Dave Bugg wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


dad serves at least 10 years for his sons crime because the gun
owner MUST AT ALL TIMES KEEP GUNS SECURE!

Sure. And the owner of a car, which is stolen and used in the
commission of a crime, should get ten years for not keeping his car
secure from criminals.

Actually if his kid takes it (which is pretty much the case we are
talking about)

So, your law wouldn't apply to a criminal breaking into a house and stealing
a weapon? It only applies if a child steals the weapon? I'd love to hear the
rationale behind THAT distinction.

then it is possible for him to be held responsible.

I've never seen or heard of that, unless conspiracy was involved.

In at least one state (probably others) there is a law holding the gun
owner responsible if the gun was not reasonably secured, with exclusions
for breaking and entering, etc. Basically if dad (or mom) leaves their
gun(s) in an unlocked cabinet (or comparable unsecured location) in a
home with children and the child takes the gun and does something the
parent is responsible (clear negligence anyway). If the kid breaks into
a locked cabinet and steals the gun, or a burglar steals the gun the
owner is not responsible. If a gun owner leaves their gun(s) in an
unlocked location in their home without children they are fine as well
since anyone gaining access would be breaking and entering.

Seems a pretty reasonable law, though a bit redundant since anyone not
taking reasonable precautions to keep a potentially dangerous item safe
from unauthorized use would seem to be negligent anyway.