TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

HankB wrote:Does California have a law that makes it a crime to leave a firearm where it would be accessible to a child? If so, it seems that the "shootee" ought to be facing charges.

Yes, it does have such a law. It also specifically forbids carrying a pistol in a vehicle that isn't locked in a lockbox, unloaded, and with the ammunition stored in a separate locked container - both containers to be stored out of reach of the driver. The only way he could have legally carried that pistol in his car in another manner than that, would have been if his status as an LEO allowed him to carry concealed off duty. In that case, the pistol would have been on his person.

The Annoyed Man

57Coastie wrote:The AnnoyedMan wrote,
"his pistol was laying loose on the back seat"

This allegation has been stated as a fact now by at least one other poster, but I'm doggoned if I can find it in the article. Did this come from another source which can be shared with the rest of us?

If not, I would suggest that we have enough trouble with this article without making it worse than it is already.

Jim

Jim, that is a reasonable criticism. Here is my response: Strictly speaking, you're right. The article says only "His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat..." However, it is difficult for me to imagine that the gun wasn't just lying loose around the back seat. But even if it wasn't just laying there unattended, it certainly was not secured in a manner which would prevent a 3 year old child from accessing it and accidentally shooting his dad with it. We know this to be true, because the man was shot by his boy. So, for all practical effect, the gun was "laying around" in the back seat. Heck, even if the gun was laying on the front and the kid managed to grab it without his father noticing, it's just as negligent. So, I apologize for having taken license, but I think you can admit that the gun was not properly secured, and neither was the child, and the result is that the child accessed the gun and shot his dad.

The Annoyed Man

Thanks for finding the link again. The link I posted at the time worked, but maybe they moved the story. I'll correct my OP.

The Annoyed Man

Well, I've only fired a Glock once in my life. It was OK. But since I don't have any little ones running around my house and that particular safety concern is not a problem for me, I don't have any problem with Glocks except that I think they're ugly. So that particular aspect doesn't concern me so much. If the guy had properly secured the weapon, then even if his son wasn't in a safety seat, we wouldn't be talking about this story. If he had properly secured his son, then even if the pistol wasn't locked away, we most probably wouldn't be having this conversation. He did neither, and thus he violated two cardinal anti-stupidity rules. He committed the third violation when he sought to blame his own stupidity on someone else. A triple lindy, with a logical mobius loop thrown in. That's gotta be some kind of record. Even if he hadn't been paralyzed, if I were king of the world, I'd have him sterilized so he doesn't pass those bad genes on to another other poor sods besides his 3 year old boy.

The Annoyed Man

Corrected Link: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun- ... havez-shot

Thursday, July 10, 2008
LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker
Lawsuit alleges gun has inadequate safety provisions.
By ERIC NEFF
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

A retired Los Angeles police officer paralyzed when his 3-year-old son fired his father's handgun while riding in the family pickup in Anaheim two years ago filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the gun's manufacturer.

Enrique Chavez, 37, of Anaheim, was off-duty when he was shot on July 11, 2006, while driving his Ford Ranger near Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. His son got a hold of his father's .45-caliber weapon while sitting in the back seat and shot him in the back, according to police reports. The son was not restrained in a safety seat.

The lawsuit alleges that Glock Inc.'s gun was dangerous because its safety device was "nonexistent or ineffective" at preventing an accidental shot.

Chavez, a 10-year veteran of the LAPD, is also suing the manufacturer of the gun holster and the retail stores that sold him the gun and holster. He bought the gun at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club and purchased a holster made by Uncle Mike's and Bushnell Outdoor Products from Turner's Outdoorsman.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants knew the safety device was defective and that 5.5 pounds of pressure on the trigger frequently results in accidental discharges. The lawsuit alleges product liability, breach of warranty and loss of consortium and seeks general, special and punitive damages and attorney fees.

A Glock spokesperson declined to comment, saying that the company has not yet seen or heard of the complaint.

Chavez was left paralyzed from the waist down.

Let me get this straight...

His son was not restricted to a child safety seat as is required by California law, violations of which are subject to very stiff fines, and possible involvment of Child Protective Services, AND his pistol was laying loose on the back seat... ...and he's suing the gun manufacturer? He should have have first issued himself a stiff citation for failing to restrain his 3 year old son. He should have next arrested himself for transporting his weapon in a manner prohibited by California state law.

What an eejit. Only in California...

Edited to correct the link at the top because the story was moved...

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Re: LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Re: LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

Re: LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker

LAPD officer shot by his son sues gun maker