imported post
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
rpyne wrote:
Unfortunately, I could see them charging the mother with providing a handgun to a minor
76-10-509.4. Prohibition of possession of certain weapons by minors.
(1) A minor under 18 years of age may not possess a handgun.
(2) Except as provided by federal law, a minor under 18 years of age may not possess the following:
(a) a sawed-off rifle or sawed-off shotgun; or
(b) a fully automatic weapon.
(3) Any person who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor upon the first offense; and
(b) a class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.
(4) Any person who violates Subsection (2) is guilty of a third degree felony.
76-10-509.5. Penalties for providing certain weapons to a minor.
(1) Any person who provides a handgun to a minor when the possession of the handgun by the minor is a violation of Section 76-10-509.4 is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor upon the first offense; and
(b) a class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.
(2) Any person who transfers in violation of applicable state or federal law a sawed-off rifle, sawed-off shotgun, or fully automatic weapon to a minor is guilty of a third degree felony.
or possibly reckless endangerment.
76-5-112. Reckless endangerment -- Penalty.
(1) A person commits reckless endangerment if, under circumstances not amounting to a felony offense, the person recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.
(2) Reckless endangerment is a class A misdemeanor.
LOL, I'm glad you aren't a lawyer because your interpretation of those two statutes is wayyyy off on this one. Sorry, but take this as polite constructive criticism, aight?
Kevin
I may not be lawyer, but I do know enough of them to have a fair understanding of how they think. I have also spent a considerable amount of time reading and studying laws and court cases.
There was no "interpretation" involved, it is simple reading. This may not be what the legislature intended when these statues were passed, but that has never stopped an attorney from using (or twisting) the plain language of the law.
It is entirely possible that an over zealous anti-gun prosecutor could and would charge the mother under either of the quoted statutes.
76-10-509.4(1) clearly states that it was illegal for the child to possess the handgun, so the child could be charged. 76-10-509.5(1) clearly states the the person providing that firearm can be charges. There is nothing in the law that says providing the firearm must be intentional. It can be argued that leaving the firearm where it can be accessed by a minor is "providing".
It is quite easy to argue that leaving a handgun where a child can access it is reckless conduct and leaving that handgun loaded creates substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to a child who picks it up.