NC Parents Charged After Son's Friend Accidentally Shoots Self

If you want unnecessary and additional clarification, lawmakers will add to the current laws. I guarantee those additions won't be 2a friendly so let's not ask for it when it's not needed.

I respectfully disagree. I believe as a member of our great forum that the legitimate questions I posed with regards to the law, a law I have seen on countless occasions while purchasing firearms, should be presented to other members for clarification because I didn't understand part of it or it's application to two different cases and certainly feel they are necessary.

That is one of the most important aspects of our forum, i.e, the sharing of our vast knowledge base amongst our members. I'm not an expert on the law and don't pretend to be. If I was, this thread wouldn't exist.
 
You know your kids. My parents trusted me hunting as a kid and I'm a huge proponent for starting them young, but that excludes a few of my young cousins...

Correct you are. I trust my 17 year old son more than most adults. He's been shooting firearms since he was 7.
 
I get context can get lost in writing but losing control is the reason why most "discussion" or debate is impossible. Losing control should be reserved for actual insults.

You will never witness me losing control on this forum.
 
@Qball may I flip the situations and ask how you would react? Assume that the parents were charged in both cases. Turns out that the facts are identical, the only difference is that in one case a kid accidentally killed himself and in the other a kid killed a bad guy. Please also assume that the judge allows the jury to hear evidence about this difference.

You are on the jury. Would you vote to convict the mother where the bad guy was killed by the minor? Even if yes, do you think you’re likely to get 11 other people to vote with you?

Bottom line, it would be unpopular to charge her, and she’d never be convicted, so why spend the taxpayer’s money?
 
@Qball may I flip the situations and ask how you would react? Assume that the parents were charged in both cases. Turns out that the facts are identical, the only difference is that in one case a kid accidentally killed himself and in the other a kid killed a bad guy. Please also assume that the judge allows the jury to hear evidence about this difference.

You are on the jury. Would you vote to convict the mother where the bad guy was killed by the minor? Even if yes, do you think you’re likely to get 11 other people to vote with you?

Bottom line, it would be unpopular to charge her, and she’d never be convicted, so why spend the taxpayer’s money?
Waste of time to charge the woman being beaten. Never, ever get a conviction. Bad guy got killed. Law applies to both but the circumstances dictate who gets charges. It’s silly law anyway. No need for the law. Common sense parenting and storage doesn’t need government intervention. Did we abolish parenting when the law was put into effect?
 
Waste of time to charge the woman being beaten. Never, ever get a conviction. Bad guy got killed. Law applies to both but the circumstances dictate who gets charges. It’s silly law anyway. No need for the law. Common sense parenting and storage doesn’t need government intervention. Did we abolish parenting when the law was put into effect?
Is the law that could have saved a kids life silly?
 
Is the law that could have saved a kids life silly?
Yes, that’s what parenting is for. Should we regulate life for a couple accidents for 330,000,000 people because some folks can’t get their act together? Should we take pain medication off the market because ignorant people abuse it? If I leave my medication in a bathroom cabinet and teenager wants to experiment with it should I go to prison? We as a nation must be too stupid to function.
 
Last edited:
@Qball may I flip the situations and ask how you would react? Assume that the parents were charged in both cases. Turns out that the facts are identical, the only difference is that in one case a kid accidentally killed himself and in the other a kid killed a bad guy. Please also assume that the judge allows the jury to hear evidence about this difference.

You are on the jury. Would you vote to convict the mother where the bad guy was killed by the minor? Even if yes, do you think you’re likely to get 11 other people to vote with you?

Bottom line, it would be unpopular to charge her, and she’d never be convicted, so why spend the taxpayer’s money?

I see your point. To answer your question, I'd vote "Not Guilty" in both cases.
 
If I understand all of this correctly, and for simplicity's sake, I'm talking about parents, all of us parents are violating the law if we leave a firearm unsecured when our minors are home alone.

However, we will not get punished for doing so if our minor has to use it in self-defense. We will get punished for doing so if our minor, even though the parent has no control over the actions of another minor visiting, inadvertently allows access of the firearm to the visiting friend, and a fatal ND occurs.

I guess it all goes back to which risk we are willing to accept: Risking our freedom to allow our children to defend themselves while home alone, or risking the lives of our children while they are home alone.
 
If I understand all of this correctly, and for simplicity's sake, I'm talking about parents, all of us parents are violating the law if we leave a firearm unsecured when our minors are home alone.

However, we will not get punished for doing so if our minor has to use it in self-defense. We will get punished for doing so if our minor, even though the parent has no control over the actions of another minor visiting, inadvertently allows access of the firearm to the visiting friend, and a fatal ND occurs.

I guess it all goes back to which risk we are willing to accept: Risking our freedom to allow our children to defend themselves while home alone, or risking the lives of our children while they are home alone.

Not exactly. What if you are a pastey white NRA member that kills a black burglar in your home in a predominantly black/urban area? Or vice versa. The mob, DA and prevailing politcal climate will likely dictate what happens. The local PD and DA make the call. And as we have seen written law doesn't really matter.
 
Trust me. I don't think you are being a pain. I started this thread to get information. The two parents were charged with manslaughter. Is that a Class 1 misdemeanor? I really don't know that's why I'm asking.

I've seen and read this law countless times. I'll log on to the state's website and see if I can take a closer look. Thanks.

Google tells me that even involuntary manslaughter (often used for accidental highway deaths for the person at fault, and it might apply similarly here) is a felony so the manslaughter charge is certainly a felony. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that it is being added on as a separate charge from the class 1 misdemeanor for letting a minor have access and things go wrong. When 2 people rob a store, and one shoots the clerk, the _other_ can still be charged with murder. Even if the other robber gets shot by the shopkeeper, the other robber can be charged for that death. So I would bet that this is just a DA piling on another charge using similar reasoning. I have no idea if it common/unique, or whether it will stick. It's probably there just to get the parents to settle and admit guilt, like most charges are. Scare people into admitting guilt and giving up a jury trial.

We'll see how many emails and mails I get for ambulance chaser and defense lawyers now that I googled that...
 
If I understand all of this correctly, and for simplicity's sake, I'm talking about parents, all of us parents are violating the law if we leave a firearm unsecured when our minors are home alone.

However, we will not get punished for doing so if our minor has to use it in self-defense. We will get punished for doing so if our minor, even though the parent has no control over the actions of another minor visiting, inadvertently allows access of the firearm to the visiting friend, and a fatal ND occurs.

I guess it all goes back to which risk we are willing to accept: Risking our freedom to allow our children to defend themselves while home alone, or risking the lives of our children while they are home alone.
Exactly
 
Yes, that’s what parenting is for. Should we regulate life for a couple accidents for 330,000,000 people because some folks can’t get their act together? Should we take pain medication off the market because ignorant people abuse it? If I leave my medication in a bathroom cabinet and teenager wants to experiment with it should I go to prison? We as a nation must be too stupid to function.
I cant argue a single point you just made. Should we make a law that people become good and effective parents?
 
Guys, even you @J R Green :D, I appreciate the feedback and the information.

Until reading about these two cases, I never really compared the two scenarios and discovered that I really didn't understand how the law applied in two cases like those outlined in both threads.

I figured it would be more black and white or cut and dried. I reckon that's not the case. It did make for an interesting discussion. Again, I appreciate everyone's feedback and comments.
 
Last edited:
Guys, even you @J R Green :D, I appreciate the feedback and the information.

Until reading about these two cases, I never really compared the two scenarios and discovered that I really didn't understand how the law applied in two cases like those outlined in both threads.

I figured it would be more black and white or cut and dried. I reckon that's not the case. It did make for an interesting discussion. Again, I appreciate everyone's feedback and comments.
The world isn't black and white. When it comes to anything legal related remember the term "Totality of circumstances"
 
I figured it would be more black and white or cut and dried. I reckon that's not the case. It did make for an interesting discussion. Again, I appreciate everyone's feedback and comments.

The law is specific if you sort out its parts:
Any person who {A} resides in the same premises as a minor, {B} owns or possesses a firearm, and {C} stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a {D} condition that the firearm can be discharged and (ii) in a {E} manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is {P} guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if a minor {F} gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor:
(1) {G} Possesses it in violation of G.S. 14-269.2(b);
(2) {H} Exhibits it in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner;
(3) {I} Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense; or
(4) {J} Uses it in the commission of a crime.
IF A, B, C, D, E and F
AND IF G, H, I or J
THEN offense with penalty P
ELSE no offense

If all of the first six conditions are met and any one of the last four conditions are met, a crime has been committed. If those conditions are not met, no crime has been committed.
 
From the law printed above:

...if a minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor:

...(3) Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense;

I'm not sure how the mom of the girl who shot her mom's attacker was in violation of this law.
 
The law is specific if you sort out its parts:

IF A, B, C, D, E and F
AND IF G, H, I or J
THEN offense with penalty P
ELSE no offense

If all of the first six conditions are met and any one of the last four conditions are met, a crime has been committed. If those conditions are not met, no crime has been committed.

