Gustafson v. Springfield: Pennsylvania court rules PLCAA unconstitutional

[Spats McGee]

I finally got around to actually reading the decision and doing a little digging. Unfortunately, my Westlaw subscription doesn't allow me to get the original trial court decisions, and they do not appear available on the internet. If they appear in this thread, I must have overlooked them. If anyone knows where to find it, can you point me in the right direction?

This is a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision, which means that it's in the middle between the trial court and PA's highest court. Which means the Gun Industry Defendants have a couple of more moves before they have to decide whether they want to go to SCOTUS. (I respectfully submit that they do.)

This is one of those many, many cases that demonstrates why you can't just 'noodle your way along' through legal issues. I noticed that there's no actual mention in the Superior Court decision of the exact nature of the defect. From the looks of the decision, you are all correct in the belief that the trial court found the gun defective based on the lack of magazine disconnect. That said, I'd sure like to see the decision to see how much the trial court thought was a 'hard design' defect and how much based on lack of warning.

I say that because I see no warnings on XD pistols about firing when the magazine is removed. Granted, I didn't look at each and every one of the umpteen XD variations that are out there, but I sure didn't see any on the handful I did look at. Now, we all know and follow The Four Rules, but is it foreseeable that a group of 14 year old boys might get Dad's gun and screw around with it? Yeah, I'm afraid it is. Let's face it. It's a good thing that 14 y.o. boys heal quickly, because they're not always the brightest bulbs on the marquee. Heck, 14 y.o. boys are practically the poster children for warning labels.

I'll also note that the constitutionality of the PLCAA has been upheld by the Second Circuit (City of NY v. Beretta, a public nuisance case, cert denied by SCOTUS), and by the 9th Circuit (Ileto v. Glock, public nuisance, wrongful death and negligence, cert denied by SCOTUS). Thus, the PA Superior court was not under any controlling precedent that had already decided that PLCAA was constitutional. Not that I could find, anyway. Even had there been, this decision was based on grounds that I didn't see in my cursory review of the other decisions, so this judge might well have wiggled out from under them, anyway.

And for those of you complaining that, if we took this logic far enough, every gun could be found defective, you're right. One of the plays in The Antigunner Playbook has always been 'sue them out of existence.' Every lawsuit has its costs. Even if you win, you have to pay to defend yourself. We lawyer's aren't cheap. And they're a huge hassle. The antis decided years ago that constantly suing gun manufacturers would eventually drive them out of business. That's exactly why the PLCAA was enacted. That's exactly why the antis have fought for its repeal ever since.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I say that because I see no warnings on XD pistols about firing when the magazine is removed. Granted, I didn't look at each and every one of the umpteen XD variations that are out there, but I sure didn't see any on the handful I did look at.

The warning may be in the users manual. When I looked up whether or not the Beretta M9 and the Sig M17/M18 have magazine disconnects, I found the manual for the M18 on-line and read it. The warning is right there, in black-and-white ... on about page 40 of the manual. So notice is given ... to the owner of the firearm. Presumably, it then falls on the owner to properly instruct anyone else whom he/she allows to use the firearm. That process obviously fails if someone picks up the firearm and starts fiddling without the owners knowledge or authorization.

Does that, then, make the product defective? Does it make the notification/warning defective? If we start down that road, how may things are there that are peculiar to certain brands of automobile that could cause an accident? A simple case as an example -- many years ago, my roommate from college was from Virginia. I visited him at home one weekend. During discussion over dinner it came out that his mother couldn't understand why people always flashed their headlights at her. We finally figured out that she hadn't made the transition from the dimmer switch being a button on the floor (yes, I am that old) to a position on the turn signal stalk. Consequently, she was always driving around with her high beams on and didn't know how to switch to the low beams.

There are any number of other such things that could cause problems, such as activating or deactivating the "child-proof" locks on the rear doors of cars, or the switch some cars have for deactivating the front passenger airbag (IIRC, intended for use when the passenger is under a certain weight or height). Such things are discussed in the owners manual, but not immediately obvious to a random driver or passenger who hasn't read the manual.

We are getting into the realm of discussing how far "society" should go in trying to protect stupid people from responsibility for their acts -- and how far "society" should go to try to protect other people from the stupid acts of stupid people.

[Metal god]

The warning may be in the users manual.

In bold print even . Do I dare say , NUF SAID !

[44 AMP]

From the information in the linked article, the two boys were in someone else's house. There is no mention of the homeowner being present. There is no mention of them having permission to be there. They "obtained" the homeowner's gun. There is no mention of them having permission to do that, either.

Could be they had permission and the news just left that fact out of the article, but, even if they did have permission to be in the house, without permission to access the gun, (unlikely) then the gun was STOLEN.

There MIGHT be a case for blaming the GUN OWNER for being irresponsible, or there might not be one that meets legal requirements. Can't tell from here.

SO, absent mention that the boys had permission, we're left to assume they did not. That means they broke into someone house, stole a loaded gun, and then one of them shot the other, believing the gun was unloaded.

Explain how this can be considered the fault of the people who made the gun, and/or the people that sold it.

It just boggles my mind how any court would allow such a suit to proceed.

[Metal god]

It just boggles my mind how any court would allow such a suit to proceed.

Hmm , well unfortunately it does not boggle my mind . I however am in California and I see similar things all the time OK not all the time but enough when it comes to Firarms to be all boggled out . It just seems to me at least when it comes to the Second Amendment that there is clear political bias in the judiciary . I’ve always understood that the laws and courts are designed to allow arguing for the nuances of said laws . But it appears in the last recent years lawyers , States & AG‘s etc. seem to be arguing and or allowing bad faith arguments . I’m not even sure if that’s the correct terminology “bad faith” . It just seems more and more very poor arguments against the Second Amendment seem to be allowed when you would think any reasonable judge would just look at them and say “are you kidding me” . Almost as if some judges instead of looking at how the argument applies to the law they figure out a way to apply the law to the argument ??

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Almost as if some judges instead of looking at how the argument applies to the law they figure out a way to apply the law to the argument ??

I think you are describing result oriented jurisprudence. Rather than using existing law and precedent to resolve the issue presented to a court, the court decides which side should win, then sees if if there is enough ambiguity to twist into a decision, or "discover" a basis for the result he prefers.

It's a real problem.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I think you are describing result oriented jurisprudence. Rather than using existing law and precedent to resolve the issue presented to a court, the court decides which side should win, then sees if if there is enough ambiguity to twist into a decision, or "discover" a basis for the result he prefers.

And the irony is that those who are most prone to engage in such "result oriented jurisprudence" are the first to accuse conservative, precedent-oriented, strict constructionist judges of being "activists" and of "legislating from the bench."

[Metal god]

It’s not irony , it’s well thought out strategy . I’ve only been paying relatively close attention to politics in the last 10 years . The one thing I’ve noticed is one side accuse the other of doing the exact thing they themselves are doing at the time or did just prior . It would be incredibly interesting If it weren’t so hard on the system or maybe that’s the way our system has always been and I’ve never noticed . Lately I’ve seen it over and over and over again where one side is claiming and/or chanting against something that they are actually doing themselves at that very moment . I’ve been having a hard time processing it because it doesn’t make sense to me .

[44 AMP]

It's called a "double standard", one standard for thee, another for me...
its also known as dishonesty

it a bad thing.
Even if it sometimes works in your favor, its still a bad thing.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

From the information in the linked article, the two boys were in someone else's house. There is no mention of the homeowner being present. There is no mention of them having permission to be there. They "obtained" the homeowner's gun. There is no mention of them having permission to do that, either.

Could be they had permission and the news just left that fact out of the article, but, even if they did have permission to be in the house, without permission to access the gun, (unlikely) then the gun was STOLEN.

