Parental Restraining Orders - Declaring your child incompetent to possess firearms

[ArcticSplash]

o-WOMAN-POINTING-GUN-570.jpg

Two topics I've been thinking about:

- Passing criminal liability on to the parents of teen/tween shooters

- Using the existing federal domestic violence restraining order system as a mechanism for parents to declare their children incompetent to possess firearms to age 24 (and from 18-24 the child can challenge the declaration to get it voided, including suing the parent who filed it)


I get it---do not touch any firearms law under any circumstances ever; repeal all the ones that are on the books #MAGA. But for those of us who have to face reality and existing law, I'm wondering whether there's room to assign blame and consequences to parents of devil children, and also give them an opportunity to fix a problem that law enforcement won't fix.

The foster parents signaled law enforcement and got him connected to a mental clinic.
Students knew.
Administrator's knew.
Broward Co Sheriff's Dept knew
FBI took two complaints
Neighbors took video

Even space aliens in Andromeda Galaxy knew Cruz was a hair-trigger nutcase.


Thoughts?

[Emptymag]

Point #1 is bullshit unless it's warranted on an individual case basis.

Point # 2 is lunacy because it's like a PFA that strips rights without due process and keeps them stripped until one is old enough and has the financial means to regain their rights that were taken away from them.
If you've ever had to go financially into debt just to buy back a right that should not have been taken in the first place, you'd be embarrassed for even suggesting it.

[farmplinker]

I don't think either proposal is workable or proper.

One occasionally hears that "parents should be held responsible". I don't think so. How can one person be held criminally responsible for another, even their offspring (and remember this case involves a 19 year old adult)? Even with minor children, I don't think a parent should be criminally liable. It destroys the entire concepts of intent and "knowingly and willingly", which I think are already trampled regarding certain laws.

As for #2, that would open up a tremendous can of worms. You want to deny constitutional rights to legal adults because their parents say so?

[Statkowski]

Look at the Newtown shooter to see how that would have worked. He simply killed his mother, stole her guns, and shot up a school.

[ArcticSplash]

Point #1 is bullshit unless it's warranted on an individual case basis.

Diagree. Kid torts have managed to survive appellate court scrutiny, including for criminal negligence. Whether it's possible to delineate/separate true culpability from politically-based blame is another story.

Cruz's foster parents showed no sign of negligence. So what I'm suggesting wouldn't even apply here. I have in mind two cases in Philadelphia where this does apply, and one of them is a tit-for tat homicide that sent kids at Roman Catholic High School in Philadelphia running for the exits; after he had already smoked one of the kids he was after in South Philadelphia. His parents are trash.

I see plenty of urban parents in Philly who have kids that basically just occupy space in the house--and threaten their friends all the time plus have social media posts of firearms they obtained illegally. These aren't really kids posing with daddy's empty pistol in jest.

I don't see where this could stop until THOSE parents are actually scared of the consequences of disavowing their responsibility to parent their kids.

Point # 2 is lunacy because it's like a PFA that strips rights without due process and keeps them stripped until one is old enough and has the financial means to regain their rights that were taken away from them.
If you've ever had to go financially into debt just to buy back a right that should not have been taken in the first place, you'd be embarrassed for even suggesting it.

I understand that. I've been a defendant in Federal litigation---it costs WAY more money than being a plaintiff filing a petition in state Common Pleas court. Particularly if the state fights you and forces you to hire expert witnesses to challenge the state's assertions.

I'd only be willing to something like this if only a parent/guardian can file a declaration, it comes with a time limit--no one can extend it. If you don't have the funds to challenge it 18-24, by your 24th birthday the thing expires. Your mom or your dad (or both) or your guardian would be the one triggering this, nobody else, and the parent would be obligated to provide evidence of your insanity.

If you were Cruz's foster dad--what could you have legally done to kept your insane child from going to the gun store? (Let's assume Cruz has a source of money that you have little control over, like he pawned off some of his possessions to raise the cash or he had a part time job). Looks like both foster parents did what they were required to do and then some, including calling the cops on their son multiple times, the neighbors calls multiple times, and the FBI got two hotline complaints plus the school expelled him which would have required a hearing and a eval of his disciplinary record.

Law enforcement was a giant fail here and needs to feel the heat--of course.

BUT... as a parent... what do you do? Your kid's intimating he wants to shoot up the school. He "jokes" about it. Then purchases a weapon.