That's kind of what I was getting at before. To be more technical, the law has a cascade of tests in place.

Bottom line, keep fingers off the trigger unless shooting. Never point guns at anything that isn't supposed to be shot at. That is the difference between the 2 cases.
 
Gotta wonder what would happen if a “youth” would be visiting a friends house, find some prescription drug while snooping thru the parents medicine cabinet, taken some and OD. Would the resulting death be criminalized to the same extent as a firearm? Hmmmm ... Now if it were say Percocet or other opioid things might be more severe since the media blast on the opioid epidemic but still the very basic premise that the parents didn’t secure a potentially deadly item that resulted in a kid who was snooping where he shouldn’t be dying.

I see things like this as somewhat a failure of parents who do not teach their kids basic safety and common sense things. I grew up with so many things that were dangerous from agricultural stuff (herbicides ... pesticides ... farm implements ... ect) to funny stuff (BB guns ... bow & arrow ... lawn darts ... 3 wheeler ... etc) and a whole lot of other stuff that would make Social Services cringe. The thing is my Dad and Grandpa taught about how dangerous things were, how to respect and use them correctly and safely. Sure we still did some stupid stuff but back then it was not the item’s fault it was the stupid kid’s.

Today most parents take little time to even explain the slightest things to kids ... either they’re to busy or don’t know stuff themselves. The smarter society gets the dumber people become ...
 
I'm not sure how the mom of the girl who shot her mom's attacker was in violation of this law.

The mom in that case was not in violation of the law and "The District Attorney's Office determined -- based on the facts and evidence from the case -- that the shooting was justified and said no charges would be filed."

In that case, the girl did not satisfy any one of the last four conditions of the law; she did not have the gun at a school, she was not brandishing the gun in public, she did not use the gun to commit a crime, or she did not shoot someone except in self defense.
 
The mom in that case was not in violation of the law and "The District Attorney's Office determined -- based on the facts and evidence from the case -- that the shooting was justified and said no charges would be filed."

In that case, the girl did not satisfy any one of the last four conditions of the law; she did not have the gun at a school, she was not brandishing the gun in public, she did not use the gun to commit a crime, or she did not shoot someone except in self defense.

Yep. I understand it much better now. I know this thread probably seems kind of weird coming from a long time gun owner/member of this forum and previous related forums, but I honestly never thought about how the law is applied in different circumstances. I always thought that it was a violation of the law period if a minor under the age of 18 had unsupervised access to a firearm regardless of the situation, except for hunting of course. The two cases discussed are why I started the thread in order to clear it up for myself. I appreciate the education again folks.
 
... I know this thread probably seems kind of weird coming from a long time gun owner/member of this forum ...

You posed an excellent question and it was certainly not weird to do so. We should never hesitate to question and discuss gun laws, which are often more complex than they appear on the surface. For my part, I have even contacted legislators who sponsored gun laws to find out exactly what they were trying to achieve with the law and how it was intended to operate.
 
Last edited:
§ 14-315.1. Storage of firearms to protect minors.
(a) Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and..

This is the puzzle part for me. If the firearm isn't loaded, how can it be in a condition for it to be discharged?

Typical NC law that's so vague... What does the law actually mean??
 
Last edited:
Yes, that’s what parenting is for. Should we regulate life for a couple accidents for 330,000,000 people because some folks can’t get their act together? Should we take pain medication off the market because ignorant people abuse it? If I leave my medication in a bathroom cabinet and teenager wants to experiment with it should I go to prison? We as a nation must be too stupid to function.

There is a line, a line we (voters, society, etc.) need to figure out where to draw: Should we regulate life for seatbelts? Smoking? Drinking? Drinking and driving? The list goes on. Certainly parenting impacts every single one of these issues, but good parenting will not mitigate every single action.
 
This is the puzzle part for me. If the firearm isn't loaded, how can it be in a condition for it to be discharged?

Typical NC law that's so vague... What does the law actually mean??

In State v. Lewis (COA12-100), the NC Court of Appeals stated.
Lastly, defendant does not dispute that the gun was “in a condition that the firearm can be discharged” as the handgun was loaded and was not secured by any type of safety mechanism, satisfying the first portion of the third element of improper storage.
State v. Lewis is particularly relevant because it deals with charges of improper storage of a firearm and involuntary manslaughter resulting from a three-year-old child who shot and killed himself.
 
So... The law only specifies "loaded" guns?

