Owner of Gun Used in Murder Fined - UK

[Pert_UK]

"A 61-year-old farmer whose gun was used in a murder has been found guilty of failing to comply with the conditions of a shotgun certificate.

Magistrates in Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, west Wales, fined John Bruce, of Danyrallt Lodge, Llangadog, £500 with costs and confiscated the gun, after deciding he had failed to keep the firearm secure.

He had left the single barrelled gun out of its cabinet in his bedroom. He said he left it unattended at home for just three hours. The keys to his front door were in an unlocked porch...

The court heard on Monday how Bruce's friend William Davies took the gun and used it to kill Llangadog pub landlady Caroline Evans in February. Mr Davies then turned the gun on himself."

Full article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3090806.stm

[Spentastic]

1. Hmm I note

Murderer didn't decide to go and get a hammer, car, fluffy pillow or attempt to carry a bath full of water to the pub.

Seems about right to me. Can't follow the rules, can't be trusted to have a gun.

[MrBenchley]

2. Don't forget staircases...

Meanwhile, here in the states you'll notice there was only a slap on the wrist for these two punks and no penalty at all for the adults who armed them...another RKBA "victory."

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/US/GMA030905Grand_theft_murders.html

[-..__...]

8. Hmmmmm....

When I posted that article a few days ago you were uncharacteristicly silent. You ignored the deeper issues
I asked about and now choose to focus on the "Punks" use of firearms instead. Why is that?

Ohhh, never mind... we already know the answer.

[iverglas]

3. Canadian version

The handgun that was stolen from a private home in an upscale neighbourhood, by four teenagers who used it to shoot and kill a visiting Brit engineer on a downtown street in Canada's capital city, as they drove around in a stolen car randomly shooting at people and things, had been illegally stored as well. (I assume that it was legally owned for some reason; this was 1994, I think.) No charge was ever laid against the owner.

Laws that aren't enforced may as well not be written.

[slackmaster]

4. Excellent comment, I agree with you completely

iverglas wrote:

"...No charge was ever laid against the owner.

Laws that aren't enforced may as well not be written."

You are absolutely right.

Here in the USA we have a law that prohibits possession of a firearm by someone who is the subject of a restraining order pursuant to a claim of domestic violence. Last week right here in San Diego, California a man who was restrained under such an order shot and killed his own 14-year-old son, who was a pawn in a custody dispute between the man and the boy's mother.

The killer owned three handguns. He used one of them to murder his son.

The courts knew about the guns because the boy's mother mentioned them in her affidavit in support of the restraining order. The police knew about the handguns because we have handgun registration in California. But when the RO was issued nobody made any effort to ensure that the man complied with the order. Nobody made him account for his registered handguns. Nobody went to his house to seize the guns AND ARREST HIM for violating the court order. If that man had been in jail where he belonged, the boy would probably still be alive today.

California also has a "Child Access Prevention" or CAP law. Unlike gun storage laws in Canada and the UK it does not dictate specifically how a gun must be stored, but it creates criminal liability for the owner of a gun in the event someone under 16 (IIRC) gets the gun and someone is injured or killed as a result. That law is rarely enforced. Charles "Andy" Williams, perpetrator of the Santana High School shooting, took that gun from his father's bedroom. The gun was not locked up, but Williams' father has not been prosecuted.

[iverglas]

5. okay then!

I don't want to assume anything from what you wrote, so let me ask first before proceeding further.

"Here in the USA we have a law that prohibits possession of a firearm by someone who is the subject of a restraining order pursuant to a claim of domestic violence. ... The police knew about the handguns because we have handgun registration in California. But when the RO was issued nobody made any effort to ensure that the man complied with the order. Nobody made him account for his registered handguns. Nobody went to his house to seize the guns AND ARREST HIM for violating the court order. If that man had been in jail where he belonged, the boy would probably still be alive today."

Since you say that he "belonged" in jail, I'm tending toward assuming that

- you agree that his firearm should have been registered

- you agree that firearms should be confiscated from people who are under restraining orders (which aren't issued unless there are reasonable grounds to fear that they will do harm).

After all, if you agree with the confiscation part of it, you'd pretty much logically need to agree with the registration part of it, since it's difficult to enforce confiscation if no one knows about the thing that needs to be confiscated.

Some minimum common ground from which to start and then identify divergences?


"California also has a "Child Access Prevention" or CAP law. Unlike gun storage laws in Canada and the UK it does not dictate specifically how a gun must be stored, but it creates criminal liability for the owner of a gun in the event someone under 16 (IIRC) gets the gun and someone is injured or killed as a result. That law is rarely enforced."

That one strikes me as pretty pointless finger-pointing. It can only be enforced once something bad has happened. Kinda like only charging people with "dangerous driving", say, in the event they actually cause an accident.

We prohibit, and charge people with, driving dangerously even if no accident happens and even if no one is hurt if an accident does happen. I don't know why dealing dangerously with firearms (e.g. not storing them safely and securely) would look much different.

.

[slackmaster]

6. I'm talking about enforcement or lack thereof

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

- you agree that his firearm should have been registered

Handgun registration in California is a fact. Personally I don't like it but so far it has not been abused to infringe my RKBA.

My agenda in mentioning it is that A) Most people are not aware of that fact and B) Gun registration is not a cure-all for violent crime, especially when it is not used to disarm people who obviously should not be armed. The problem is not limited to restraining orders. There is no system in place to confiscate handguns from people who get convicted of felonies.

Police find the gun registry useful in that when they pull over a car or go to someone's house they always know whether or not the person who owns the car or house also owns registered handguns.

The registry is not complete BTW. I own at least one pre-1968 handgun and a homebuilt one that are not known to the state (both are perfectly legal). But the guns owned by the guy who shot his son were certainly known to the court that issued the RO.

- you agree that firearms should be confiscated from people who are under restraining orders (which aren't issued unless there are reasonable grounds to fear that they will do harm).

No I do not, and here's why:

The courts will issue a temporary RO free of charge to anyone who wants one, as long as the subject of the RO has a close relationship (spouse, family member, roommate, lover, etc.) to the person requesting it. They are often sought out of spite and do not necessarily mean that the subject represents a real threat to the person seeking an order. I almost got one when I broke up with my psychotic girlfriend in May. She had made only vague threats like "I will ruin your life", but her harassment by phone and email would have been sufficient grounds for a permanent RO. (A temporary one lasts 30 days and is followed by a hearing to determine whether or not a permanent RO shall be issued.) If she did own guns I would not have been made any safer (or made to feeeeeeeeeeeel any safer) by disarming her because she is simply not dangerous in that way. One of the reasons I did not get an RO is that she might have gotten one against me as revenge. Getting the guns out of my house would be a major pain in the ass, but I would have done it. (I would have moved them to a friend's house until the RO expired.)

I think the requirement on a temporary RO to dispose of firearms is overkill. It should be imposed only when there is a physical threat. Right now it's a blanket requirement, and that has passed a test of constitutionality in the federal courts. So I disagree with it, but it is the law and should be enforced.

There should be a system in place to ensure that people under an RO comply with the law. They should be made to account for their weapons. Confiscation should be a last resort. Because a large number of ROs are issued every day, enforcement would have to be focused on the highest risk cases like the guy who killed his son. He had threatened the boy and his mother. Without some kind of followup it's just another "honor system", and the RO is nothing but a piece of paper. It provides no real protection.

(California's CAP law) strikes me as pretty pointless finger-pointing. It can only be enforced once something bad has happened. Kinda like only charging people with "dangerous driving", say, in the event they actually cause an accident.

The purpose of the law is to encourage people to store their guns responsibly. Yes, it can only be applied after the fact, and too often the people who would be prosecuted are the parents of a victim. The only way around that would be to specify how guns must be stored (a One Size Fits None solution IMO) and have frequent random inspections to enforce it. I believe that is done in Scotland. It would never fly in the USA.

An old widow living alone in a trailer in Plaster City (out in the desert) should not be required to lock up a gun that she keeps for self defense. A person with small children in the home should keep the guns locked up. I would oppose a law that says you have to keep guns secured a certain way.

[Pert_UK]

7. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

"Hey guys, we're not going to tell you how to store your guns OK, but just make sure they're good and safe....What's that? How can you tell whether it's safe storage? Well......maybe just see if your kids can find a way in, and if they do then try putting another lock on it"

IMHO, if you want to own a gun then a bare minimum requirement should be the purchase and use of an appropriately secure storage device, e.g. a gun safe. The police (or private agency) should visit your house on a random date once a year and check on your storage of the weapon - if it's not locked in the safe and you can't give a good reason for it, then you get a warning and a fine. On a 2nd failing you get the gun confiscated.

It is grossly irresponsible to own a firearm but not store it securely. States should be implementing and enforcing laws which dictate an appropriate minimum level of storage, rather than waiting until something goes wrong before highlighting the problem.

P.

[slackmaster]

9. One size fits none?

Would your system allow for a person who lives alone in a remote location with no children around and an expectation of very slow response from law enforcement to keep a loaded gun available at all times?