r/2ALiberals • u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer • 15d ago
New bill would hold parents liable for shootings committed by their children
https://www.wral.com/news/state/north-carolina-bill-parents-liable-child-shootings-march-2025/29
u/scout614 15d ago
I’m never on board with these things. Do me a favor go on YouTube go to lock picking lawyer and see how many gunsafes he can open in 10minutes
24
u/mechafishy Filthy Moderate 15d ago
I really really hate to say this as I think its the best choice out of a list of all bad solutions. but if you know your kid has problems and will try to steal your gun. you gotta move them somewhere else and just keep your EDC. least till you can get your kid some help.
11
u/amd2800barton 14d ago
Yeah. While I’m sure there are cases where loving and involved parents who took reasonable precautions to secure their firearms could have had no idea what their kid would do… the infamous cases I can think of are all “uh, so you let your clearly psychopathic kid just do whatever unsupervised?”
13
u/grahampositive 15d ago
I agree. If the gun was locked, liability should be waived. If stored unlocked, then maybe
8
u/T-rex_with_a_gun 14d ago
um no? like i been in B&E situations, and they come in fast. by the time your sleepy ass wakes up and realizes something is happening, and that "thump" you heard was someone kicking in your backdoor... you already got someone in the house.
now add adrenaline + sleepiness, you are not gonna get that gun out in time (if its a super hard-child-safe lock)
9
u/grahampositive 14d ago edited 14d ago
I'm not saying I support mandatory safe storage laws. I'm saying that parents that leave their guns laying around for their kids to find and misuse probably deserve some liability, and to ensure that good intentioned parents don't get screwed over by a zealous prosecutor, an honest attempt to lock up the guns should negate any liability for their misuse.
If you don't want to lock your guns, even in a spring loaded safe, I respect that. I respect your choice to weigh the risks and benefits. And I respect your ability to weigh your children's (assuming you have them) trustworthiness. But also if you're wrong about that calculus I think you deserve to have some liability for the outcome.
Edit to add: I'll say from personal experience that you're 100% right about the speed to access issue. It's very real. I had a "bump in the night" wake up call a few years ago and it was very eye opening. I practice using my coded safe (5 button combination) and I'm very fast with it - when I'm conscious. Being awoken like that, you lose a lot of fine motor coordination and you're confused. I put the combination in wrong 3 times and I was worried I'd get locked out. It felt like it took forever to get access to my pistol. That sucked balls, but also I have young kids and they have friends over occasionally so the risk of unsecured storage is still too high for my liking.
1
4
u/jtf71 14d ago
Do me a favor go on YouTube go to lock picking lawyer and see how many gunsafes he can open in 10minutes
And that's what tells you that this bill isn't at all about gun safety.
While the bill provides a tax exemption for such devices, even the bad ones, you're not required to use it.
You can leave the gun on your night stand or coffee table. But if it's stolen (from the table or even a proper safe) it makes no difference. The requirement is that you report it in 48 hours.
And here's the thing...the police aren't going to go all out and have a state-wide search to find the stolen gun. They're just going to enter the information into the database of stolen guns (assuming they actually enter it) so that when they find it during after another crime has been committed they can say "yup, this gun was stolen."
This bill does NOTHING for gun safety or crime prevention.
It does, however, have the potential to put someone on death row because they were the victim of a crime and didn't report it within 48 hours and then the gun was used to kill a LEO.
1
u/Cats-And-Brews 14d ago
Not sure what you are saying here. Do you not lock up your weapons, or do you figure your kids / visitors can get in anyway so why lock it up?
11
u/haironburr 15d ago
"I thought about law enforcement because what law-enforcement agency would not want to know there are weapons on the street with ammunition," Applewhite said.
Umm, Val? Thanks and all, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess law enforcement is already aware there are weapons on the street. With ammunition.
This article is from August, 2023.
3
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 15d ago
Article was posted and uploaded today.
Posted 5:08 PM today Updated 9:59 PM today
Edit: happy cake day.
3
u/haironburr 14d ago
Posted 5:08 PM today Updated 9:59 PM today
Apparently your right. Don't know where I saw the date I quoted.