I'm just trying to get to the specifics. Can one leave an unloaded gun around?
 
Last edited:
So... The law only specifies "loaded" guns?

I'm just trying to get to the specifics. Can one leave an unloaded gun around?

Not being flippant, but is there any way to discharge an unloaded gun?

One aspect of this is that it seems quite possible to comply with the technical requirements of the storage law and still potentially be guilty of negligence that could lead to an involuntary manslaughter charge.

For example, an unloaded pistol with the slide locked back and a loaded magazine beside it might meet the specific technical requirements of the storage law, but it would be hard to argue that it was not negligent to leave such a gun and magazine on a den table with unsupervised kids present.
 
Last edited:
... The mob, DA and prevailing politcal climate will likely dictate what happens. The local PD and DA make the call. And as we have seen written law doesn't really matter.

^IMO, this. I think of law as more of an art than a science. Similar facts/situations will get you different results in different jurisdictions. We've seen examples of people who cross into NJ with an otherwise legal handgun get charged, but then maybe having the charges dropped based on public backlash. We've also seen a woman in Chicago who knowingly purchased a handgun for a gang member, have said firearm be used in a murder, then the woman getting off with probation.

Written law matters for how you frame your defense. The easiest defense is to keep your stuff away from where minors can get it. If the bad guy gets access to that gun, drops it, and THEN the minor uses it to defend the household do the storage charges apply? Can the prosecution prove that isn't what happened? Do they want the public political backlash that comes with charging the parents, or do they want the political backlash for not charging the parents?

/YMMV
//Not a lawyer nor even a legal scholar.
///Did not even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
Last edited:
One of America's great firearms instructors says, "The law is whatever an attorney can convince a jury of."

This too! See for example the recent ruling that Roundup caused cancer in a groundskeeper, even though there is little to no science backing it up.
 
Not being flippant, but is there any way to discharge an unloaded gun?

One aspect of this is that it is quite possible to comply with the technical requirements of the storage law and still potentially be guilty of negligence that could lead to an involuntary manslaughter charge.

For example, a pistol with the slide locked back and a loaded magazine beside it might meet the specific technical requirements of the storage law, but it would be hard to argue that such a gun and magazine left on a den table with unsupervised kids present was not negligent.

I understand, I'm just getting to specifics. This is only about how the law was written. What I'm getting at is how could one be charged with breaking that particular law. What you proposed is that everything is available, without further assembly, to discharge. I would say that in that case, it's not good for the defendant, as all one has to do is configure, not assemble.

What about an unloaded revolver, no bullets? Or, a pistol with no magazine?

What is the defense in those two cases as that law is written?
 
Last edited:
This too! See for example the recent ruling that Roundup caused cancer in a groundskeeper, even though there is little to no science backing it up.

Yet Monsanto uses Roundup specifically. Monsanto even GMO their seeds to be resistant to that chemical. This opens up a whole thread in itself...
 
I understand, I'm just getting to specifics. This is only about how the law was written. What I'm getting at is how could one be charged with breaking that particular law. What you proposed is that everything is available, without further assembly, to discharge. I would say that in that case, it's not good, as all one has to do is configure, not assemble.

What about an unloaded revolver, no bullets? Or, a pistol with no magazine?

What is the defense in those two cases as that law is written?

The law says "in a condition that the firearm can be discharged" - not "in a condition that the firearm can be discharged after some assembly or configuration."

{back from carrying my grandchild somewhere :)}

Words used in laws are assumed to have their normal meanings. Starting at the easy end of the spectrum, a gun that was detailed stripped and the parts all in a baggie would clearly not be "in a condition that the firearm can be discharged." At the other end of the spectrum, a pistol with a round in the chamber and only needing the trigger to be pressed would easily fit the meaning.

But what about a pistol with a chambered round and a manual safety engaged or a pistol containing a loaded magazine but no round chambered? In either of those cases a shot could be fired with only two simple actions. In such close situations, it is often much as @BatteryOaksBilly quoted - "The law is whatever an attorney can convince a jury of."
 
Last edited:
This is the puzzle part for me. If the firearm isn't loaded, how can it be in a condition for it to be discharged?

Typical NC law that's so vague... What does the law actually mean??
This could mean only that the firearm was operable. Not deactivated.
 
This is the whole Law vs. Spirit of the Law debate. Notice you don't often see minors or their parents charged with a crime when the firearm is used for lawful defense even in states that it is illegal for a firearm to be accessible to a minor.

Typically in CJ classes they will debate this subject with the whole "mother that steals food for starving children" which can get me pretty heated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom