What law did this woman violate?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_us/student_arsenal

So, when my dad bought me my first handgun at 14, albeit he kept it in his name and in his posession (although it was mine) he should have been jailed? I like the fact that his dad tried to buy him a rifle but he was a felon and they turned him down, which is correct, and HE should be jailed for violating the law. His mom is a maroon, but should she be formally charged? This is an interesting and touchy subject, I would love to hear your opinions.

Interesting comments so far, clearly though, you can't hold someone accountable for what they "might" do, lest we become a society like "Minority Report" where people's actions are predicted before they are taken.

It is a midemeanor to plot a felony I believe, correct me if I am wrong. Odds are this kid was a talker, and not a doer, and we'll never know now, because public opinion has already convicted him.

Just remember, anytime you ever say, God I could just KILL that SOB, remember, how are we to know you aren't to be taken at face value?

It IS a slippery slope, you must see that. And, no, we don't hold parents fully accountable for their kid's actions, yet, but we will soon enough. Read Starship Troopers.

Answer 1

Well in my oppinion, The law she broke is that she bought the gun and gave it to her son.. She didnt say i bought this for you to use for target pratice or for anything else.. She just handed it to him and he had it in his possesion..
If she would have locked it up in a gun cabinet then and told him that it was meant for his use only under her supervision.. then it would have been a bit of a different story..
I understand what your saying because like you said your dad got you a gun at that age but im sure your parents made it very clear to you when you use it and how to use it... We dont know the whole story on what she told him..
Its a hard thing but she should have had it locked up in my personal oppinion. and then she would not have been violating any laws because it would have actually been hers..

Very good question though..
Deb :)

Answer 2

Yes she should be charged. Under state and federal law, you must be at least 21 years old to own a handgun and 18 to own a long gun. She bought a gun for a minor. It's not like she bought it for herself and the kid took it without her knowing. She bought it with intent to give it to a minor. How much more clueless can she be. He was being bullied at school so it seems that is the reason why he requested the weapons and the mother went ahead and did it. She should also be charged for him plotting to shoot up the school. This woman as well as her husband did nothing right. I can see why he is a felon. Which she will be soon enough. The kid should be taken away from the home even if he beats the charge. I hope the courts throw the book at her. This could have been much worse.

Yes it could of been done but you have to remember. The weapons were bought for a reason by the kids mother. I do not think an automatic weapon is used to shoot tin cans in the backyard. The mother bought them for a reason. I do not see a talker getting those type of weapons unless the mother or the father were pushing the kid into something. She is 100% wrong. She should be charged for buying her kid all of those weapons. She broke the law as soon as she got her son those weapons. His father broke the law by lying about a felony conviction in order to obtain those weapons. It seems to me that the parents went out of their way to get those guns.

Answer 3

Well, I say some things are and should be on a case by case basis, and I think that the mother of this ""Home schooled"" child, should be charged with something, how can you home school your kid and not know what is going on? That is as far as his hatred toward some thing/body? Willing enough for a gun?
I am not saying that parents can't by there kid a gun and keep it for them (the law might but not me), till they go out shooting, but I doubt that was the case here.
It is clear to me that if he was trying to get some other kid involved he is a disturbed person that was probably taken out of school to begin with because he got picked on and mommy felt sorry for him. Instead of over coming, she was to the rescue...and then apparently he still needed her to assist him because of the 'torment'...
The charges:
She was charged with unlawful transfer of a firearm,(I'd let that one ride) possession of a firearm by a minor(Well...ride), corruption of a minor(That would stick), endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment(YEP, That's the ones!), and later released on bail.
She did not comment at the hearing. My guess is because of the shame....to much evidence on him, and who is the sico that would be in to 'planning' or even studing that....was that part of mommy's lesson??
People like this is why people like us...law abiding responcible folks get the "We need to take the guns away" every time a moron does something stupid, I feel in this case... that I am glad that they got turned in.

Answer 4

Your father is like mine was. He (military) purchased a weapon "for me" and we went to the range. We would go to father and son days at the military gun club. Other times (at 14) there were times that I would be dropped off at a straight military range for the "awareness and fun day". On a side note...... they would show us pictures of dead people from Vietnam and offer a Coke and a Hershey bar from the fridge.

But at every step of the way no matter what the weapon was secure. Getting into the car and onward. When I got home the weapon went into a safe.

Yes the gun is mine now after many years and have fond memories.

This women? In this day and age? It is not a touchy subject. She failed at every step of the way and purchased a weapon fo a child. Uh..... kid asks for a weapon. All of the stuff he had in his bedroom? Vidoes, knives and all of that.

They are already going to be sued out the butt. Regardless the parents are responsible for not being parents.

Answer 5

It's not a touchy subject. Parents are responsible for crimes committed by their children. There is a HUGE difference between buying a gun for your child and keeping control of the gun and allowing your child to create an uncontrolled arsenal. This is not a right to bear arms issue. It is a case of an indulgent parent who is not controlling the actions of a child who, if not for the courage of another boy in school, would have created one of the most tragic school shootings in history.

Parents who are so indulgent and who demonstrate the inability to supervise, control and discipline their children and allow them to come to the brink of this kind of criminal activity should be charged with solicitation, being an accessory and whatever else the penal code where the incident happens allows.

If what this woman did or didnt do rises to a criminal act in Philly, she should be charged. Or do you suggest that we should have waited until the kid wiped out twenty or thirty people?

EDIT FOR ASKER:

What crimes did she committ? In the article you posted, they listed the charges against her. Naturally, subject to proof, they are:

His mother was charged with unlawful transfer of a firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment. She was not accused of helping the teen plot an attack, "but by virtue of her indulgence, she enabled him to get in this position," Castor said.

Which begs the question, was this question necessary?

Answer 6

I hate guns, but if you must have them, they belong in a locked case when not in use. Children should NEVER use guns without adult supervision.

Since there are no laws against criminal stupidity, I guess reckless endangerment is the only thing I can think of since allowing a 14 year old that kind of access to that kind of fire power has got to be considered reckless and dangerous.

Answer 7

What she did is a straw purchase. What your dad did, was buy a gun for you to use (but not own). You can have a gun in your possession at that age, but not own it. That's where she crossed the line. They need that law so that you can't just go and buy a gun for your neighbor who's a felon, and other scenarios where people would simply be able to come into possession of a gun through someone else's good name.

Answer 8

It is not clear, from the story cited where the weapons were stored. If the woman did, in fact store all weapons away from the child, she would befalsely charged with transferring them to a minor. It sounds like this was not the case. It also sounds like this woman was essentially arming a boy with psychological problems.

Answer 9

I don't think that parents should buy their children firearms (especially assault rifles), for any reason. If they provide classes on how to handle them, then it's fine. If they keep them locked up and away from the child unless they are out shooting/hunting with the parent, then that's okl.
It is my understanding that the mother knew that her child had problems and caved into pressure from her son. You don't buy assault weapons for people who have problems.

Answer 10

Well, if you read the article it tells you:

His mother was charged with unlawful transfer of a firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment.