Guns and Shit

[Hanley]

today I purchased a SIG Sauer P365 XL.

Fantastic choice.

[mgil]

RIP, Paul Harrell. @KOTJ is hurting.

[5hout]

RIP, Paul Harrell. @KOTJ is hurting.

Per Reddit he is sick, but alive. I don't always agree with his takes, but he lays them out clearly and in detail.

[DCR]

today I purchased a SIG Sauer P365 XL.

Fantastic choice.

Thanks!

Ignorant / embarrassing question: is it a bitch move to get a loading mechanism? This thing has an extraordinarily tough spring in the magazine and, looking around online, it's not just me. It'd be one thing at home, but I just can't see taking the time to go to the range and spending 90% of it giving myself thumb aids.

[5hout]

Loading mechanism is awesome, I use one even for easy mags when I'm in any kind of a hurry.

[Hanley]

today I purchased a SIG Sauer P365 XL.

Fantastic choice.

Thanks!

Ignorant / embarrassing question: is it a bitch move to get a loading mechanism?

Oh, fuck no. They’re pretty essential

[BostonRugger]

If you gave my thumbs the choice to either hook grip a max deadlift or load the last two rounds in a glock mag, they'd choose the deadlift.

[DCR]

Thanks, guys - purchased.

[Philbert]

Thanks, guys - purchased.

If by "bitch" you mean "person who dies with functional use of both thumbs rather than crippling arthritis" then yes, bitch move. Otherwise no.

[5hout]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-fou ... 36934.html

They’re also accused of making a gun accessible at home. [Not illegal at the time, also EXTREMELY common in rural/exurban Michigan]

Much of Ejak's testimony focused on the meeting that morning, which included him, the parents, the boy and a counselor. The school requested the meeting after a teacher found the drawing, which depicted a gun and a bullet and the lines, “The thoughts won't stop. Help me. The world is dead. My life is useless.”

Ejak said he didn't have reasonable suspicion to search the teen's backpack, such as nervous behavior or allegations of vaping or possessing a weapon.

"None of that was present," he told the jury, adding that the drawing also didn't violate the school's conduct code.

Ejak said he found it “odd” and “strange” that Jennifer and James Crumbley declined to immediately take their son home.

[So, he had no suspicion, but thought the parents should pull the kid from school anyway?]

“My concern was he gets the help he needs,” Ejak said.
Jennifer Crumbley worked in marketing for a real estate company. Her boss, Andrew Smith, testified that the business was “very family friendly, family first,” an apparent attempt by prosecutors to show that she didn't need to rush back to work after the morning meeting at the school.

Smith said Jennifer Crumbley dashed out of the office when news of the shooting broke. She sent him text messages declaring that her son “must be the shooter. ... I need my job. Please don’t judge me for what my son did.”

“I was a little taken aback,” Smith said. “I was surprised she was worried about work.”
[Yes, like normal people with normal jobs where when they don't work it causes problems. Not everyone works in a place as preposterously overstaffed as an over-funded school district in a growing tax base area. How dare she think abseentism could be an issue at work.]

The jury saw police photos of the Crumbley home taken on the day of the shooting. Ethan's bedroom was messy, with paper targets from a shooting range displayed on a wall. The small safe that held the Sig Sauer handgun was open and empty on his parents' bed. [A teenage boy with a messy bedroom!?!?!? A target from the shooting range displayed?!??! The horror! Fuck, I still put up good groups on the fridge (I had a target with 3 shots of .450BM at 100 yards all shots touching and highly overlapped probably .25 MOA group displayed for like 3 years). I don't know how the judge allowed some of this stuff, it's wildly more prejudicial than probative. Fully expect this case tossed on appeal as a matter of law about the charges, but this kind of evidence being allowed could let the CoA punt on the real issue and still free the parents]

Ejak, the high school dean, said the parents didn't disclose that James Crumbley had purchased a gun as a gift for Ethan just four days earlier. Ejak also didn't know about the teen's hallucinations earlier in 2021. [Every person I went to HS with in a hunting family (I grew up 3 miles from Oxford) had "their" own gun(s). Pistols, while less common, were certainly not unheard of]

“It would have completely changed the process that we followed. ... As an expert of their child, I heavily rely on the parents for information,” he said. [Parent's are now supposed to inform on their child, not even to a school doctor/psych/counselor, but to straight up deliver information against their child's interest to the person in charge of suspending their kid?]

