5-Year-Old Brings Loaded Gun To Moseley Elementary School

[sasha031]

A music class at a Palatk, Fla. school got a surprise Tuesday morning when a gun fell out of a 5-year-old student's pocket.WJXT News reports the child has been suspended from Moseley Elementary School until authorities can investigate.

The .22 caliber handgun was loaded, but there was no round in the chamber. Authorities may press charges against the adult responsible for allowing the gun to get into the child's hands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/5-year-old-loaded-gun-florida_n_815471.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Ah same story

I was going a second one?

[Turbineguy]

2. Well

it was music class.

[wtmusic]

3. He has 2nd amendment rights just like everyone else.

Or have we started making the Constitution only available to certain "age groups"?

If this kid got mugged on the way to school how is he supposed to defend himself? What if other kids on the playground call him names?

Waiting for the "Brady Bunch" to check in here...

[Hoyt]

6. LOL

[slackmaster]

11. Predictable, stupid response is predictable and stupid

:nuke:

[wtmusic]

19. Stupid criticism sans foundation. nt

[slackmaster]

20. Your post was nothing more than a silly straw man

It's kind of funny that only people on your side of the issue every say things like that.

[wtmusic]

21. It's not a straw man at all.

What age do you recommend disqualification from the Bill of Rights?

If I recall, the framers didn't specify.

[slackmaster]

22. The Constitution establishes minimum ages for candidates for federal offices

The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to define the age of majority.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 26th Amendment guarantees that people of age 18 years or older have the right to vote.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Other than that, states decide who gets what rights at what age.

[wtmusic]

23. You were looking for a straw man, and I think you found it.

But certainly you're not suggesting there's a connection between candidates for federal offices and the Second Amendment...that would be stupid, wouldn't it? :shrug:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Powers like, gun control? Nice to have you on board.

[slackmaster]

24. Anyone who thinks I am against all forms of gun control isn't attending to what I actually say

:hi:

[lawodevolution]

30. Gun control is covered by the 2A "shall not be infringed" means gun control shall not

Oppress in any way a citizen from owning a gun who also has their full rights intact.

[TPaine7]

28. Ok, I'll answer this seriously.

First, let me say that I've been impressed with the seriousness of some of your arguments lately. I saw a point you made lately that I had to agree with--against several people on "my side" of the issue. I would have posted as much, but I couldn't find the post when I had time. I mean no sarcasm, condescension or disrespect; this is just an observation.

I have always taken this armed children point of yours as a sarcastic jab, and so have ignored it. There is still that element--the "Brady Bunch" crack--but I'll ignore it. I've certainly made my share of jabs.

Your core point is very serious, however, and I will attempt to answer it clearly.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I agree with you that everyone has the exact same rights protected by the Constitution; and that everyone enjoys the same protection in the exercise of those rights, with limited exceptions:

1) The government may discriminate against people who lack the capacity to exercise their rights.
2) The government may deprive convicted felons of rights after conviction using due process of law.

You have the right, for instance, to conduct your own affairs. That right is protected by the Constitution; the technical term is liberty. If you lack the capacity to safely conduct your own affairs, you can be lawfully prevented from doing so. You may require an escort to cross the street, for example, lest you endanger yourself, drivers, and other pedestrians.

This doesn't mean that the Constitution no longer protects you. You have a liberty right to SAFELY cross the street. You have no right to UNSAFELY cross the street--to endanger others. You lack the capacity to exercise your actually right--the right to safely (or should I say competently) cross the street. The court, in limiting your freedom, is not depriving you of that right--you inherently lack the capacity to exercise it. Your unsuccessful attempt to exercise your legitimate right will endanger other people's actual life and property rights, and their rights are the only ones actually at stake.

Now if, at a later date, you can demonstrate your competence, you must be released from protective custody and allowed to cross the street unescorted. It would be unconstitutional to forbid it.

The overwhelming majority of 5 yr olds lack the capacity to safely bear arms. They lack the ability to understand the legal standards, the moral implications, the realities of life and death. They lack the muscle coordination to properly aim and control the trigger. There is a well justified societal presumption that they lack the capacity to SAFELY bear arms--and SAFELY bearing arms is the only right anyone has. Thus they are forbidden to bear arms. That does not violate their rights; they lack the capacity to exercise their rights.

Please note that they are not actually being discriminated against on the basis of age, but on the basis of capacity. They are in the same basket with mentally incompetent people; be they insane, high, drunk, mentally retarded, or severely brain damaged. We know, as a society, that approximately 100% of 5yos fit in that category.

HOWEVER, our societal presumption is not infallible. If there exists, or ever does exist, a 5yo who can competently bear guns--legally, mentally, morally, and physically--I will vociferously support her right to bear arms. She naturally has the same right to bear arms as anyone else, but unlike other 5 year olds, she has the capacity. If she were denied her right to keep and bear arms, it would be as much a travesty of justice as if you or I were denied our right to bear arms.

In a nutshell, it is constitutionally illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of age, nor does denying 99.99999+% of 5 year olds the freedom to bear arms actually constitute age discrimination.

What do you think, wtmusic?

[wtmusic]

31. Sounds like a thoughtful and rational position.

I was consciously or unconsciously steering it in the direction of a thread from Wednesday, where a poster seemed to approve of selling anyone and everyone a handgun:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=367711&mesg_id=367770

We are, in essence, inserting a caveat into the Second Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms <as long as they can do so without endangering other people's actual life and property rights> shall not be infringed".

Makes sense to me, and most sensible adults, I would imagine (notwithstanding the poster above).

But thus begins the slippery slope. Because there is now nothing logically preventing me from interpreting that to mean that 20-round magazines enable someone to "endanger other people's actual life and property rights", as well as laying claim to that being a "well-justified societal presumption". What in fact we've done is tear A2 wide open to anyone's version of of not only what "to bear arms" means, but also what "endanger" means, what a "right to life" means, etc etc etc. A real can of worms.

In practice, this is what happens anyway. There are many fudges on Constitutional wording which are allowed just because they make sense (shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected under freedom of speech, etc.) My point is this: we have a band of Originalists around here who claim that Second Amendment allows no restrictions on individuals owning arms in the United States. That represents a blatant double-standard if they feel it's wrong to give a five-year-old a pistol to take to school, or to sell submachine guns to demented 95-year-olds. We're left with the necessary and proper conclusion that although the Second Amendment places no restrictions, it most certainly does allow them, the scope of which is entirely up to lower courts to determine.

Thus gun control is and always has been constitutional. I may advocate for certain restrictions while others may fight them; the courts will decide. I will, however, take on anyone claiming higher ground in this matter - it's my opinion vs. theirs.

[TPaine7]

32. Interesting, now we are getting somewhere.

This is the type of conversation I come here for.

That's actually the thread I agreed with you on. Demented people--those who cannot accurately perceive threats--cannot safely handle guns. They are inherently incapable of competently bearing arms.

We are, in essence, inserting a caveat into the Second Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms <as long as they can do so without endangering other people's actual life and property rights> shall not be infringed".

I agree with the gist of this paragraph, but not its entirety. "We" are not inserting the caveat; it was always there. I will illustrate what I mean using the First Amendment. (I am not implying that the means to kill is easily comparable with the freedom to communicate or to worship, but that the means of interpreting one part of the Constitution is easily comparable to the means to interpret another portion.):

The First Amendment says in part;

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech....

This does not protect:

• The "right" of a military officer to order the assassination of his romantic rival
  
• The "right" of a con-artist to practice verbal fraud
  
• The "right" of a traitor to divulge the battle strategies and troop positions of American forces
  
• The "right" of a witness to commit perjury

These are not caveats of my invention; they were always there.

I daresay that not one of the founders, not one person who participated in the debates, not one layman reading the newspaper accounts, probably not even one participant in a tavern debate on the subject, thought that any one of the above were protected.

Constitutions cannot be exhaustive in their language: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.... except for illegal orders, fraud, treason, perjury, disturbing the peace, libel, criminal conspiracy, etc., etc."... That would be a long Constitution indeed.

