The Facebook page for the national Coalition To Stop Gun Violence featured Victoria Steele’s bill to make parents responsible if they leave a gun lying around and their children use it to harm someone.

What a concept, huh? You’d think a civilized society would have had this on the books decades ago.

So far, 639 Likes and 36 Comments.

Meanwhile, the verbal battle rages over the Steele/Orr/Friese matchup in LD-9 — 14 comments so far on my post, Victoria Steele’s Very Good Day, and when the Star’s Tim Steller shared the post on FB, it garnered 36 Comments and counting.

BTW, Jim Nintzel has been schooling me as I begin my posting here on The Range — appreciate it, Jim — and he says I need to tell readers where state Legislative District 9 is. It dips as far south as Speedway, then moves up through the Foothills to Casas Adobes, stopping just short (I’m pretty sure) of Oro Valley and Marana. It has a slight Democratic edge, making it a possible all-Democratic LD, but as Ethan Orr has demonstrated, a Republican can get elected as well. Democratic candidate Randy Friese makes it a three way race for the two House spots. It’s a race to watch.

This article appears in Jan 30 – Feb 5, 2014.

11 replies on “Coalition To Stop Gun Violence Spotlights Victoria Steele’s Bill”

  1. …”make parents responsible if they leave a gun lying around and their children use it to harm someone.”
    “What a concept, huh? You’d think a civilized society would have had this on the books decades ago.”

    Well, for all of you so called brilliant Progressives ( Wanna be Communists)….we ALREADY have a method to hold Adults Responsible…it is Called Civil Court and the power to sue.
    The “Coalition To Stop Gun Violence” is merely ANOTHER Leftist Front group intent on Disarming the American People, they are just too cowardly to admit their REAL agenda, same with the Brady Campaign, Americans For Responsible Solutions ( Mark the puppet master Kelly’s) group, and most of the others.
    Enjoy…!

  2. An Amendment to Rep. Steele’s bill is necessary. Language must be added revoking the shield from being sued legislators enjoy who votes in the affirmative for the bill; thus allowing anyone who cannot get their firearm out of the safe in time during a home invasion to sue them personally for any damages, injuries or death that occurs as a result of her ‘Lock Up Your Safety’ bill.

    Guns save lives.

  3. So you’re saying parents whose children use their gun to kill themselves or someone else shouldn’t have any liability?
    We don’t use the civil courts for murders.

  4. No, I think he’s saying legislators who pass laws that can potentially harm their constituents should be liable for the consequences of the legislation they vote in. Of course parents should have liability when they leave guns around for their children to use. But please explain why those who pass the laws should be shielded when the laws they pass take lives rather than save them.

  5. You’re right, legislators cannot be held responsible for any law except at the polling place. I would rather have this type law in place than a more restrictive one limiting when I can have a weapon in my home when children are present. Being responsible with weapons is a matter of common sense but there are obviously too many who lack the common sense they were born with.

  6. Dear bslap:

    That is not what I wrote was it? Right now, today, if a parent leaves a loaded firearm where a child can get at it and they injure or kill themselves or another with it, they can be held liable using several statutes. Example: Reckless endangerment, negligence, child endangerment, etc.

    Then there are the civil courts that can be used to sue. There a jury will determine liability, the percentage of the liability and the award.

    Oh, and btw, even though the number of firearms and firearm ownership has increased over the past several decades, deaths, including suicides with a firearm, continue to decline.

    I guess what you may be opposed to is holding these grandstanding legislators accountable for their acts of negligence that could get me killed because I must ‘Lock Up My Safety’.

  7. Okay Mr. Harold R. Simpson, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Rep. Steele’s so called solution, and evidently yours, is ill advised. Although I will not make it personal. I will not stoop to such childishness.

    Legislators could hold themselves liable, but of course why should they? It gives them leave to enact any law they wish with little consequence to the harm it may cause and they kinda like the shield that surrounds them.

    Answer me this: What role does education play in all this? Couldn’t Rep. Steele sponsor a program to train young people about the importance of, as well as the dangers of, a firearm? How about a Childrens Day at the Range program, where parents can take their children to the range and a certified instructor teaches firearm safety and then they get some range time with a .22?

    Or, maybe we could resurrect a bill offered about a decade or so ago to ENCOURAGE (read encourage, not mandate) school districts to offer firearm safety training? Legislators like Rep. Steele had a hissy-fit over its introduction.

    That proves to me they are not interested in solving anything, but what they are interested in is making it as difficult as they can, through the use of government force, for gun owners.

    Here is another idea I floated: Why not offer a tax credit for pistol or long-gun safes? They are not cheap.

  8. I may not agree with some of the postings here but that doesn’t mean I favor restrictive legislation. I still have my NRA patch from the gun safety classes offered in my east coast high school back in the “enlightened” ’60s. My parents didn’t have guns in the house and though my Father was a military officer he chose not to have weapons because he didn’t want ANY mistakes made by his inquisitive children. That didn’t stop them from letting me shoot on Sat at NRA sponsored children’s events with a rented .22.
    Just because I don’t agree is reason for anyone to rant that I am at one extreme or another, I simply don’t agree and my reasons are well founded and not at all hysterical. Don’t rant or I might be forced to consider you a hysterical nut.

  9. Harold R. Simpson: During my childhood, there were firearms in the home. During my teen years, several were loaded and at the ready, and for good reason. Never an accident. Never a thought of taking one to school and shooting the place up. In fact, we would take our rifles or shotguns (depending on the season) to school along with a change of cloths so we could go hunting directly after school.

    It was amazing! There was never an incident or an accident.

    So what was the difference? Firearms were commonplace in my family from my Grandfather, to Father, to my Uncles, etc. I was taught early on their usefulness as well as their danger if handled improperly.

    What I suggest is a voluntary return to regarding firearms as a useful tool.

    Lastly, questioning ones “common sense” because they do not agree with you is not a “rant” or being “hysterical.” Just because I disagreed with your comment does not mean I lack common sense and that you do not, which was your implication.

Comments are closed.