2 votes

Mother punished for sins of the son?

Here's an interesting story. The mother is sentenced to jail for 14 months because her son found a gun at her boyfriend's house (apparently where she was living) and brought it to school. The gun went off and seriously injured another student.

The mother was legally prohibited from owning a gun due to a felony conviction. Her residence in a household that included a gun, and the subsequent shooting incident, was enough to trigger the maximum penalty.

Wacked or reasonable?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


All laws that deny anyone their full rights after having fulfilled their sentence for wrong-doing are wrong.

Guilt by association is also wrong.

It should not be against the law to house a felon.

I am becoming more and more against the classification of felony anything. Call crimes what they are, i.e., murder, rape robbery, etc. no need to add felony to those. It's all about money and control - not protecting people's rights!

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Dont agree with you

She was under orders not to have a firearm at residence. This was a direct violation.

Not a case where mother punished for son's actions. Judges often use the results to determine the ruling. If a drunk driver hits a tree, he is usually better off than if he runs over 2 nuns, the mayor's infant granddaughter, and 3 kittens. The aftermath of breaking a law, like a kid gaining possession of a fire-arm and having it go off and critically injuring another kid usually makes things worse.

I also want to say. These people are borderline retarded.

She did not own a gun

The gun belonged to the boyfriend.

Ignorance of the law in this case, worked out for the guilty.

The mother is innocent. The son is innocent. The guilty party is the gun owner. The law is that it is illegal to have a felon in your home when you own a gun. The boyfriend broke the law.

I remember G. Gordon Liddy bragging about the guns his wife

owned, since he was prohibited as a felon.

Facing a 20-year prison sentence back in '73, Liddy had offered her a divorce. Noting that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't," she declined.

Good thing. Liddy likes guns, a lot. (Can draw and fire a revolver in 61/ 100ths of a second, he claims.) As a convicted felon, he no longer may own firearms. But, he says, "Mrs. Liddy owns several, and many of them just happen to be on my side of the bed."


I don't know if the state laws in this case are different.



The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.

unreasonable and reasonable?

2nd amendment (like all) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So the specific charge and penalty seem inappropriate. I'm not saying there can't be a criminal charge for somehow being tied to the violence (even if accidental) inflicted on another, but the denial of access to firearms and criminal charges associated with that piece of the case is absurd and unconstitutional.

Outside of criminal court, this woman should be subject to civil claims from the victim('s family) as she bears a responsibility for the actions of her child.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

People do need to be responsible for letting

kids who can't be trusted with a gun get hold of them, but the maximum penalty attached to a felony conviction is an attack on the second amendment.

There's a debate to be held about what age the responsibility transfers, but it is not nine when it comes to guns, fire, driving, etc. In some ways, nine year olds are more dangerous than eight year olds. They have some kind of developmental phase where they get more confident and brave but don't get more sense until they are ten. Maybe it's the mistakes they make at nine that lead to them getting more sense by ten, developmental phases are funny like that.

Defend Liberty!

Does it matter that she did not own the gun?

The owner of the unsecured gun did not get 14 months in jail. But the mother, who owned no gun, did. Hmmmm.

Does the mother deserve to go to jail for a shooting she did not do with a gun she did not own?

I don't have an opinion on the sanction,

I'd be more for settling it in a civil suit. But whether it's the boyfriend's fault or hers depends on the specifics.

Before I let my kids go into my niece's room to play, I asked if the gun was secured and she went and checked that the case was locked. She hadn't been around kids recently and I took responsibility to think of that then. It was then her responsibility to report correctly on whether it was secured.

If this woman had an agreement with the boyfriend that the gun would always be secured, I'd say it was his fault that it wasn't secured. It's mostly her fault and some of his if they just didn't even mull the issue over.

The government chooses to view it as her not having the right to be in that house at all and therefore all her fault, apparently.

Defend Liberty!


Parents need to be held accountable for actions of their children.



The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.