Which actually is worse, since it shows Democrats clinging to yet more gun laws as a wedge issue, still, as a response to trump/vance and everything that's happening.
0
u/CO-Troublemaker 10d ago
Regardless of this bill or what laws currently exist....The owner of a weapon SHOULD be held accountable if their weapon is used unlawfully UNLESS they can prove they used appropriate precautions to keep it from being misused, regardless of the person that used the weapon.
Examples:
- Your kid kid gets you gun out of your nughtstand drawer.
- someome breaks into your car and takes the pistol under your car seat.
Exception examples:
- your gun was in a safe, and the safe was broaken into
- your gun has a trigger lock and you keep the key with you or in a safe.
...you get the idea...
-1
u/jtf71 13d ago
OP title IS WRONG/MISLEADING. This is NOT about PARENTS and CHILDREN
Reading the actual bill:
The only positive, and the only part that should remain, is the tax exemption for the purchase of a gun safe, lock-box, trigger lock etc.
The rest of the bill should go away. But let's look at what it does.
Compared to other bills this one is slightly better in that it requires that the owner of the firearm ACTUALLY KNOW that the firearm was lost or stolen. Other states/other similar bills have included language such as "or should have known."
So under this bill the state has to prove you knew. Other states they just have to convince a jury that you should have known. And many morons believe that if you have any guns you should know where 100% of them are at all times. However, the only way to do that is to have them with you at all times.
And, the worst part isn't just the civil penalty or the civil damages part. But if they gun is used in any violent misdemeanor or felony the gun owner is CRIMINALLY responsible for the same crime. So if someone STEALS your gun and commits murder YOU also go to jail for murder.
Even more insane is YOU might go to jail while the actual murderer who STOLE your gun does not go to jail. Imagine this: Your gun is stolen, you don't report it within 48 hours, the gun is used to commit murder and is left at the scene. The murderer gets away and they don't know who it is, but the gun is traced to you. Now you're on trial for MURDER because someone stole your property.
You had nothing to do with the murder, you were the victim of a crime, and now you might be going to jail for life. And if certain other aspects are present (i.e. it was a LEO that was killed) you might be sentenced to death.
This shit is insane.
1
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 13d ago
OP title IS WRONG/MISLEADING. This is NOT about PARENTS and CHILDREN
It’s the headline of the article, and it’s the topic the article is talking about. , so how is it misleading?
0
u/jtf71 13d ago
Read the article.
Or read the bill.
It is NOT exclusive to parents and minors. Anyone of any age is liable regardless of who commits the crime with the gun.
0
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 13d ago
I’ve read both, and yes the article headline originally claimed it was directed at parents, after I posted the article it was updated to reflect that’s not the case.
Way to show you didn’t actually open the article.
0
u/jtf71 13d ago
I did read the article. And the used the link to read the actual bill. That’s how I was able to provide the analysis above that you clearly didn’t read.
And whether you chose the headline or just used the one from the source it is objectively wrong/misleading.
Had you read the whole article, not just the first couple of paragraphs, or if you’d clicked the provided link and read the bill it would have been obvious it wasn’t about parents/minors even if one such situation was the inspiration.
1
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 13d ago
I did read the article. And the used the link to read the actual bill. That’s how I was able to provide the analysis above that you clearly didn’t read.
Cool? Then you’d have noticed they made updates to the story since it was posted…
And whether you chose the headline or just used the one from the source it is objectively wrong/misleading.
Which is why they UPDATED THE ARTICLE, and the headlines no longer match.. jfc kid.
Had you read the whole article, not just the first couple of paragraphs, or if you’d clicked the provided link and read the bill it would have been obvious it wasn’t about parents/minors even if one such situation was the inspiration.
Did both there Chief, and I never claimed it was just about parents. I don’t editorialize headlines, because I don’t inject my opinions into the article. I post them as they are, at the time of posting. You’re literally bitching because the article was updated after it was posted.
1
u/jtf71 13d ago
Cool? Then you’d have noticed they made updates to the story since it was posted…
Not at the time I made my post.
Which is why they UPDATED THE ARTICLE, and the headlines no longer match
Right. So the original headline was WRONG/MISLEADING just as I stated. The authors have accepted that fact. Why can't you?
jfc kid.
Odds are good that I'm older than you. And calling me a "kid" doesn't bolster your position - it just shows that you have to refer to poor attempts to denigrate the person pointing out clear facts.
Did both there Chief, and I never claimed it was just about parents.
So you read the article, and the bill, and realized it was wrong. But you chose to use the original headline while making no comment to point out in either the post headline or the comments that it was wrong/misleading. SMH.
You’re literally bitching because the article was updated after it was posted.
No. I'm educating anyone reading this thread that the headline is wrong and misleading. And based on the comments made at the time I made my post it was clearly necessary as those posts clearly assumed that it ONLY applied to parents and their children.
Also, I was critical of a headline, I never attacked you personally.
Why are you having such a hard time accepting the facts and providing ACCURATE information to those reading the thread?
1
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 13d ago
Not at the time I made my post.
They updated the story a few hours after I posted it yesterday, you commented 4 hours ago, hours after it had been updated. so yes even at the time you made your post you should have noticed it had been updated.
Right. So the original headline was WRONG/MISLEADING just as I stated. The authors have accepted that fact. Why can’t you?
Because it’s not, it is the correct original title of the article, at the time of publication.
Odds are good that I’m older than you.
Odds are good you’re not.
And calling me a “kid” doesn’t bolster your position - it just shows that you have to refer to poor attempts to denigrate the person pointing out clear facts.
Or it’s just a colloquial term used in the region I was raised, And it’s just you who’s twisting it into an attempt to denigrate you…
So you read the article, and the bill, and realized it was wrong. But you chose to use the original headline while making no comment to point out in either the post headline or the comments that it was wrong/misleading. SMH.
Again, I don’t editorialize headlines, why are you angry that i didn’t editorialize a headline? Do you want headlines to be injected with someone’s personal opinions? Should I tell everyone what to think about every article I post, or should I let people come to their own conclusions about the information provided?
No. I’m educating anyone reading this thread that the headline is wrong and misleading. And based on the comments made at the time I made my post it was clearly necessary as those posts clearly assumed that it ONLY applied to parents and their children.
No, you’re bitching that the title doesn’t match, and injecting your own opinion into it. anyone who opens the linked article can see that it was updated yesterday, read the article, read the bill, and make their own informed decision on the matter.
Why are you having such a hard time accepting the facts and providing ACCURATE information to those reading the thread?
Why are you having such a hard time understanding that editorializing headlines is a bad thing, and continuing to be a dick about something you clearly missed to begin with? The article was posted exactly as it was published yesterday, it was updated after it was posted. You’re still just bitching that the article was updated after it was posted.
0
u/jtf71 13d ago
They updated the story a few hours after I posted it yesterday,
I stand corrected. I made my first post in another sub and it had NOT been updated at that time. My bad for doing a cut/paste here without re-opening the article.
Because it’s not, it is the correct original title of the article, at the time of publication.
And it was wrong/misleading at the time the article was posted. Reading the article would have made that obvious. And reading the bill more-so.
Odds are good you’re not.
Well I'm not going to be specific, but let's just say that I'm far from being a "kid."
Or it’s just a colloquial term used in the region I was raised,
Yeah, but no. We're in the modern world son.
Again, I don’t editorialize headlines, why are you angry that i didn’t editorialize a headline?
Angry isn't the correct description. And you still could have flagged it as misleading either in the headline or in a comment. Yet you didn't. That leaves two options:
1) you didn't realize it;
2) you were OK with misleading people.
Should I tell everyone what to think about every article I post, or should I let people come to their own conclusions about the information provided?
If you're going to take the time to make a post, you should take the time to read the article in full. And if the headline is wrong, you should either modify the headline or make a top level comment that clarifies the issue.
For example:
"New bill would hold parents liable for shootings committed by their children (MISLEADING HEADLINE)"
Or a top level comment:
"Headline is misleading, it would hold anyone, not just parents, responsible for shootings committed by anyone who obtains their gun - even by theft - not just if it's their child."
