Couple Charged because son stole unsecured gun . . .

I actually think this seems an appropriate charge.


From the article:
Authorities say Joshua's parents, Dale Owen, 62, and Tamara Owen 48, could have stopped the incident from occurring because they were aware their son had mental health issues and had been warned a year prior that the teenager was considering shooting up his school.

and

In March 2018, Joshua sent a text to his ex-girlfriend that read, "Ever since my dad got a gun from his friend something tells me I should shoot up my school and I don't want to but I keep fighting it."

The girl showed the message to school officials, her mother filed a police report, and an investigation was launched.
 
Last edited:
That sucks for all.
"Authorities say Joshua's parents, Dale Owen, 62, and Tamara Owen 48, could have stopped the incident from occurring because they were aware their son had mental health issues and had been warned a year prior that the teenager was considering shooting up his school."
They had no excuse to, at a minimum, not have a locked pistol safe.
 
I wasn't able to get the story to load, but I think the charges are appropriate. They had reason to believe their son was a potential threat and did nothing to mitigate the issue. Locking up or restricting access to firearms for minors is a pretty universally accepted norm. >THESE< types of gun laws I actually agree with. When people willfully and ignorantly use their firearms in a manner that is dangerous to others.

Now, if the son had broken into a lock box, or a safe, then I feel the parents did all they could and I have no issues with them.

Note: Before people bust in with how their <18 year olds have access to firearms 24/7, good for you...But your kids aren't showing major signs of mental illness and texting people about shooting up a school.
 
You all know me and my stance on the state doing more or less ANYTHING, but charges seem to be entirely justified in this case. My girlfriends kids are some of the most cheerful and stable teens I've ever met and there's no way I'd leave a firearm where they could access it. Never mind if they had made prior threats!

Negligence pure and simple.
 
There's no excuse. Even though New Mexico doesn't require locking up of firearms, the parents had a duty to deny the kid of the means to shoot up the school since he showed the possible intent to carry it out.

I'm just glad nobody got hurt because of the parents' negligence.
 
Considering the kid's mental health issues, and that the parents had been warned that he'd made threats/talked about shooting up the school, leaving their gun accessible to him was a very foolish choice.

Given the circumstances, I think the charges are appropriate.

Now if they'd had it in a safe, and the kid had pried it open with a crowbar, I'd say the parents shouldn't be charged at all.
 
Even if they had locked up the gun I bet the kid could have gotten hold of something else. Axe, filet knife, machete, tire iron, sharpened stick.
True, but that's on him and then the parents haven't participated in the problem. I think this falls under Contributory Negligence. I had this used in a traffic accident case once. I was in an intersection, technically in the wrong. But, the other driver had time and opportunity to stop, but didn't and struck my car. They sued, my lawyer had it thrown out on Contributory Negligence.
Even without the threats, kids are kids and do stupid $hit. And if not yours, maybe visiting kids. Maintain control of your guns. I'm hoping a side benefit will be that more parents take notice.
 
Last edited:
I had this used in a traffic accident case once. I was in an intersection, technically in the wrong. But, the other driver had time and opportunity to stop, but didn't and struck my car. They sued, my lawyer had it thrown out on Contributory Negligence.
On the surface that sounds more sketchy than the original story.

I wonder how throwing charges at the parents (after his failed attempt) prevented his school shooting any better than if the cops and DA would have dealt with the mental kid the first time he was reported and investigated?
 
I wonder how throwing charges at the parents (after his failed attempt) prevented his school shooting any better than if the cops and DA would have dealt with the mental kid the first time he was reported and investigated?
It serves as a reminder to others not to leave their guns accessible to kids.

No harm, no foul doesn't really work when the potential consequences are this serious.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, based solely on the fact that they had been warned that their son had threatened to shoot up his school I think the charges maybe, and I repeat maybe warranted.

The reason I have an issue with the charges is two fold. Part one is this will give a legal precedent for courts to charge any parent with a felony even if the gun is "Secured". It ain't exactly hard to cut a cable lock. Most of them can be cut with a pair of scissors and a hammer. The parents should have done a better job of securing the gun..........

Secondly, if he had threatened to blow up the school should they be charged if they didn't lock up the fertilizer and sell their TDI Jetta because that gave their son easy access to bomb making materials?

So those are my concerns for the charge against the parents and based on history I don't think they are unwarranted.
 
This story says zero about what the parents did or didn’t do with this firearm. All it says is the word “secured” a few times. What does that mean? It depends on who you ask! There’s got to be more here, as there is with any story and the devil’s in the details. I think it’s a stretch for the state to charge, especially with no law requiring “securing” a firearm.

Also, I think this tag line is hilarious...”Authorities say the couple had a duty to secure their firearm but failed to do so”. “Authorities say”...”couple had a DUTY”...”secure”...
 
Last edited:
Another reason to not have children.

Thankless little killers.

Ha, first thing I thought when reading this was: That sounds like the wife or other significant has recently said....."Let's talk about having kids".
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
Reminds me of the four Columbine parents who said they had no idea their high school boys were building bombs in their bedrooms and amassing a hoard of weapons. Parents even discovered one of the pipe bombs in the boys bedroom and still did nothing.Parents were not charged criminally, but they had to pay out a large civil settlement.
 
Another reason to not have children.

Thankless little killers.

They are just like dogs. They can be vicious little critters if you train them that way. Or they can fill your life with greatness. It’s all how you treat them when they are young. Mine are better humans than me. Although there is still work to do on the little one. She can be a bit cruel and selfish at times. But she’s 12. There is time.
 
Seems fitting. If you have guns and kids in your home, you are 100% responsible for securing them or at least TRYING.
 
The reason I have an issue with the charges is two fold. Part one is this will give a legal precedent for courts to charge any parent with a felony even if the gun is "Secured". It ain't exactly hard to cut a cable lock. Most of them can be cut with a pair of scissors and a hammer. The parents should have done a better job of securing the gun..........
Agreed. I could see the slippery slope argument here. Where does the line get drawn?

The duty argument also gets dubious in that while they may have had a duty, how does one legislate that concept? One of the real problems I see in society today is the increasing trend to try and replace what should be common sense and responsibility with government regulation and legislation.
It serves as a reminder to others not to leave their guns accessible to kids.
If this worked there would be no crime anymore because everyone would have learned from the previous example. This is the sort of reasoning that makes me adopt the stance of “the system” can go pound sand.
 
Last edited:
Who determines what method meets the standard for securing a weapon? Is a trigger lock ok? Locked door and gun is safely behind it? Short of a gun safe but even then access by key can be made on most locks.

I do agree if you know you have a troubled teen then extra steps should be taken for the mentally ill. As a parent letting your kid play video games of death and destruction is nurturing the next mass shooter. Cartoons and video games have replaced parenting, that I know for certain.
 
Who determines what method meets the standard for securing a weapon? Is a trigger lock ok? Locked door and gun is safely behind it? Short of a gun safe but even then access by key can be made on most locks.

I do agree if you know you have a troubled teen then extra steps should be taken for the mentally ill. As a parent letting your kid play video games of death and destruction is nurturing the next mass shooter. Cartoons and video games have replaced parenting, that I know for certain.

In NC there is no hard and fast laws on the hardware or tactics involved in “securing” a firearm, it speaks more to the “reasonableness” of it being secured. Which as it stands I am a fan of. I don’t want the law dictating safes, trigger locks, gun cabinets, or underwear drawer. The duty of a prosecutor would be to show that the firearm was left in a functional condition in a manner known to the adult in which a minor could reasonably gain access.

I prefer the law to be ambiguous because it makes the states burden of proof much broader.

2e7434bb974a1392a3eb3e570675fed6.jpg





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In NC there is no hard and fast laws on the hardware or tactics involved in “securing” a firearm, it speaks more to the “reasonableness” of it being secured. Which as it stands I am a fan of. I don’t want the law dictating safes, trigger locks, gun cabinets, or underwear drawer. The duty of a prosecutor would be to show that the firearm was left in a functional condition in a manner known to the adult in which a minor could reasonably gain access.

I prefer the law to be ambiguous because it makes the states burden of proof much broader.
Too much gray area for me. Even if you don't have kids, it is reasonable to believe that a minor can break into your locked house...then what? When it comes to punishing gun owners things usually get unreasonable.

I know that NC law specifies "if you reside with a minor"...but I am thinking ahead. This is silimar to being responsible for the injuries of trespassers if your property is "unsafe" or "tempting" as in having visible swimming pools or a motocross track.

Here is an article slanted towards shifting the blame for violent crime to evil gun owners who have their guns stolen.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/na...om-Legal-Owners-Is-On-The-Rise-458307963.html
 
Last edited:
Too much gray area for me. Even if you don't have kids, it is reasonable to believe that a minor can break into your locked house...then what? When it comes to punishing gun owners things usually get unreasonable.

I know that NC law specifies "if you reside with a minor"...but I am thinking ahead. This is silimar to being responsible for the injuries of trespassers if your property is "unsafe" or "tempting" as in having visible swimming pools or a motocross track.

Here is an article slanted towards shifting the blame for violent crime to evil gun owners who have their guns stolen.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/na...om-Legal-Owners-Is-On-The-Rise-458307963.html

That’s where we will differ. I don’t want the government telling me I have to have a specific type of safe, a specific location for the safe, all firearms secured with a key lock.

The breaking in thing doesn’t apply as you have no duty to secure your firearms from criminals, just minors you reside with.

What you describe is the “attractive nuisance” law and they have nearly the same level of “reasonableness” that needs to be met. Using fences, hedges, locks, signs, something that shows you are making an attempt to secure the item.

In short, the less the government specified the more gray area my attorney can use to defend me AND the more broad the case the prosecutor has to find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It doesn't apply now, but they are working on it.

I see your point and not saying you are wrong...I just know gray area can go both ways especially when "reasonable" is the measure.
 
Won't form any opinion until we know how the gun was stored. Remember the killer of Sandyhook, killed his mother and broke into her safe to get the guns.

CD
 
Back
Top Bottom