Should Robert Drown Face Felony Charges (and Consequently Lose His Gun Rights)?

imported post

Should this man face felony charges and lose his gun rights for this incident?

(Multiple answers are allowed in this poll.)




Driver handling gun shoots himself

Car hits minivan and knocks down sign



By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff


January 04. 2007


A22-year-old Webster man accidentally shot himself yesterday as he dismantled his gun while driving down Loudon Road, the police said. In the process, Robert Drown also hit a minivan and toppled the sign at the 7-Eleven, according to a witness.

Drown was trying to place his gun in a safety mode when it went off, the police said. He was rushed to Concord Hospital with a serious gunshot wound to his thigh. He was listed in fair condition yesterday evening. The police said Drown was fortunate that he injured himself near a fire station and with an off-duty paramedic nearby.

The accident happened just before noon as Drown was headed west on Loudon Road, according to Maj. Robert Barry. When his gun went off, Drown veered off Loudon Road and over the lawn of the nearby 7-Eleven. Drown stopped only when he hit the store's sign, according to a witness. The impact toppled the sign onto Drown's vehicle.

"He never touched the brakes," said Jeremy Murphy, who witnessed the incident from the D'Angelo Sandwich Shop across the street, where he had just finished lunch with two friends.

While veering off Loudon Road, Drown also glanced a mini-van, Murphy said. Murphy and his friends initially thought the bang they heard was Drown hitting the minivan, but they realized later it was Drown's gun firing.




Shot driver accused of reckless conduct

Monitor staff

March 28. 2007


AWebster man who accidentally shot himself in January as he dismantled his gun while driving down Loudon Road has been indicted on reckless conduct charges.

Robert Drown, 22, of Battle Street, was hospitalized but is now recovering from his injuries. After he shot himself in the thigh, Drown lost control of his vehicle, hit a minivan and toppled the sign at the 7-Eleven on Loudon Road, witnesses told the police.

An indictment is a formal charge that allows the case to be scheduled for trial. Drown told the police that he was trying to put his .40-caliber Glock handgun in the safety mode while driving when it fired.

Drown could face 3½ to 7 years in prison if convicted and given the maximum sentence. As a convicted felon, he'd also be prohibited from possessing firearms.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/REPOSITORY/703280324

imported post

No. What's the point of making him a felon? I think he learned his lesson, no amount of jail time will help 'rehabilitate' him. Being stupid yes, felon, no.

imported post

I really like the last option , and I would vote for this one as well: "No, we shouldn't infringe his 2A rights just because he's stupid."

imported post

The last option should also include VPOTUS (Dick Cheney)

imported post

I think he should be charged with a crime, but not a felony. Reckless driving sounds about right.

imported post

I haven't seen this type of information in this forum yet, but it may already be out there. Perhaps the answer is to require potential owners pass a nationally recognized basic firearm safety and familiarization class prior to handing over said armament?

Shop Owner: So you want to buy a Glock Mr Jones? Ever handle one before?

Mr. Jones : No.

Shop Owner: Ever have any kind of training with fire arms that you can prove, vetern ID card etc?

Mr. Jones: No.

Shop Owner : Federal law requires you to watch this five minute video and go through a basic familiarity briefing with me prior to you walking out the door with your new purchase.

Mr. Jones: OK.

Why isn't it like that? We don't just hand over the keys to the car to our kids. They have to take a class and pass a test written and performance at the DMV.

imported post

Because the system we have has worked satisfactorly for 200+ years, and because you don't mandate training for rights.

imported post

Good point. Hadn't thought about that angle.

imported post

I agree this should not be a felony offence.

The problem with the society we live in everyone wants to fire/jail/hang everybody else for the smallest screw up (not that this is a small screw up). Accidents happen with cars, guns and anything else you can name. That is not to say there should be no accountability.

My brother often tells me "Stupid should be painfull." I think this qualifies.

imported post

I'm in favor of maximizing the jurisdiction held by individuals over themselves and their families, and minimizing the jurisdiction held by governments/institutions/others over us. Along those lines, I don't think ought have to pass a test to drive -- every man ought to decide for himself whether he will take the risks involved in driving.

This assumes, of course, that if he does someone harm he will be held accountable.

imported post

Nice work John. I was just about to violate some forum rules.

imported post

"trying to put is Glock in the safety mode."

am i missing something here? :question:

imported post

Ivoted for #7.

There is no way he should be charged as a felon or go to prison! All he should get is the exact same citation you would get for getting in a wreck after spilling hot coffee in your lap; it is really no different.

imported post

Or for whatever local laws he violated for discharging the weapon within city limits.

League - I'm not for putting tighter restrictions on gun ownership. The drivingexample is aninteresting one, and has just as many holes as not requiring basic classes and tests. We have classes and tests, but that doesn't prevent idiots from getting licenses, into accidents, and causing death etc. Personally when I was 11 it didn't stop me either, so I have to lump myself in the idot category for a minute, or an hour.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

<snip>
We have classes and tests, but that doesn't prevent idiots from getting licenses, into accidents, and causing death etc. <snip>

Click to expand...

Precisely. That's because the purpose of the licensing requirement is not to improve the quality of driving, but to generate revenue.

It's like the gun control people -- if they were really concerned about safety, they'd seek to ban cars, not guns.

imported post

30 cal slut wrote:

"trying to put is Glock in the safety mode."

am i missing something here? :question:

Click to expand...

Im in the same boat as you... what is 'safety mode' on a glock?? was he unloading or field-stripping??

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Or for whatever local laws he violated for discharging the weapon within city limits.

Click to expand...

An accident is an accident. He clearly didn't fire the gun on purpose, and he was the only person hurt; so,unless NH lawregarding accidental discharge is greatly different than that of VA law,I don't see thathe should be charged with anything related to the discharge of the gun.