The couple are the first parents in the U.S. to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. Ethan, now 17, is serving a life sentence. [Again, the insanity of pretending involuntary manslaughter covers this horrible situation despite the entire history of western law saying "nah, bae", ridiculous. Either employing the rule of lenity (strongly disfavored in current US law) or the more favored approach of simply stating the a reasonable mind could not, in light of appropriate statutory construction canons, legislative history and judicial case law, expected the conduct to be criminal, this should and (likely) will be tossed on appeal. However, with the impact of elections to be considered I think the appellate courts will be looking for any other reason to toss it before they approach the core issue.]

[aurelius]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-fou ... 36934.html

To prove involuntary manslaughter the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the parents were criminally negligent by contributing to a situation in which harm or death was high* (Michigan). A lot of criminal behavior is normal and non-criminal in different contexts. What you fail to acknowledge is the parents knew their son was a fucking psycho, ignored it, and even enabled him. Which is what all that 'normal' behavior as you describe shows. It isn't about 1 thing but a pattern of behaviors over time. The prosecution is attempting to prove criminal negligence through this pattern of behavior.

The parents 100% had a responsibility to their son and the greater community to address their son's behavioral issues. They did not. Probably not criminal?* The parents encouraged his behavior including giving him access to and purchasing him a firearm. IMO and the prosecutor's, that is criminal. A jury will decide.

My dog has cancer. You bet your ass I just left work when she got of surgery. Just put in my calendar out of office and left. She was a realtor...they don't even work regular hours and are out of office all the time. And I do think it odd the mother's first communications are concerned about her job. I think that shows the mindset that allowed her to ignore her sons aberrant and dangerous behavior. Again, part of the overall pattern of behavior the prosecutor is using to prove criminal negligence.

*high is a qualitative judgement. Consider if one harm/kill's someone while drinking and driving they will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. But the incident rate of harm as measured by how many times people drive drunk versus harm/death caused is VERY low. Qualitatively we know drinking and driving can lead to someone's unintended harm/death that would otherwise be avoidable therefore driving while intoxicated is criminal negligence.
**I'm happy this prosecutor brought charges against the parents. People act like spawning is an inalienable right and being a parent some unimpeachable position where they can be objectively terrible and suffer no repercussions. Then release their spawn on to society who then pays the price. Fuck that.

[mikeylikey]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-fou ... 36934.html

They’re also accused of making a gun accessible at home. [Not illegal at the time, also EXTREMELY common in rural/exurban Michigan]

Much of Ejak's testimony focused on the meeting that morning, which included him, the parents, the boy and a counselor. The school requested the meeting after a teacher found the drawing, which depicted a gun and a bullet and the lines, “The thoughts won't stop. Help me. The world is dead. My life is useless.”

Ejak said he didn't have reasonable suspicion to search the teen's backpack, such as nervous behavior or allegations of vaping or possessing a weapon.

"None of that was present," he told the jury, adding that the drawing also didn't violate the school's conduct code.

Ejak said he found it “odd” and “strange” that Jennifer and James Crumbley declined to immediately take their son home.

[So, he had no suspicion, but thought the parents should pull the kid from school anyway?]

“My concern was he gets the help he needs,” Ejak said.
Jennifer Crumbley worked in marketing for a real estate company. Her boss, Andrew Smith, testified that the business was “very family friendly, family first,” an apparent attempt by prosecutors to show that she didn't need to rush back to work after the morning meeting at the school.

Smith said Jennifer Crumbley dashed out of the office when news of the shooting broke. She sent him text messages declaring that her son “must be the shooter. ... I need my job. Please don’t judge me for what my son did.”

“I was a little taken aback,” Smith said. “I was surprised she was worried about work.”
[Yes, like normal people with normal jobs where when they don't work it causes problems. Not everyone works in a place as preposterously overstaffed as an over-funded school district in a growing tax base area. How dare she think abseentism could be an issue at work.]

The jury saw police photos of the Crumbley home taken on the day of the shooting. Ethan's bedroom was messy, with paper targets from a shooting range displayed on a wall. The small safe that held the Sig Sauer handgun was open and empty on his parents' bed. [A teenage boy with a messy bedroom!?!?!? A target from the shooting range displayed?!??! The horror! Fuck, I still put up good groups on the fridge (I had a target with 3 shots of .450BM at 100 yards all shots touching and highly overlapped probably .25 MOA group displayed for like 3 years). I don't know how the judge allowed some of this stuff, it's wildly more prejudicial than probative. Fully expect this case tossed on appeal as a matter of law about the charges, but this kind of evidence being allowed could let the CoA punt on the real issue and still free the parents]

Ejak, the high school dean, said the parents didn't disclose that James Crumbley had purchased a gun as a gift for Ethan just four days earlier. Ejak also didn't know about the teen's hallucinations earlier in 2021. [Every person I went to HS with in a hunting family (I grew up 3 miles from Oxford) had "their" own gun(s). Pistols, while less common, were certainly not unheard of]

“It would have completely changed the process that we followed. ... As an expert of their child, I heavily rely on the parents for information,” he said. [Parent's are now supposed to inform on their child, not even to a school doctor/psych/counselor, but to straight up deliver information against their child's interest to the person in charge of suspending their kid?]

The couple are the first parents in the U.S. to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. Ethan, now 17, is serving a life sentence. [Again, the insanity of pretending involuntary manslaughter covers this horrible situation despite the entire history of western law saying "nah, bae", ridiculous. Either employing the rule of lenity (strongly disfavored in current US law) or the more favored approach of simply stating the a reasonable mind could not, in light of appropriate statutory construction canons, legislative history and judicial case law, expected the conduct to be criminal, this should and (likely) will be tossed on appeal. However, with the impact of elections to be considered I think the appellate courts will be looking for any other reason to toss it before they approach the core issue.]

You present this as though the precedent being set is that any parent will subsequently be responsible for anything their kid does with their gun. This is incorrect. There are multiple compounding aggravating factors here. The parents demonstrably knew their kid had mental and emotional issues and the left him alone in a house with an unsecured gun. What better evidence of the "mens rea" in question here than the dad sees the news of a shooting online and immediately calls 911 because he knows it was his kid. Fuck. That. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200.

If this gun had been in a safe there is no way charges would have been brought. Yeah a kid could hack into a safe with power tools, but so could any burglar. Your responsibility stops where someone else has to take extraordinary measures to overcome your precautions. This shit is situationally dependent, and when the stakes are life and death you don't get to make egregiously bad judgement calls and then say "Oh well, it's not illegal to give your disturbed 15 year old a gun so it's not my fault what he did with it.

I am pro-gun, I support exposing kids (properly adjusted kids) to guns so that they can learn to both appreciate and respect them, and I have no problem your "hunting families", and I don't think the law should require all guns to be in safes because circumstances vary and people should be allowed to make judgment calls. This was a very bad judgement call in an area where the consequences of bad judgement are deadly, people did die, that's manslaughter.

And 'well it wasn't illegal' is bullshit. It's the George Costanza defense.



Part of having rights is responsibility for what you do with those rights. Every other country in the world has gone the other way on this problem and said alright no guns for anybody because a few of you can't be trusted. You want that here? Well every time a kid shoots up a school we get a little bit closer to it. We have got to start punishing these parents or the party is going to be over and there will be nowhere left on earth that the government does not have an absolute monopoly on the possession of arms. And then all humanity will truly be at the whims of the few and the powerful. You want that?

[5hout]

You present this as though the precedent being set is that any parent will subsequently be responsible for anything their kid does with their gun. This is incorrect.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/document ... A-0017.htm

Sec. 9. (1) An individual who stores or leaves a firearm unattended on premises under the individual’s control, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is, or is likely to be, present on the premises, shall [safe storage stuff]

(3) An individual is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both, if the individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result of the violation both of the following occur:

(a) A minor obtains the firearm. (b) The minor does either of the following: (i) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place. (ii) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in the presence of another person in a careless, reckless, or threatening manner.

(4) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts injury upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(5) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts serious impairment of a body function upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $7,500.00, or both.

(6) If an individual violates subsection (1) or (2) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and, as a result of the violation, a minor obtains the firearm, discharges it and inflicts death upon the minor or any other individual, the individual is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

The punishment here is (section 6 immediately above) is actually harsher than involuntary manslaughter in Michigan (both up to 15 years, this allows 10k in fines vs 7.5k). I don't see how you read this law and don't go "any parent will subsequently be responsible for anything their kid does with their gun." It is the literal point of the law. It's also exactly what Gov. Whitmer said the point of the law was, and if I felt like pulling the legislative history you'd see that's what the point of the law was according to the drafters.

They passed this law, among other reasons, because they know these charges are legally weak, and even if they slide them by in these insane circumstances they can't slide them by in other circumstances.

EDIT: For the record MI's safe storage law is well drafted and has 3 great areas that are often missing in safe storage laws/proposed safe storage laws. First, it's only a violation of the law if the minor actually takes the gun and does some kind of a naughty with it (this prevents the otherwise shitter use where the cops/CPS use this law to bludgeon non-complying poor people if they go into the home and see a technical violation). Second, it has broad permission exceptions that seem workable IRL especially compared against some of the various safe storage proposals. Third, the unauthorized access provision is well done.

The largest substantive weakness is "“Locked box or container” means a secure container, specifically designed for the storage of firearms, that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device to which a minor does not possess the key or combination, or otherwise have access.", which IMO has 2 problems. First, "specifically designed" is dumb AF, b/c it excludes plenty of locking cabinets/safes that are stronger/cheaper/better than gun safes. Second, this functionally bans keyed locks, because how the fuck can you really protect your keys IRL vs a determined teenager?

[mikeylikey]

You present this as though the precedent being set is that any parent will subsequently be responsible for anything their kid does with their gun. This is incorrect.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/document ... A-0017.htm

legislation text

The punishment here is (section 6 immediately above) is actually harsher than involuntary manslaughter in Michigan (both up to 15 years, this allows 10k in fines vs 7.5k). I don't see how you read this law and don't go "any parent will subsequently be responsible for anything their kid does with their gun." It is the literal point of the law. It's also exactly what Gov. Whitmer said the point of the law was, and if I felt like pulling the legislative history you'd see that's what the point of the law was according to the drafters.

They passed this law, among other reasons, because they know these charges are legally weak, and even if they slide them by in these insane circumstances they can't slide them by in other circumstances.

I'm not sure how you find ^that^ law to be a precedent set by the trial of Crubley's parents, which hadn't started when it was passed. If anything, THAT law is a reaction to the fact that more parents AREN'T prosecuted.

Laws like that are exactly what I am talking about. These idiot parents let their kids have guns, the kids shoot up the school, people like you say "we shouldn't prosecute the parents because iT wAsn'T iLLeGal" and society (understandably) says well god dammit let's make it illegal.

We don't need a law for this, we just need to sensibly apply basic common law principles of liability.


ETA And TBH I don't really have a big problem with that law, having read it. It only punishes you in the event your kid actually uses the gun in a crime, so if you are certain your kids are stable and you want to chance it, you can still leave your guns out.

But really, I don't care how stable your kids are, you shouldn't be leaving guns out. Yes I know your grandpappy had a loaded shotgun hung over the front door and the kids never shot anybody with it. They also used to carry babies on their laps in cars with plate glass windshields and no seatbelts while smoking unfiltered cigarettes. Progress is a thing.

2nd Edit:

EDIT: For the record MI's safe storage law is well drafted and has 3 great areas that are often missing in safe storage laws/proposed safe storage laws. First, it's only a violation of the law if the minor actually takes the gun and does some kind of a naughty with it (this prevents the otherwise shitter use where the cops/CPS use this law to bludgeon non-complying poor people if they go into the home and see a technical violation). Second, it has broad permission exceptions that seem workable IRL especially compared against some of the various safe storage proposals. Third, the unauthorized access provision is well done.

It really is a pretty good law actually.

It also exempts self defense by the minor. So if Johnny is a good kid, you trust Johnny, you leave the gun where Johnny can access it, if Johnny uses the gun to ward off a home invader while you are away, you're not in violation.

The largest substantive weakness is "“Locked box or container” means a secure container, specifically designed for the storage of firearms, that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device to which a minor does not possess the key or combination, or otherwise have access.", which IMO has 2 problems. First, "specifically designed" is dumb AF, b/c it excludes plenty of locking cabinets/safes that are stronger/cheaper/better than gun safes. Second, this functionally bans keyed locks, because how the fuck can you really protect your keys IRL vs a determined teenager?

Pretty much every small to medium consumer grade safe I have ever seen for sale has some version of the same picture on the box: the safe with a watch, a passport, 2 bands of 100s, and a pistol in it, and they usually have some kind of marketing material that says "appropriate for storing valuables, documents firearms, etc" I have to believe that would satisfy this requirement. And once you get into bigger safes you are pretty much exclusively in the realm of dedicated "Gun Safes".

WRT to the bit about "to which a minor does not possess the key" - ... would a reasonable construction of "possess" include a situation where the gun is in the box and the key is hidden in dad's sock drawer, which is accessible to a said minor? That starts to get thorny... after all what is functionally different than hiding the gun in the sock drawer at that point?

But there again... we have to assume parents know their kids. If you have to ask the question "is it safe to keep the key to the gun safe in my sock drawer" then maybe you shouldn't do it.

Which is why I say these are really questions that are better answered by a jury considering the totality of the individual circumstances and of whom a unanimous verdict is required.

[mikeylikey]

RE: gun safes and where do you store the key, the obvious answer is you need 2 gun safes, each with a combination lock and backup keyed entry. Key for safe #1 is stored in safe #2, key for safe #2 is stored in safe #1.

But more seriously, if one was concerned about the remote chance of liability from using a safe which was not specifically designed as a gun safe and/or operates only by a key, one could simply put a breech lock (cheap or supplied free with new guns in many states now, and required by the MI statue in question) in the gun to ensure full compliance. A breech lock does fuck with quick access to the gun in an emergency but a gun which is meant to be ready for quick retrieval in an emergency should not be in a key-only safe for obvious reasons.

[5hout]

@mikeylikey The two specific kinds of safe's I'm thinking of that are great solutions, that this law seems to exclude are locking storage cabinets and locking jobsite tool boxes.

Gun safes are (in general, there are some companies that aren't like this) a giant ripoff. You're paying for something to be large and cool looking. Their fire protection is generally provided via slapping 4-5 inches of drywall under a thin skin of metal. The problem here is that if they're in a real fire the drywall "protects" the guns via decomposition into water and other stuff (this takes a lot of energy, while the drywall is decomposing the in-safe temp doesn't rise much) and then the guns burn up anyway b/c it turns out that this only works if the fire is completely done and cool within, say, an hour. A more expensive (i.e. "real") solution is stuff like thick rockwool and similar products that actually provide non-degradation based insulation.

So, if you don't give a shit about the fake fire protection you can just buy a lockable cabinet or jobsite box and get the lock, without the bullshit. This also means (per footprint/volume) you get way more interior size per dollar, b/c you're not paying for an often extremely thin skin of metal wrapped under drywall in a way that looks really cool.

Now, this aspect of the law is still better than (say) Cali's dumbass law that requires an extremely specific testing requirement that bears no relationship to reality, safety or reason and has the effect (and probably purpose) of making it more expensive). Also, as you note, you can easily get around this via running a cable lock through the guns and then maybe buying a specific gun safe (or electronic lock) for any home defense earmarked items.

[mouse]

So, if you don't give a shit about the fake fire protection you can just buy a lockable cabinet or jobsite box and get the lock, without the bullshit. This also means (per footprint/volume) you get way more interior size per dollar, b/c you're not paying for an often extremely thin skin of metal wrapped under drywall in a way that looks really cool.

I skipped over why we're talking about this but this is what I did/have. I just have a cabinet that lives in the closet. Even if I had the space for a gigantic cool gun safe I'd probably go this route.

I paid off my credit card so somebody stop me from buying that kick ass Thunder Ranch mossberg 940...

[aurelius]

Do it.

[mouse]

Do it.

I just fucking might by the end of the year.

I sprung for a modest upgrade in table saw today... tying it all together doing this room reno I emptied out my cabinet while I was moving all the shit out of the closet and realized I still have a spare magpul buttstock and my old Ares Defense SCR lower... so that means rifles must be built as well...

[mikeylikey]

@mikeylikey The two specific kinds of safe's I'm thinking of that are great solutions, that this law seems to exclude are locking storage cabinets and locking jobsite tool boxes.

Gun safes are (in general, there are some companies that aren't like this) a giant ripoff. You're paying for something to be large and cool looking. Their fire protection is generally provided via slapping 4-5 inches of drywall under a thin skin of metal. The problem here is that if they're in a real fire the drywall "protects" the guns via decomposition into water and other stuff (this takes a lot of energy, while the drywall is decomposing the in-safe temp doesn't rise much) and then the guns burn up anyway b/c it turns out that this only works if the fire is completely done and cool within, say, an hour. A more expensive (i.e. "real") solution is stuff like thick rockwool and similar products that actually provide non-degradation based insulation.

So, if you don't give a shit about the fake fire protection you can just buy a lockable cabinet or jobsite box and get the lock, without the bullshit. This also means (per footprint/volume) you get way more interior size per dollar, b/c you're not paying for an often extremely thin skin of metal wrapped under drywall in a way that looks really cool.

Now, this aspect of the law is still better than (say) Cali's dumbass law that requires an extremely specific testing requirement that bears no relationship to reality, safety or reason and has the effect (and probably purpose) of making it more expensive). Also, as you note, you can easily get around this via running a cable lock through the guns and then maybe buying a specific gun safe (or electronic lock) for any home defense earmarked items.

I think if you are the kind of person who has enough invested in guns that you need robust fire protection specifically for your guns, you probably have the issue of keeping them away from unqualified children pretty well sorted. (Side note, I can't help but notice that the people with 100 guns that we're supposed to be afraid of are literally never the ones shooting up schools).

On the other extreme, those locking cabinets seem like they could be defeated by a healthy juvenile male with a screwdriver or pry bar. Maybe we're thinking of different products.