gains access to a firearm and:
(a) The firearm is used in a reckless or threatening manner;
(b) The firearm is used during the commission of any misdemeanor or felony; or
(c) The firearm is negligently or recklessly discharged.
IV. Any person who violates paragraph III shall be fined not more than $1,000.
V. This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course.
(b) The firearm is kept secured in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked space, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or is secured with a trigger lock or similar device that prevents the firearm from discharging.
(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
(d) The child obtains or obtains and discharges the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(e) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premises which are under such person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
(f) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner.
VI. A parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted under this section only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner.
 
Posting the key points of NH.. Basically it states if you do the incredibly stupid and the child does something bad, it's a $1000 fine, otherwise no foul. And if you don't have kids around you are not liable for what some kid does by illegally entering your premises.

Any person who stores or leaves on premises under that person's control a loaded firearm, and who knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or guardian, is guilty of a violation if a child gains access to a firearm and:
(a) The firearm is used in a reckless or threatening manner;
(b) The firearm is used during the commission of any misdemeanor or felony; or
(c) The firearm is negligently or recklessly discharged.
IV. Any person who violates paragraph III shall be fined not more than $1,000.
V. This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course.
(b) The firearm is kept secured in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked space, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or is secured with a trigger lock or similar device that prevents the firearm from discharging.
(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
(d) The child obtains or obtains and discharges the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(e) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premises which are under such person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
(f) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner.
VI. A parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted under this section only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner.

Thanks for the more detailed corrective description. Note that the standard is essentially negligence.
 
Posting the key points of NH.. Basically it states if you do the incredibly stupid and the child does something bad, it's a $1000 fine, otherwise no foul. And if you don't have kids around you are not liable for what some kid does by illegally entering your premises.

Any person who stores or leaves on premises under that person's control a loaded firearm, and who knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or guardian, is guilty of a violation if a child gains access to a firearm and:
(a) The firearm is used in a reckless or threatening manner;
(b) The firearm is used during the commission of any misdemeanor or felony; or
(c) The firearm is negligently or recklessly discharged.
IV. Any person who violates paragraph III shall be fined not more than $1,000.
V. This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course.
(b) The firearm is kept secured in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked space, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or is secured with a trigger lock or similar device that prevents the firearm from discharging.
(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
(d) The child obtains or obtains and discharges the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(e) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premises which are under such person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
(f) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner.
VI. A parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted under this section only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner.
Thanks for posting this. A few points people miss sometimes:

1. "Child" in this section means any person under 16 years of age.
2. Does not apply if your (under 16) kid has had any kind of firearms safety instruction or a hunter safety course
3. Does not apply if the "child" got the firearm via "...an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner."
4. Does not apply if you have "...no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises."
 
Great and what laws is he willing to have repealed to offset this new one?
Excellent response, and my favorite when people talk about "compromising on gun control."

Compromise? OK, what law are you going to repeal in order to add this one.
Compromise on "one gun a month?" Sure. You say "one gun." I say "infinite number." We compromise on 1,000,000?
 
Excellent response, and my favorite when people talk about "compromising on gun control."

Compromise? OK, what law are you going to repeal in order to add this one.
Compromise on "one gun a month?" Sure. You say "one gun." I say "infinite number." We compromise on 1,000,000?

How about only 100 guns a month along with abolishment of the NFA, shiny new full autos after a standard background check and no registration or limits on civilians (other than 100 per month) along with suppressors as uncontrolled parts? I'd be ok with that.
 
I would like to know under what power delegated by the Constitution to the Federal Government the Feds could regulate storage of a firearm in your home? They certainly can’t use the Commerce Clause, as they do for regulating the purchase and sale of firearms.
 
How about only 100 guns a month along with abolishment of the NFA, shiny new full autos after a standard background check and no registration or limits on civilians (other than 100 per month) along with suppressors as uncontrolled parts? I'd be ok with that.
Mass shootings would be like 1000% less effective if everybody could could buy a machine gun at Walmart.
 
Criminals love these laws. An unloaded, locked gun in a locked box with ammo locked in another box is exactly how they like their target homes. Criminals love it when brain dead zealots publish the lists of gun owners addresses. It means they can easily pick unarmed homes to break into. Organized crime donates heavily to gun control groups and politicians because they want to make the country safer for criminals and the corrupt.
 

"The DOJ said it has submitted to the Federal Register for publication a final rule, which will take effect Feb. 3, requiring federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to certify that they have secure gun storage devices available to their customers for purchase.

Secure gun storage or safety device, as defined by statute and regulation, includes a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination or other similar means."


I’m not sure if the proposed rule amendment disqualifies simple cable locks as sufficient and requires a lockable encasements of the whole firearm? The picture on their new Dec-2021 guide suggests so, but the new rule is not in force until Feb-2022. A FFL needs to inventory/sell locking devices that work on ALL firearms they sell. How about a used single-action revolver? Just bumping the hammer will fire a round.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/safety-and-security-firearm-owners-atf-p-530022/download

ATF received only 4 comments, which they largely dismiss, as expected, as much as saying "Take us to court".

Notably, ATF reference Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), a case allowing an agency to decide if their enforcement matches the law rather than the courts (with limitations). In essence, Chevron allows ATF to say that while the text of the law may not specifically say such-and-such, this is what we meant when we drafted the law. That’s up for challenge with SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom