Boy convicted of possessing handgun in Colorado: Could someone please explain this to me?
Could someone please explain this article to me? If the article is correct that "Colorado law prohibits possession of a handgun by a juvenile but permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision," what is the problem here? The parents say that they gave permission. From the Rocky Mountain News:
An Evergreen High School student who posted Internet photos of himself posing with guns was convicted Tuesday on a charge of possession of a handgun by a juvenile.
The conviction came despite his parents' testimony that they gave him permission to handle guns in their home without their supervision.
Colorado law prohibits possession of a handgun by a juvenile but permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision.
"This is a very difficult case," defense attorney Barrett Weisz said in his closing argument.
"We have pictures that raise images of the Columbine massacre. But if we set the specter of Columbine aside," he said, the boy should be acquitted and sent home.
The photos were posted on the popular teen Web site MySpace.com. The photos showed him posing with a number of rifles and three handguns - a .45-caliber pistol, a .22-caliber revolver and a .357-caliber revolver.
The 16-year-old boy, who has been held in detention since his arrest in February, will be sentenced June 1. He was acquitted on two additional charges of handgun possession.
The judge set a $5,000 bond, but ordered that the boy must be evaluated and a safety plan drawn up before he can be released.
The boy's parents testified they were upset and disappointed with their son when they discovered the photos, but said he had permission to handle the weapons.
"I was not pleased and told him to take (the photos) down," his father testified. "I told him, 'What were you thinking when you took these pictures?' I was upset."
The father, a gun collector and enthusiast who is an airline pilot and retired Air Force pilot, said he gave the boy and his brother extensive training in the safe handling of weapons. . . .
The conviction came despite his parents' testimony that they gave him permission to handle guns in their home without their supervision.
Colorado law prohibits possession of a handgun by a juvenile but permits parents to give them permission to possess guns in their homes - even without supervision.
"This is a very difficult case," defense attorney Barrett Weisz said in his closing argument.
"We have pictures that raise images of the Columbine massacre. But if we set the specter of Columbine aside," he said, the boy should be acquitted and sent home.
The photos were posted on the popular teen Web site MySpace.com. The photos showed him posing with a number of rifles and three handguns - a .45-caliber pistol, a .22-caliber revolver and a .357-caliber revolver.
The 16-year-old boy, who has been held in detention since his arrest in February, will be sentenced June 1. He was acquitted on two additional charges of handgun possession.
The judge set a $5,000 bond, but ordered that the boy must be evaluated and a safety plan drawn up before he can be released.
The boy's parents testified they were upset and disappointed with their son when they discovered the photos, but said he had permission to handle the weapons.
"I was not pleased and told him to take (the photos) down," his father testified. "I told him, 'What were you thinking when you took these pictures?' I was upset."
The father, a gun collector and enthusiast who is an airline pilot and retired Air Force pilot, said he gave the boy and his brother extensive training in the safe handling of weapons. . . .
posted by John Lott at 4:57 PM
7 Comments:
The cessation of parental rights under many guises continues to perpetuate itself in forms most manifest.
Do I sound smart? Maybe not, but I moved from San Francisco to Houston, Texas due to the California politicians 'picking and choosing of what to uphold and what to criminalize' off the tree known as the "Bill of Rights." My flat in San Fran overlooked the Golden Gate, my house in Houston overlooks a water retension pond... and I am very happy.
I agree that government intervention in the family seems to know no bounds.
How can you be found guilty of something that's not illegal? I certainly hope this verdict gets overturned on appeal, but I won't hold my breath.
I wonder when the last time was that someone was prosecuted for violation of 13 USC 242. Seems as if it's just another collection of words that nobody really expects to be taken seriously ... sort of like the Constitution.
Juvenile Court is not about being guilty or not guilty.
It is about the State arbitrarily terminating parental rights and seizing custody of a child.
Since children cannot be charged in criminal court for crimes, constitutional rights to trial vanish.
And yes, it sucks, and should be abolished ... in a sane society, the parents should be able to demand a jury trial to have the state prove they cannot raise the child.
How does a prosecutor prove the picture is:
#1. Real and not morphed.
#2. That the gun is not a toy replica.
#3. Taken within the jurisdiction where that law exists?
This is just another case of gun ahters gone wild...
Intereting points, but possibly the defendent answered the questions honestly thinking that he wouldn't be in trouble because he hadn't actually broken the law.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home