- cross-posted to:
- texas
- cross-posted to:
- texas
Brandon O’Quinn Rasberry, 32, was shot in the head in 2022 while he slept at an RV park in Nixon, Texas, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of San Antonio, investigators said. He had just moved in a few days before.
The boy’s possible connection to the case was uncovered after sheriff’s deputies were contacted on April 12 of this year about a student who threatened to assault and kill another student on a school bus. They learned the boy had made previous statements that he had killed someone two years ago.
The boy was taken to a child advocacy center, where he described for interviewers details of Rasberry’s death “consistent with first-hand knowledge” of the crime, investigators said.
In Texas?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
“IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM.”
But then:
“(3) ‘Secure’ means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.”
So, placing the gun in a locked glovebox in a locked car would be securing it as far as Texas is concerned.
Further:
"(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
© It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child’s access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or"
So under c3 - The kid stealing the keys and getting the gun anyway would seem to exonerate grand dad.
If I put a gun in a safe and keep the key readily available to anyone, it’s not safely stored.
“Take steps a resonable person would take.”
That’s a low bar.
Yeah, and a reasonable person would realize that putting it in a vehicle the kid can easily unlock isn’t safe, if that’s how they wanted to store their firearm they should have kept the key in their bedside table during the night, like they would if it had been stored in an actual gun safe.
‘Reasonable’ is decided by a jury, ultimately. You can argue all you want, but this happened in Texas. Good luck convincing a jury the grandfather was unreasonable when half of them likely don’t even lock up their guns.
Yeah pretty sure c3 applies when the kid is trespassing on the property. He was staying there.
There is no way that gramps can’t be charged for doing exactly that.
According to 46.13. (e) it is only a class A misdemeanor however. IMO this should be treated as a felony.
“would gain access” not “could gain access”.
Which of these apply to the situation needs to be decided by a court, right?
Let’s try a different situation: the loaded gun is locked up in a cupboard. The child knows about the gun and the key. The key is easily accessible to the child.
Do you think the law applies in this case?
The way the law defines secured, that would be secured. If the law did not define secured, maybe not.
The law defines secure as follows:
46.13 3)
“Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
How do you see the described situation matching that description?
The container is locked, which is explicitly described as secured. How easy the lock is defeated is not mentioned.
How is that a step a reasonable person would take?
And how would that be a reasonable interpretation of the law?
Because it’s explicitly included in the definition as a step a reasonable person would take. It’s not the only step they may take (maybe they hide it instead), but the law is written to be that permissive.
They did not have to add that definition when they passed the bill. They did it to make the law more permissive as to what “secured” meant.