The Right to Bear Arms
I make no pretense of any legal training or specialized knowledge of the Constitution. I have some historical insight into the development of that document, its context and its sources, but claim no expertise. is as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”This seems to me to be rather clear: the purpose of the right to bear arms was to create citizen soldiers for the protection of the State. Notice the first clause: “A well regulated Militia…” This is the clear precondition and limitation of the right to bear arms; the second amendment is not a guarantee of my right to own guns, but of the State’s right to form a militia. A clear and well-written discussion of this amendment is found at the Violence Policy Center’s webpage
Why do I raise this point? It is because I am worried. I am not only worried about the general proliferation of firearms, I am worried about a friend that purchased a military issue rifle for her 16-year-old son. I am aghast at this. I am sickened by this. I am worried by this.
A Mauser in the House
The day was going slowly and I was frankly bored. I called a friend up today to chat, thinking this would be a pleasant way to pass a few moments. We chatted for a bit and she mentioned that she purchased a gun for her son. She knows how I feel about weapons and prefaced her comments with a request that I not make any judgments about her choice. I dislike guns. I was frankly not supportive in the past of this decision for two reasons: the presence of a gun greatly increases the risk of injury or death by a firearm, and this child’s temperament. She said was writing a contract. She has done this in the past and it has come to nothing. The kid gets what he wants with no real responsibility being taken for his actions. I was taken aback when she said she purchased a Mauser for her son. I had to ask what it was, as I was shocked to hear this choice.
So, what 16-year-old boy does not need to have a high-powered 8mm bold action rifle designed as an assault weapon for use by the Nazi army? Understand me well: this is not a .22 caliber target gun; this is a weapon of war.
I was stunned and angered to hear that my friend had not provided for appropriate storage for this weapon: no gunlocks, no lockers, to separate storage for ammunition: nothing.
I will own my prejudice against the possession of weapons. I am not – nor do I pretend to be neutral – on this issue. To provide a child with a weapon capable of killing a human at long range without providing the appropriate storage is simply and reprehensibly irresponsible and immoral. Moreover, I said as much to her. I cannot and will not step foot in that house until that weapon is gone. My children will not be allowed to go there under any circumstance. It is unsafe.
California State Regulations
Our state is bizarre at times. It is legal to own a high-powered rifle, but not a handgun. Go figure. The criminal liability for storage of a loaded firearm is onerous, as well it should be. Of particular interest is civil liability, which makes no distinction between handguns and rifles:
Civil liability for any injury to the person or property of another proximately caused by the discharge of a firearm by a minor under the age of 18 years shall be imputed to a parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and such parent or guardian shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any damages resulting from such act, if such parent or guardian either permitted the minor to have the firearm or left the firearm in a place accessible to the minor.
The liability imposed by this section is in addition to any liability otherwise imposed by law. However, no person, or group of persons collectively, shall incur liability under this section in any amount exceeding thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for injury to or death of one person as a result of any one occurrence or, subject to the limit as to one person, exceeding sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) for injury to or death of all persons as a result of any one such occurrence.
Now, this child has a collection of pellet guns. Limitations have been placed on the use and discharge of these weapons. They have been consistently ignored. Does it, in any way, follow that a child that is not trustworthy with a smaller weapon can be trusted with a weapon capable of killing a person? Add to this a history of violence with this child (locking down the house and not allowing his mother to enter) and it becomes clear even to those whose political persuasions tend toward the right that this is a poor choice.
Permissive Parents
I strive to be a good father. This means that I have to say “no” to my children. I wonder why parents try so hard to be their children’s friends rather than their parents. Frankly, this is a reprehensible act of indulgence that I hope and pray to whatever gods may be listening will not bring harm to anybody involved. But, if it does, I can have no real sympathy: she brought the weapon into her house without regard for proper storage (she did not even have a trigger lock) and without concern for the safety of those around her.
I suppose the twinkle in his eye made it all worth it…
But I am only a fool...
An update: Following a couple of heated conversations the parent in question purchased appropriate storage for this weapon that includes locks, seperate storage for ammo and requires the weapon to be broken before storage. I still feel that weapons of this sort have no place in the hands of a child. But, this is at least a step toward making this less accesible in moments of rage, anger, or in case of theft. - tDF