There MIGHT be a case for blaming the GUN OWNER for being irresponsible, or there might not be one that meets legal requirements. Can't tell from here....

My read on it is that Boy 1 and Boy 2 went over to Boy 3's house, and that Boy 3's dad was probably the gun owner. I'm not sure it's really 'stealing' if Boy 3 goes and gets Dad's gun to show off to Boys 1 and 2.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

It’s ot irony , it’s well thought out strategy .

I think that's a bit generous. My reasons are set forth below.

Originally Posted by AB

And the irony is that those who are most prone to engage in such "result oriented jurisprudence" are the first to accuse conservative, precedent-oriented, strict constructionist judges of being "activists" and of "legislating from the bench."

I believe the terms "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" are phrases that entered popular culture in the 1970s along with a high profile case about which people typically have strong sentiments. They got plenty of ink during the Bork nomination hearings too.

I'd say it took about a decade for people who liked the vector of judicial innovation in the 1970s to respond to the accusation implicit in those phrases with a counter-accusation that when a justice like Scalia opposes those innovations and doesn't yield in the face dubious precedent, that those Scalia like justices are also "judicial activists" who "legislate from the bench". It's hardly more than "No! You are!". It implies a symmetry that isn't present.

If one believes that the COTUS is a governing document, a part of our law, and that its terms should be given their original public meaning, that doesn't describe an ideological direction; it isn't an activist urge to refuse to change the law without going to the trouble of constitutional amendment. On the other hand, if one believes as a matter of policy that political speech should be regulated by Congress, individual rights to arms should be infringed, or that Congress can regulate whatever it pleases whether in interstate commerce or not, and one is willing to set aside the text of the COTUS to achieve those policy ends, that is an activism within the judiciary.

[Thomas Clarke]

I found this link off the net. I think it fairly shows what happened. The question is who is responsible for the death of the 13 year old. The 14 year old friend pleaded guilty as a juvenile. I do not know if Pennsylvania has a law that says a handgun must be locked up. In any event in my opinion the owner of the gun is responsible for the enablement of the homicide and should be fully accountable both under criminal law and under civil law. Gustafson should be going after the gun owner and his property and insurance representatives. He is the real criminal. The parent of the other boy also share in some responsibility and should be subject to both criminal and civil actions. If the accused want to say that the gun maker made is responsible, then it is up to them to try and do it.

http://https://case-law.vlex.com/vid...-inc-849635660

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

I found this link off the net. I think it fairly shows what happened. The question is who is responsible for the death of the 13 year old. The 14 year old friend pleaded guilty as a juvenile. I do not know if Pennsylvania has a law that says a handgun must be locked up. In any event in my opinion the owner of the gun is responsible for the enablement of the homicide and should be fully accountable both under criminal law and under civil law. Gustafson should be going after the gun owner and his property and insurance representatives. He is the real criminal.

By definition, if Pennsylvania doesn't have a criminal law making the unsecured storage of a firearm a crime, then the owner of the firearm is absolutely NOT a criminal. If there isn't such a law (and www.handgunlaw.us could not find one), then the people of Pennsylvania might wish to have a discussion as to whether or not there should be a law, but that's a different question. As of now, it appears there is no such law, so it's difficult to comprehend how you can label as a "criminal" someone who has not broken any criminal law.

The parent of the other boy also share in some responsibility and should be subject to both criminal and civil actions. If the accused want to say that the gun maker made is responsible, then it is up to them to try and do it.

Again, what criminal statute did the parents of the other boy violate? With all due respect, it strikes me that you are more than a little free in labeling people as ciminals when you have nothing to indicate that they broke any laws.

I suspect I'm more than a few years older than you. My state currently has a safe storage law, but it didn't when I was growing up. I grew up in an extended family -- my family, my maternal grandparents, and two families of aunts, uncles, and assorted cousins all lived on the same road, within a half mile of one another. All the families had guns in the house. None of the guns were locked up, and all of us kids knew where the guns were kept. Miraculously, nobody got shot. Perhaps the reason was that our parents taught us that guns are not toys, that guns can and do kill people, and that if we EVER touched a firearm without permission from and supervision by one of the adults, we would regret it for a very long time. Back then, Dr. Spock was still the bible for raising children, and spanking was considered normal and appropriate discipline, not child abuse. We all survived, and most of us went on to become responsible, productive adults.

So if a kid picks up a gun and accidentally (i.e. negligently) shoots a playmate, where does responsibility lie? My view is that we reap what we sow, and what the liberals have sowed is an attitude that GUNZ! are so evil that they must never be mentioned. So instead of teaching kids how guns work and showing why they shouldn't play with them, society has made GUNZ! into an esoteric attraction that is guaranteed to arouse curiosity.

We had a similar case around here a couple of decades ago. The owner of the gun was, in fact, a police sergeant and the gun involved was his duty weapon, which he had not locked up (it wasn't required back then) when he came off duty. It was tragic, and I don't mean to suggest that it was not. But ... it was NOT criminal.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So if a kid picks up a gun and accidentally (i.e. negligently) shoots a playmate, where does responsibility lie? My view is that we reap what we sow, and what the liberals have sowed is an attitude that GUNZ! are so evil that they must never be mentioned. So instead of teaching kids how guns work and showing why they shouldn't play with them, society has made GUNZ! into an esoteric attraction that is guaranteed to arouse curiosity.

By the time I was 13 I had already been trained about gun safety and would have known damn well that just removing the magazine is not enough.

My daughter had mandatory sex education in middle school, because sex is something that kids will have to deal with and it's better for them to be informed.

My daughter had mandatory drug education in middle school, because drugs are something that kids will have to deal with and it's better for them to be informed.

If someone tried to get an NRA Eddie the Eagle training at their school, parents would have rioted, because guns are EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!

So kids grow up ignorant of gun safety and things like this happen.

[44 AMP]

I don't think the actual cause of the accident here is as important as why does a panel of court judges think it is ok to sue the maker of a legal product, and the retailer of the same for the actions of a 3rd (or 4th??) party.

[Metal god]

44 , it’s worst then that , it seem the judge/s know they could not sue the manufacturer so they simply made up a defection . This is scary stuff or do I say chilling .

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Metal god

44 , it’s worst then that , it seem the judge/s know they could not sue the manufacturer so they simply made up a defection . This is scary stuff or do I say chilling .

I think it's even worse than that. The panel knew that a lawsuit for a defective product is an exemption to the protections provided by the PLCAA. It could have ruled that the lack of magazine defect was at least arguably a design defect and that the manufacturer was thus not protected by it. By doing so, it could have avoided reaching the constitutional issue. This would have complied with the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. As we knowit went ahead and found the statute unconstitutional.

[Thomas Clarke]

Aquila, I have no idea how old you are. I am 68. I am a Second Amendment supporter. I am not a lawyer but am a retired Executive with a Masters degree. I have been shooting for 60 years. I started shooting under the direction of my father. I started at age 8. I had access and usage of .22 S/LR ammunition, rifles and pistols by age 10. I started hunting squirrels and rabbits at age 12 with .410 single shot. I began dove and upland birds with a 12 gauge at age 14. I served in Vietnam as an MP. You seem a bit judgmental since you do not know me.

When I was a kid it was OK to bring your guns to school for show and tell and to take them home to hunt on the way home. Nobody said a thing. My father helped me with my first purchases until I passed the NRA tests for hunting. My LGS sold me my ammunition and my guns with the full knowledge of my Dad. I earned my own money and paid for the guns and ammo. Nothing was given to me. That was normal then.

I live in a state that has lots of restrictions on guns and usage. I just follow the rules. I shoot flintlocks and cannons on my property now. I have attended rendezvous for fifty years. I am glad you teach and are active teaching. You may want to pull back the opinions when you do not know what you are talking about. But now you do.

What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons. They were responsible for their children and should pay the price, both criminal and civil and should held before the bar of justice in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible. I am sure you believe that people kill people. Too many times guns are used, giving those of us who are responsible gun users a bad name.

Remember that if you are in the bank robbers car, you have some criminal liability for the bank robbery, especially when a death occurs. The Civil Remedies need to be brought forward by the surviving family against the killers. That is why there are courts. The parents need to pay the heavy punitive price for the taking of a life, both through the criminal courts and civil. The price to be paid is equal to the life of the young man taken by the child.

[Metal god]

Not to but in here "but" if there is no law specifying a crime how can one be held "criminally" liable ? I don't know the law there but if the parents did not commit a crime , it's pretty hard to charge them with one . Just a reminder as I understand laws , They are not made to prevent something from happening . They are there so the government can charge you and put you in jail for violating such laws . Did the other boy and all parents involved commit "moral crimes" that if they would have put a little more thought in storing the firearm , and teaching there kids maybe none of this would have happened ? I think yes but morality or lack there of is not a crime , likely because morals are quite subjective . I'm sure ISIS fighters feel quite morally superior while cutting peoples heads off or parents that feel not spanking there kids is a moral act . Yes to the extremes those are but my point is that morality is simply an opinion one has based on there experiences .

Now civil liability is a whole other ball game . Thomas , If you were to remove criminal from most of what you were saying , I'd agree with just about everything you wrote but have to agree with Aguila as far as criminal liability depending on the specific laws . but hey I'm only 50 so what do I know

With respect
MG

[44 AMP]

The parents need to pay the heavy punitive price for the taking of a life, both through the criminal courts and civil. The price to be paid is equal to the life of the young man taken by the child.

We disagree on some points. I feel there is NO price equal to the life of the victim. I also disagree on how far criminal responsibility should go.

I do not consider it justice when a juvenile gets a short sentence in juvenile custody and their parents are excessively punished. Though the law often takes that approach.

I do not think it right to hold parents criminally responsible for criminal acts committed by their children when those children are doing so via the exercise of their own free will, and in defiance of what they have been trained and taught.

Children do that, you know, no amount of holding the parents responsible overcomes the child's individual willful acts.

I can see the logic and the effectiveness of holding parents responsible and punishing them for some things their child might do, to encourage other parents to avoid those errors and their punishments.

But, when it comes to a person pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger, no parent, school, church or even the Lord above is responsible for that, ONLY the person pulling the trigger.

It is always about only that, and it should always be only about that. Anything else is someone's idea of shifting blame, or at worst making money over someone's suffering.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons. They were responsible for their children and should pay the price, both criminal and civil and should held before the bar of justice in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible. I am sure you believe that people kill people. Too many times guns are used, giving those of us who are responsible gun users a bad name.

I have about a decade on you, but our age doesn't matter here. I fully understand that a 13-year old is responsible for the death of another child. I don't think that's in dispute. I am not a lawyer and I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, so I'm not up on Pennsylvania law. According to your link, the charge the shooter was convicted of was involuntary manslaughter. And involuntary manslaughter is a criminal offense under the laws on Pennsylvania, as it is in my state.

So that makes the 13-year old kid who pulled the trigger a criminal.

In general, parents of minor children are responsible for the acts of their children. But under the law, as we saw in the case of OJ Simpson, there's criminal guilt and then there's civil liability. Remember, OJ was found NOT guilty of murder, but he was also found liable in civil court for wrongful death (or something like that).

So I think the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger could very well be liable -- in monetary terms -- for the negligent act of their child. That doesn't make them criminals. Unless you can cite a Pennsylavia law that says the parents of a child who commits a criminal act without the parents' knowledge or consent are themselves guilty of a crime, you are off-base in labeling the parents of the kid who pulled the trigger as criminals.

And then there's the third kid. I'm not even sure he's guilty of any criminal charge. What criminal law did he break? And what Pennsylvania criminal law did his parents break?

If you can't cite a criminal law the parents broke, then calling them criminals is a libelous statement. What are your citations?

[zukiphile]

One of the advantages I have as an attorney is knowing that there is a lot I don't know about areas in which I don't regularly practice, even in my own state. Normal people, i.e. not attorneys, often approach criminal law with a general sense of moral intuition. However, that isn't how adjudication routinely works.

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons.

Emphasis added. Explaining each of those terms exhaustively might be worth a book. It isn't "OK" for boys to go through someone else's guns, but that isn't a crime so far as I can tell. Are you "just as responsible" if you are in the presence of a friend who negligently discharges a firearm? What does holding a parent "fully accountable" look like?

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible.

I think many of us agree on this point.

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

Remember that if you are in the bank robbers car, you have some criminal liability for the bank robbery, especially when a death occurs.

I believe you are referring to accessory liability, the liability one has for the result of a plan to commit a crime in which one participates. This is one that most people have a hard time getting their hands around just using their general intuition. "I was the driver and the plan was just to take the money" still leaves one exposed to prosecution for the homicide committed by a co-conspirator during the act. One wasn't just in the car, but was a participant in an underlying criminal act.

In this case, the friend wasn't a likely accessory because there wasn't a planned underlying crime.

[Thomas Clarke]

Zukiphile, I had to look up your name. I found this definition quickly "A person who reads disagreement and reacts by seeking to exclude the expression of other views admits his own insufficiency. - Zukiphile" It is very apt, I applaud you. You post actively where I surf, but I have not commented on your posts, as there is no point.

You are the lawyer, I am not. Are you licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania? If not, you may want to consider adding a disclaimer, in order to avoid the inference of providing legal advice, as others do in this forum.

I think everything in your post is agreeable and accurate. I chose the two examples of accountability carefully, with full understanding that these are terms of law and not general knowledge. I am familiar with the legal definition which does not need to be explained here. Pennsylvania law may support the differing interpretations than what I urge. I am not in the Keystone State.

Parents should be held fully accountable to the law for the actions of their minor children. There may not be criminal law in Pennsylvania to support that which is OK for Pennsylvania. There may not be civil law and a tort process in Pennsylvania to hold the parents responsible for the actions of their children. I think that the addition of these will improve the quality of life for Pennsylvanians if applied.

The actions of accessory liability are dependent on the criminal law relating to the charges. Your argument is on point if there are no criminal charges. I was not referring to accessory liability, but that is because I am not a lawyer. What I was referring to is the fact that parents in many places believe that they get a pass if their dependent children perform badly. I cannot speak to Pennsylvania as a state, but I believe that children should not be allowed to act unless their parents are held responsible as adults for their actions. If your kids do something stupid, act poorly, cause a firearm discharge or other unfortunate acts that damage or kill others outside the family, then you the parents need to pay the price. You the adult do not get the pass. The price is not just defined by law, but I think it should be.

And yes, I have children, both sons and daughters. All are grown, all fully adults, all fully emancipated, and all self sufficient. They do not live at home or receive aid from Dad. If they err, they pay the price, be it criminal or civil. I think that is how it should be, though I recognize that it is not in so many places. As an example, look at the facts of this case and the actions of both the readers of this blog and the authorities.

[Aguila Blanca]

Mr. Clarke, I find it ironic that you accuse me of being judgmental, when it is you who labeled the parents (both the parents whose firearm was involved and the parents of the boy who pulled the trigger) as criminals, yet when I asked for citations of what criminal law they might have violated you didn't offer anything in response.

To recap:

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

I found this link off the net. I think it fairly shows what happened. The question is who is responsible for the death of the 13 year old. The 14 year old friend pleaded guilty as a juvenile. I do not know if Pennsylvania has a law that says a handgun must be locked up. In any event in my opinion the owner of the gun is responsible for the enablement of the homicide and should be fully accountable both under criminal law and under civil law. Gustafson should be going after the gun owner and his property and insurance representatives. He is the real criminal. The parent of the other boy also share in some responsibility and should be subject to both criminal and civil actions. If the accused want to say that the gun maker made is responsible, then it is up to them to try and do it.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I agree with you -- the parents who owned the firearm and the parents of the boy who pulled the trigger should be subject to the fullest extent of criminal law in Pennsylvania. It does not appear that there are any criminal laws that they broke, so their being subject to the full extent of the law amounts to nothing. Yet you labeled them "criminals." That's irresponsuible and libelous.

Originally Posted by ThomasClarke

Aquila, I have no idea how old you are. I am 68. I am a Second Amendment supporter. I am not a lawyer but am a retired Executive with a Masters degree. I have been shooting for 60 years. I started shooting under the direction of my father. I started at age 8. I had access and usage of .22 S/LR ammunition, rifles and pistols by age 10. I started hunting squirrels and rabbits at age 12 with .410 single shot. I began dove and upland birds with a 12 gauge at age 14. I served in Vietnam as an MP. You seem a bit judgmental since you do not know me.

...

What I thought you understood, but clearly do not, is that the 13 year old is responsible for taking a life. His surviving buddy is just as responsible as he was. Both are juveniles and subject to juvenile law. I seriously doubt that Pennsylvania thinks it is OK for boys to act so poorly. Their parents are not juveniles and they need to be held fully accountable for the actions of their sons. They were responsible for their children and should pay the price, both criminal and civil and should held before the bar of justice in Pennsylvania. The manufacturer of the firearms should not be held responsible. I am sure you believe that people kill people. Too many times guns are used, giving those of us who are responsible gun users a bad name.

Once again, let's say I agree that the parents should be fully accountable under the law for the negligent actions of their child. And the owners of the gun should be fully accountable under the law for having allowed the children to access the firearm. And, again, it appears that the law doesn't include any statutes that either set of parents violated. If that is the case, then the "full extent of the criminal law" is ... nothing.

Do you accept that, or do you still want to label the parents as "criminals"? If so, then it is up to you to cite the criminal statute(s) they broke.

[44 AMP]

There are a number of "traps" in our language, words that carry connotations beyond their strict dictionary definitions (an even the dictionaries will tell you that their definitions are what is "in common use").

Adding to the potential for confusion is the fact that words and phrases used in casual conversation, and having a commonly understood definition can have a different definition in law. And, further adding to the fun, the fact that many of us are (or get) 'sloppy" with our words and terms.

One of the "trap" words, we all use all the time is "allow".

My American Heritage Dictionary defines "allow" as "to make do or happen; permit".

So, to allow something to happen is to permit it to happen. And that's where things start getting confusing. What does it mean that you "permit" something to happen? Everyone seems to take differing meanings from that simple phrase.

First point, many people will assume that if you "permit" something to happen, that means you approve it it happening. After all, if you didn't approve, why would you permit it???

Next point, "permitting" something to happen, means what? That you didn't do anything to stop it happening? OR that you didn't do ENOUGH (in some third party's judgement) to prevent it happening?? Or that you did, and failed?

... for having allowed the children to access the firearm.

A very common phrase, but is it actually accurate? And, what does it mean in law? We say things like "by doing/not doing A, you allowed B to happen.."

"allow" also can carry the impression that what was "allowed" was approved and endorsed". This is simply not always the case.

There are cases where people are said to have "allowed" something even when there was no possible way of stopping it.

In the shooting under discussion, we don't have the exact details of how the gun owner "allowed" the child to access a loaded pistol. The fact that it happened "allows" us to slap the label "he allowed it to happen" on the matter, but tells us nothing else.

IF the gun owner took what he considered the prudent steps, was he negligent because the kid got the gun anyway? Were those steps (if done) something required by law? Or just what the rest of us would consider common sense? IF there was no law to comply with, stating specifically what was required, then there can be no criminal violation.

One can be morally, and civilly responsible, and may be legally liable and accountable, but if no law was broken, one cannot be criminally liable.