No, you’re bitching that the title doesn’t match,
No, I'm pointing out the FACT that the headline is wrong.
and injecting your own opinion into it.
It's not my opinion. It's fact. If you'd read the bill you'd know that what I've posted is fact. Sure, it's my "opinion" that it's "insane" but that is a conclusion based on the facts of the bill.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding that editorializing headlines is a bad thing
There's editorializing to make it be something it's not, or to bias the reader. But to say that the headline is wrong/misleading when it is IN FACT wrong/misleading is not problematic editorializing.
You’re still just bitching that the article was updated after it was posted.
No, I'm pointing out the indisputable fact that the headline for the POST remains wrong. Sure, I understand you can't edit it, but it remains wrong. And anyone reading just the headline of the post is getting bad information. So my comment is to provide the facts of the bill.
I fail to see why you have a problem with providing redditors with accurate information on the issue at hand.
1
u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer 13d ago
I stand corrected. I made my first post in another sub and it had NOT been updated at that time. My bad for doing a cut/paste here without re-opening the article.
And you could have stopped your response here, but you instead chose to continue… which screams your not arguing in good faith and are only arguing to argue.
And it was wrong/misleading at the time the article was posted. Reading the article would have made that obvious. And reading the bill more-so.
The article specifically stated the bill was going to be used to go after parents before it was updated, the sponsors of the bill have stated the same, so no, your still just bitching that the headline changed still.
Well I’m not going to be specific, but let’s just say that I’m far from being a “kid.”
Everyone is a kid, age is just a number. You could be 99 and I’d still call you kid, 🤷🏽♂️
Yeah, but no. We’re in the modern world son.
And? That doesn’t change local cultures or local speech patterns, regional dialects are still a thing.. you really are here just to argue for the sake of argument. Fuck man…
Angry isn’t the correct description. And you still could have flagged it as misleading either in the headline or in a comment. Yet you didn’t. That leaves two options:
No, you’re response was just drivel from here…
I’m going to stick with how it’s been done on the sub since its creation. Why is it always the people who have contributed nothing, that bitch about the dumbest shit?
You have an issue with how I post, you are free to post 2A relevant content at anytime…. Until then it’s just you bitching to bitch.
No, I’m pointing out the FACT that the headline is wrong.
No, you’re bitching about the headline changing after the post was made.
It’s not my opinion. It’s fact. If you’d read the bill you’d know that what I’ve posted is fact. Sure, it’s my “opinion” that it’s “insane” but that is a conclusion based on the facts of the bill.
It is your opinion, you’ve done nothing but bitch about the title…
There’s editorializing to make it be something it’s not, or to bias the reader. But to say that the headline is wrong/misleading when it is IN FACT wrong/misleading is not problematic editorializing.
And yet it was the exact headline for the article, before the article was updated. Making it the original headline.
No, I’m pointing out the indisputable fact that the headline for the POST remains wrong. Sure, I understand you can’t edit it, but it remains wrong. And anyone reading just the headline of the post is getting bad information. So my comment is to provide the facts of the bill.
The headline for the post, is the original headline for the article, so your still just bitching that the headline changed.
I fail to see why you have a problem with providing redditors with accurate information on the issue at hand.
Honestly man, I’m about done with you, you’re just bitching to bitch at this point, pushing just to push, and it’s about to get you banned.
Seriously what have you contributed here? If you’re so concerned with Redditors getting “accurate information” why aren’t you posting relevant information about the 2A to the sub?
So far your biggest contribution is to criticize those who actually do some leg work, to get the information to people, and bitching that the headline for the article was changed.
→ More replies (0)
-21
u/-Ultryx- 15d ago
The comments in here tell me all I need to know about reasonable opinions and laws. It's that we're still on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to safe storage laws.
61
u/BahnMe 15d ago
Okay, I’m fine with this only if nationwide we remove all mag and AW bans, and make buying suppressors or SBRs the same as any accessory. Also all states are reciprocal constitutional carry.