There were insane and severely retarded people in the founder's days. They were not permitted the use of guns. They were legitimately prevented from conducting their own affairs, and for the same reasons as they are today. The same was true of 5 year olds. We are not inserting anything; anyone who understands the historical context knows that the caveats were there all along.

Now to where we agree:

the Second Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms <as long as they can do so without endangering other people's actual life and property rights> shall not be infringed".

Exactly. (Except, of course, for those who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with arms by their behavior and have consequently been stripped of the right to keep and bear arms through due process of law.)

People who are capable of bearing arms without endangering the rights of others can do so; it is unconstitutional to infringe on their rights. I totally agree.

But thus begins the slippery slope. Because there is now nothing logically preventing me from interpreting that to mean that 20-round magazines enable someone to "endanger other people's actual life and property rights", as well as laying claim to that being a "well-justified societal presumption". What in fact we've done is tear A2 wide open to anyone's version of of not only what "to bear arms" means, but also what "endanger" means, what a "right to life" means, etc etc etc. A real can of worms.

...We're left with the necessary and proper conclusion that although the Second Amendment places no restrictions, it most certainly does allow them, the scope of which is entirely up to lower courts to determine.

Here is where we part ways. In my view, you've made some unjustified leaps of logic (regardless of how honest and sincerely you may have made them). First, there's the change in approach to limiting rights. Compare and contrast:

the Second Amendment that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms <as long as they can do so without endangering other people's actual life and property rights> shall not be infringed".

vs

...there is now nothing logically preventing me from interpreting that to mean that 20-round magazines enable someone to "endanger other people's actual life and property rights", as well as laying claim to that being a "well-justified societal presumption".

See the difference? The first standard says that the liberty to exercise a right is protected if the person can--is capable of--exercising it safely. The second standard says that the right can be infringed if it enables someone to act unsafely.

The second standard is only ever applied to weapons. No one would dream of applying it anywhere else. It is totally illegitimate in a non-totalitarian society.

Another problem with this standard is that ANY weapon enables its bearer to "endanger other people's actual life and property rights"--any weapon at all. Let's insert that principle into your legitimate first standard and see what we get:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms <as long as they can do so without being enabled to endanger other people's actual life and property rights> shall not be infringed".

That protects nothing.

Your principle is, IMO, illegitimate. It is a unique principle, applicable to the Second Amendment alone. Applied logically, it reduces part of the Bill of rights to meaninglessness.

I do not doubt your sincerity or honesty, but I think you have made some serious logical errors (like forgetting to carry the 2 when adding a column of numbers) that have led you to a false conclusion:

...the scope of which is entirely up to lower courts to determine....

I disagree in the strongest (polite) way possible. No court can legitimately reduce the exercise of a right to the level where it no longer enables you to violate others' rights. Any court that did so would (or at least should) be quickly and severely reversed. That way lies totalitarianism.

The same is true of reducing an enumerated right to nothingness. What if a court ruled that you have the right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment) only after a full and complete confession? That would be equivalent to your treatment of the Second.

[wtmusic]

34. Your contention that caveats to A1 "were always there" is incorrect.

They were established by judicial precedent, in some cases long after the Bill of Rights was ratified. These are issues which could very well have been undreamt of by the framers.

For example, the conflict between perjury and freedom of speech was only legally delineated 151 years later in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. Chaplinsky denied constitutional protection to speech that contains "no essential part of any exposition of ideas and is of slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that might be derived from it is clearly derived from it is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." We have created a category of speech which is not protected based on its relation to the "social interest in order and morality", and nothing more. The decision laid the groundwork for the Categorization Principle, with major implications for the way the Bill of Rights is interpreted.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether the speaker is 5 years old or 95 and demented - so your distinction that interpretation must address a person's capabilities is arbitrary. Your distinction also fails to address classes of weapons which are highly regulated like howitzers and submachine guns - machines which by their very nature "enable someone to endanger other people's actual life and property rights". Are these regulations constitutional, or is easy access to them outweighed by the "social interest" in safety? You claim these regulations would have been "quickly and severely reversed", yet they were upheld in US vs. Miller and, despite the threat of totalitarianism, are likely there to stay. Even District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) acknowledges that "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

Thus SCOTUS has affirmed that regulation of the right to bear arms is constitutional, and our debate is not a constitutional one but one of opinion regarding to what extent arms should be regulated.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DD7_JoZfWisC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=perjury+freedom+of+speech&source=bl&ots=OcGtXvJ3MP&sig=OVnwQmorhcuWekoZvkuY_NamvUI&hl=en&ei=LKpETe-gGoHmsQPilsWWCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=perjury%20freedom%20of%20speech&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[TPaine7]

36. Not really.

The caveats were well understood at the time of the founding. The fact that it was criminal to order crimes, practice fraud, commit treason, or subvert justice were well established at the time of the founding. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were intended to override this established legal reality.

The Bill of Rights explicitly protects freedom of religion, for instance. A caveat--one that existed at the time it was written--was that it was criminal to murder. You cannot use freedom of religion to justify human sacrifice. That does not appear in the text; nor does it need to. I do not know if anyone has ever used a freedom of religion defense for human sacrifice. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the first such case is tried this year. The court finds that religious freedom does not justify human sacrifice. Would you regard that as a "new rule" and not as a caveat that existed at the time of the founding?!

I concede that it would be the first legal precedent on the subject of human sacrifice in the context of religious freedom, but that fact will not touch my original point. No one who drafted, debated, voted for, submitted or ratified the First Amendment ever intended it to overrule well established legal reality and justify human sacrifice. The fact that a court did not stand by at the instant of ratification to say "the free exercise of religion does not extend to human sacrifice" is beside my point. The court cannot reject that argument until someone someone actually uses it.

Similarly, no one who drafted, debated, voted for, submitted or ratified the Second Amendment ever intended it to overrule well established legal reality and allow people incapable of safely bearing arms to bear them anyway.

I take your First Amendment legal reference at face value, but it does not address my point. People were convicted of perjury many many times during the 151 years between the ratification of the Second Amendment and the case you cite.

I actually agree with you that the court made up a BS rule when they denied protection to speech that contains "no essential part of any exposition of ideas and is of slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that might be derived from it is clearly derived from it is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." That rule is totally unnecessary to justify condemnation of perjury.

The court could have easily ruled against perjury basing their argument entirely on the intent of the writers and the understanding of the populace at the time of the ratification. They could have brought overwhelming evidence to bear to show that condemnation of perjury was as ancient as freedom of speech (actually more ancient) and that in protecting freedom of speech, neither the framers nor the ratifiers intended to protect perjury. The fact that the court conjured their own rule out of the ether does not invalidate this legitimate argument.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether the speaker is 5 years old or 95 and demented - so your distinction that interpretation must address a person's capabilities is arbitrary.

I made two distinct points; you are conflating them. Perhaps the fault is mine and I was unclear.

Point 1: There are unstated caveats to the rights specified in the Bill of Rights. They cannot all be stated. They nevertheless exist. (My comments on the First Amendment were to illustrate this point.)

Point 2: That no one has the right to act in a way that endangers others or violates their rights is one of the caveats. (It is not the only caveat, nor will it figure in every analysis.)

My claim that in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, one must be capable of safely doing so is anything but arbitrary. Do you actually doubt that there were insane or severely retarded people in the founding era and before? Do you actually doubt that such people were kept away from guns (and knives and swords and pointed sticks)? Do you seriously think that anyone thought that this violated their right to arms, or that the same precautions violated the rights of 5 year olds? Do you seriously believe that keeping dangerous implements from incompetents was a fantastic new legal theory dreamed up by the first court to face the issue after the 1791 ratification? (Or, if it so happens that no court has yet faced it and one does this year, do you actually believe that it will be a 21st century legal innovation, simply because that will be the first legal precedent?)

Let me put this in modern times. Let us say for the sake of discussion that laws begin to be passed against X, where X is something American people are used to being free to do. The people ultimately get an amendment passed that says

The right of the people to do X shall not be infringed.

There will be many unwritten but well understood caveats to that amendment. You will not be able to do X to murder, to defraud, to subvert justice, to commit treason, or in a way that directly endanger others, among other things. The first court to say so will hardly be innovating, whether it hears the case 10 or 1000 years after the amendment passes.

Keeping or bearing a gun with a 20+ round magazine does not endanger anyone. Many sane adults people do it every day. Deranged people and 5 year carrying guns endangers people. These cases are not remotely comparable.

Even District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) acknowledges that "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

Yes, but it doesn't help your case. Miller said that a weapon is only protected if it is militarily useful in a militia. Magazines with 20 or more rounds are definitely militarily useful and used by the militia. That makes my case, not yours.

Thus SCOTUS has affirmed that regulation of the right to bear arms is constitutional, and our debate is not a constitutional one but one of opinion regarding to what extent arms should be regulated.

On the contrary, SCOTUS said in Heller that arms that are in common use for legitimate legal purposes are protected constitutionally. Magazines with 20 rounds and more are in common use for lawful purposes. Thus, by your own logic--using SCOTUS decisions to prove constitutionality--our debate is a constitutional one and 20 round magazines are clearly constitutional.

[TPaine7]

37. I see you've not responded...

Did you just get bored, or was I convincing?

[TPaine7]

33. I almost forgot, millions of sane adults keep and bear 20+ round magazines

safely and competently in America.

If millions of 5 year olds competently kept and bore loaded pistols, it would be a farce to feign a "well-justified societal presumption" that they were incapable of doing so. It would be like a court ruling that average adults cannot safely drive. All the prevailing justices on such a court should be involuntarily retired.

[DrDan]

4. geez - loaded - they are so lucky

Of course, there will be those here who will see nothing wrong with this.

[TheWraith]

9. Has anyone ever said that?

Or are you simply making up strawman arguments to suit your personal grudges?

[petronius]

12. Why are you trying to stifle adult conversation about gun policy?

:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

13. LOL! I believe the proper term is "filibuster".

:rofl:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Moulon labe, Principal!

--d!

[LiberalFighter]

8. What the hell was the kid thinking?

And what type of parents does the kid have that would encourage such thinking?

[slackmaster]

10. He's five years old. He doesn't know much about anything.

A better question would be "What kind of idiot leaves a loaded gun where a child can get it?"

[DrDan]

14. so . . . at that age, he doesn't know the purpose of a loaded gun. Is that your claim?

You don't think he might just take it out of his backpack and, God forbid, actually pull the trigger? No danger of that?

Since he "doesn't know much about anything" at the age of 5, then what do you think about teaching someone to shoot at the age of 4?

"I started my grandson at 4 with a S&W model 18 .22lr.He is almost 16 now, and outshoots me."

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=402727

[slackmaster]

16. I don't know whether he does or does not. It's irrelevant. He shouldn't have had access to the gun.

You don't think he might just take it out of his backpack and, God forbid, actually pull the trigger? No danger of that?

:dunce:

Yes, of course there is a danger of that happening whether or not he comprehends the lethality of firearms. Or another kid might get hold of the gun and shoot someone with it.

Since he "doesn't know much about anything" at the age of 5, then what do you think about teaching someone to shoot at the age of 4?

I think that's too young for most children. I learned at 10, my brother learned at six, and that was just fine.

[DrDan]

17. at least we can agree that 4 and 5 is too young and that charges against the parents

(or gunowner) are probably warranted (you do agree with that, right?)

[slackmaster]

18. I don't know what statute would apply in Florida, but I hope there is one.

:hi:

BTW - How's your search for "those here who will see nothing wrong with this" going?

[NotThisTime]

15. What great parents, the kid should be kicked out of schol for freaking ever.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. When we were kids, we could only bring things to class if we had enough to share with everyone.

What was this selfish little brat doing? Clearly he wasn't planning on sharing.

[ManiacJoe]

26. Given the small size of the gun,

the kid may have thought it was not a real gun.

[Hoyt]

27. That's what happens when kids emulate their gun-toting dad and other adults.

Another good reason to restrict guns in public.

[lawodevolution]

29. Nope, that's not a good reason to restrict a right.

Because you think CCW is at fault for a kid bringing a gun to school illegally.

[Khan Descend]

35. What would be a feasible mechanism to accomplish that?

Pass more laws?