17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[jmra]

This may all be true, but a 17 year old who has a bad temper (swinging on a bus driver) a drug problem (pot and drank), and a tendency towards crime (burglary tools found and jewlery on him in school) and has been convicted of crimes barring him from possessing a firearm has no business being near a pellet gun. A rubber band gun or water pistols was all he was mature enough for.

Fixed it for you. I assume you wouldn't someone arbitrarily deciding you shouldn't be allowed near firearms without due process.

A 17 year old is not supposed to have firearms without adult supervison period.

And your legal reference for that statement (let's use a Texas penal code since that's the base of this forum).

ETA: found it for you.
TX Penal Code 46.06
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years any firearm, club, or illegal knife;
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

So a minor (say a 17 year old) can in fact accept the sale of (possess) a firearm with the parents written consent. Written permission is not even required if it is a loan or a gift. All that is required then is effective consent. There is no possible way to stretch "written consent" or "effective consent" into "adult supervision".

[mamabearCali]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun? Given everything else he was into and the fact that his parents knew almost nothing about him, I highly doubt that they even had a clue that he ever took that pic. In fact considering the prosecution is trying to suppress that pic I imagine he did not have their consent. So Mr. Martin would likely not have the defense to prosecution of part C.

I do consider written consent or oral consent a level of supervision. If my son has my consent to go to my neighbor yard and someone finds him a block away and brings him home he has trespassed my trust and will be subject to penalty. Similarly if a teen has permission to have a firearm the parent knows the competency of the teen and will ensure safe handling. If a parent observes unsafe handling the parent (who has given consent to the possession of a firearm) will then remove the gun from the teen until such time as the parents deem needful to train.


This was not a teen working on his marksmanship or hunting skills. This young man was a teen thug, the type of which when I see I check the locks on my car doors.

[jmra]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Not at all. My responses are not limited to the TM case, but the public in general. If you look back at my previous post it is obvious that I am debating your blanket statements that are not only inaccurate but would deny individuals their rights without due process.

[G26ster]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Where is the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trayvon Martin possessed that gun? If a photograph of someone's hand holding a gun on his phone proves he possessed it, then my avitar proves I'm a Siamese cat.

[mamabearCali]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Not at all. My responses are not limited to the TM case, but the public in general. If you look back at my previous post it is obvious that I am debating your blanket statements that are not only inaccurate but would deny individuals their rights without due process.

My statements are limited to Trayvon....if a teen has the parental consent to hold and fire a firearm I have no problem with them having one. However I notice that most kids who would be the sort to have parents that would give them consent are not the type to have their picture taken with their finger in the trigger guard.

Mr. Martin was treated with great leniency. If you or I were found with drug paraphernalia or burglary tools our hind parts would be in jail and our gun rights would go bye bye in a hurry. He was simply suspended from school. Fine with me, but that does not lead me to think he was the responsible sort of teen that would go out to the range with his daddy. The many absences outside of the suspensions lead me to believe that his parents weren't the responsible sort to take their teen to the range. I know, even at 17, if I had skipped school even once my parents would have made sure the price I paid was high.

[jmra]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Not at all. My responses are not limited to the TM case, but the public in general. If you look back at my previous post it is obvious that I am debating your blanket statements that are not only inaccurate but would deny individuals their rights without due process.

My statements are limited to Trayvon....if a teen has the parental consent to hold and fire a firearm I have no problem with them having one.

I believe your own words betray you.
"A 17 year old is not supposed to have firearms without adult supervison period". How exactly does that statement pertain only to TM?
Remember this was your response when I suggested that one's rights should not be curtailed without due process.
Where I come from we call what you are doing now "crayfishing".

[mamabearCali]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Where is the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trayvon Martin possessed that gun? If a photograph of someone's hand holding a gun on his phone proves he possessed it, then my avitar proves I'm a Siamese cat.

As I understand it Mr. Martin before his demise posted that it was his hand holding a gun. Could he have lied......sure....but that still is consistent with the image of the thug that he was trying to be. The pic is part of a persona that Mr. Martin was trying to portray. The gun, the mma fighting videos, the drank, the weed, the burglary tools, the pictures of him with wads of cash, the suspensions and the chronic absenteeism from school all paint a picture of a very troubled young man. A young man that it is quite plausible to believe that while high he jumped a man and nearly beat him to death before the man defended himself.

All of Mr. martins injuries were offensive in nature (excepting the gun shot wound) scrapes to his hands and knuckles. All of Mr. Zimmermans wounds were defensive (injuries to the back of his head, black eyes and a broken nose).

As far as reasonable doubt goes, Mr. Zimmerman is on trial here, not Mr. Martin. So he gets the reasonable doubt here.

[mamabearCali]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Not at all. My responses are not limited to the TM case, but the public in general. If you look back at my previous post it is obvious that I am debating your blanket statements that are not only inaccurate but would deny individuals their rights without due process.

My statements are limited to Trayvon....if a teen has the parental consent to hold and fire a firearm I have no problem with them having one.

I believe your own words betray you.
"A 17 year old is not supposed to have firearms without adult supervison period". How exactly does that statement pertain only to TM?
Remember this was your response when I suggested that one's rights should not be curtailed without due process.
Where I come from we call what you are doing now "crayfishing".

And I think what you are doing is called making mountains out of mole hills. You are looking for a fight and are slicing and dicing my words. You want a legal debate, go to law school. I am not a lawyer and as you pointed out absent parental consent a 17 year old can be charged with a crime for possession if a firearm.

You have to reach the age of majority in this country to have full rights, including most gun rights. So I am not trying to take away anyone's rights.

You are making controversy for the sake of making controversy. I do not enjoy it so go pick on someone else.

[G26ster]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Where is the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trayvon Martin possessed that gun? If a photograph of someone's hand holding a gun on his phone proves he possessed it, then my avitar proves I'm a Siamese cat.

As I understand it Mr. Martin before his demise posted that it was his hand holding a gun. Could he have lied......sure....but that still is consistent with the image of the thug that he was trying to be. The pic is part of a persona that Mr. Martin was trying to portray. The gun, the mma fighting videos, the drank, the weed, the burglary tools, the pictures of him with wads of cash, the suspensions and the chronic absenteeism from school all paint a picture of a very troubled young man. A young man that it is quite plausible to believe that while high he jumped a man and nearly beat him to death before the man defended himself.

All of Mr. martins injuries were offensive in nature (excepting the gun shot wound) scrapes to his hands and knuckles. All of Mr. Zimmermans wounds were defensive (injuries to the back of his head, black eyes and a broken nose).

As far as reasonable doubt goes, Mr. Zimmerman is on trial here, not Mr. Martin. So he gets the reasonable doubt here.

You are arguing the case and I am not. But you and others have been going round and round about his legal ability to possess a gun based on the photo. I am simply looking for proof that the hand holding the gun is Trayvon's, and so far I have seen none.

[jmra]

So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Not at all. My responses are not limited to the TM case, but the public in general. If you look back at my previous post it is obvious that I am debating your blanket statements that are not only inaccurate but would deny individuals their rights without due process.

My statements are limited to Trayvon....if a teen has the parental consent to hold and fire a firearm I have no problem with them having one.

I believe your own words betray you.
"A 17 year old is not supposed to have firearms without adult supervison period". How exactly does that statement pertain only to TM?
Remember this was your response when I suggested that one's rights should not be curtailed without due process.
Where I come from we call what you are doing now "crayfishing".

And I think what you are doing is called making mountains out of mole hills. You are looking for a fight and are slicing and dicing my words. You want a legal debate, go to law school. I am not a lawyer and as you pointed out absent parental consent a 17 year old can be charged with a crime for possession if a firearm.

You have to reach the age of majority in this country to have full rights, including most gun rights. So I am not trying to take away anyone's rights.

You are making controversy for the sake of making controversy. I do not enjoy it so go pick on someone else.

No, I am showing how dangerous blanket statements can be and how we should select our words wisely.
And no, i did not say a 17 year old can be charged for possessing a firearm without the parents consent. If you look at the code I provided for you the person that would be in violation without parent consent is the person who provided the firearm.
It's simply ashame that some people can't admit they're wrong, instead they falsely accuse the person pointing out their error of being a bully. Very sad.

[mamabearCali]

You are arguing the case and I am not. But you and others have been going round and round about his legal ability to possess a gun based on the photo. I am simply looking for proof that the hand holding the gun is Trayvon's, and so far I have seen none.

As I said before Mr. Martin said it was his hand.....could he have been lying? Sure. Mr. Martin is not on trial for possession of a firearm. But if he was, a written confession is often admissible in court. If you say you did something online, even if it is a lie, you can still be bagged for it.

Now as our other friend here has pointed out if he had his parents permission to have the gun he would get a pass on possesion, but somehow I doubt they had any idea of their sons actions.

However, Just for you I will try to search out the link that showed the gun and trayvons post about it.


Edited to add....here is the link about TM and the gun. It is NBC so they are not exactly pro-Zimmerman. Draw from it what you want. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... phone?lite

[jmra]

The motion also says the state wants to prevent the defense from using Martin's toxicology report, which showed the level of marijuana in Martin's blood the night he was shot and killed.

That tells me that Martin was high as a kite when he attacked Zimmerman. If Martin was clean and sober, nobody would object to Zimmerman's defense introducing the toxicology report.

I believe you are probably right. TM's character is and should be a factor in this case.

[mamabearCali]

No, I am showing how dangerous blanket statements can be and how we should select our words wisely.
And no, i did not say a 17 year old can be charged for possessing a firearm without the parents consent. If you look at the code I provided for you the person that would be in violation without parent consent is the person who provided the firearm.
It's simply ashame that some people can't admit they're wrong, instead they falsely accuse the person pointing out their error of being a bully. Very sad.

Sir, this is an online forum.....if you want high minded legal banter.....this is not the place. Again I am not a lawyer! I. Nor am I writing in an official capacity in any way. I am most a common sense person commenting on a very sad case. Mr. Martin did not have his parents consent to have a gun. You know that, I know that (or the prosecution would not be trying so hard to keep it out of the trial). Therefore he should not have had a gun. Everything else you have said is beside the point.

Purposefully parsing and misinterpreting a persons statement and then bashing them over the head with them is indeed bullying. It remind me of my irritating relatives that like to have an argument just to have an argument.

[jmra]

No, I am showing how dangerous blanket statements can be and how we should select our words wisely.
And no, i did not say a 17 year old can be charged for possessing a firearm without the parents consent. If you look at the code I provided for you the person that would be in violation without parent consent is the person who provided the firearm.
It's simply ashame that some people can't admit they're wrong, instead they falsely accuse the person pointing out their error of being a bully. Very sad.

Sir, this is an online forum.....if you want high minded legal banter.....this is not the place. Again I am not a lawyer! I. Nor am I writing in an official capacity in any way. I am most a common sense person commenting on a very sad case. Mr. Martin did not have his parents consent to have a gun. You know that, I know that (or the prosecution would not be trying so hard to keep it out of the trial). Therefore he should not have had a gun. Everything else you have said is beside the point.

Purposefully parsing and misinterpreting a persons statement and then bashing them over the head with them is indeed bullying. It remind me of my irritating relatives that like to have an argument just to have an argument.

I have stated nothing but fact and supported my arguments with the law and countered your arguments with your own words. Your inability to debate intelligently does not make me a bully.
Good evening.

[jmra]

This is where CHL for 18-20 yrs old (active armed forces) is problematic under federal law. They let fight for your country but can't buy a small pistol.

Yes. They can't purchase one but they can possess one under 21.

Clarification: an 18-20 year old can purchase a handgun in a private transaction (subject to state law), they just cannot purchase from an FFL under federal law.