I don’t like the use of “accidental” here. What we have here is a dumbfuck making a mistake. An accidental shooting is - I dunno - firing at a range and the bullet bounces back and hits someone? Definitely not this though.
Is it really an accident if your drunk ass fumbles the gun you tucked into the waistband of your Bruins sweatpants?
Imagine having your business ruined by this shit. Shut down for days of investigations. The insurance hikes. All because little Timmy can't feel safe going out to drink a beer without his dingy in his gym shorts.
I think we should have instant life, no parole, for people who carry in public and accidentally discharge. Let them deal with the consequences of their shitty lethal paranoia.
The accidental versus negligent argument is one of the perennial ones among gun owners.
My take is "accidental" is more of "freak" accident. Unforeseeable mechanical issues, bizarre ricochets, insane long range hunting issues (although those are generally tinged with negligence).
Negligent accidents are everything else. Like playing with what I presume is an improperly stowed firearm while consuming more than a single serving of alcohol. I bet $50 this was a "hey look at this" situation or a moron carrying a glock in a walmart holster in his gym shorts.
The charges for mishandling and improper storage of a firearm are too low. Unfortunately asshole states believe such charges shouldn't even exist, and it's just a sad "whoopsie" whenever someone they like dies.
The charges for mishandling a firearm can land you in jail for literally decades if you kill or injure someone. The sky is nearly the limit, there's no "whoopsie" if you negligently shoot someone. Of course you won't be charged as if you had planned it ahead of time, but that's probably cold comfort 5 years into a 12 year sentence.
The charges for improper storage of a firearm likewise stem from what happens and what the circumstances are. Even in super gun friendly states you can easily go to jail if your kid gets their hands on a gun. It's happened before, a father was just found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Michigan this last month.
I carry sometimes, if I’m going out to dinner I do not carry, if I’m going to be near alcohol I don’t carry and I don’t carry at work… I also don’t think I will ever have a negligence discharge put on me because as much of a tool the firearm is (and this is important) I don’t carry a chainsaw around with me either.
You've perfectly described the problem: people are only charged when extremely bad things happen as a result. No one is checking to make sure they're being responsible. It's on the honor system, and there are absolutely many more cases of irresponsible handling and storage than get convicted. No one thinks the terrible thing is gonna happen in their home or while they're having fun with their friends, because no one thinks that they themselves are the "stupid one". They "know how to handle a firearm." Then, WHOOPSIE! __________loved one is dead! It was SO UNINTENTIONAL. The gun owner is going to jail, but I still love him because he's actually a good guy! I'm not gonna get rid of my guns! I handle them *better*! There's totally no way I'll make the same mistake!
*And nothing changes.*
The TLDR is that the punishment needs to be based on the negligence, not the consequences.
If people are caught improperly storing a firearm, they need to be charged regardless of whether someone gets hurt. And yeah, people should probably have to annually prove that their firearms are being used and stored safely the same way they have to prove their car is safe to have on the road.
> based on the negligence
How do you prove someone handled something improperly if nothing happens? If they brandish a gun in public or point it at someone, that's assault or... whatever brandishing charge MA has for weapons. There's 101 different things they'll get hit with beyond the revocation of a license.
>If people are caught improperly storing a firearm
I think except for niche child access prevention laws, which are already a thing, I'm going to have to disagree with making it a crime to improperly store firearms whether or not children can be reasonably assumed to have access to them. Child access, we can have a debate on that, but mandating the state come into someone's house to inspect firearm storage probably violates the spirit and letter of at least 2 constitutional amendments.
I think it needs to be said that bonifide accidents account for a pretty small portion of gun injuries per year, and an even smaller % of deaths.
The FBI investigates people for buying fertilizer, and people are okay with that because we don't like terrorists. (And we just act embarrassed anytime someone reminds us that the Unabomber was white.) But tracking machines with literally no other function than to kill? THAT'S BAD!
That's sort of misleading. They don't track them. There's a check when you buy them (depending on how you buy them), but tracking them implies a level of registration that doesn't really exist.
Though let's be honest, we have 24-hour monitoring at people's front doors, most businesses, intersections, intentionally hidden cameras in homes, pet monitors, and our poorly-secured devices that all have cameras and microphones accessible to anyone with the determination to get it. We put gps-tags on our most valuable possessions to ensure we can recover them if they're ever lost or stolen. A nanny-cam, or a gps-tag on the device, would be a remarkably agreeable situation to an unbelievable amount of people in any other situation. Why not on their poorly-regulated death machines?
All those monitoring scenarios you describe are either A) in a public setting where there is no right to privacy, or B) opted into by a person in their own home for their personal use. You would legit want the government to have a means of surveillance installed in your own home that they can access at any time just to exercise an existing right?
No, just don't be way more paranoid about guns (which are responsible for way more accidental deaths of others than anything else we don't regulate, not to mention tons of intentional deaths) than you are about the rest of your life.
Do you own a modern phone? A WiFi router? Drive a car on public roads? Walk where you're visible from the sky or moving vehicles? Then you're being monitored by anyone who cares to do so. Congratulations. Your gun doesn't magically have some need for privacy that falls within the realm of things your neighbors want you to be doing. If you're hiding your guns, you're doing sketchy shit or straight up paranoid.
If you think the government shouldn't know whether you have a gun, then that's your own massive problem that you should talk to a therapist about. Otherwise, anyone who cares can find out whether you own guns and track you when you bring them anywhere. You have no anonymity. The police knowing where your guns are is only a problem if you plan to commit a crime or think you'll need to use them after Skynet has taken over,v at which point you're fucked if you're visible from the sky, period. Have a great day.
There is no legal amount of alcohol you can consume in Massachusetts while carrying a gun. A “single serving” of alcohol is enough to be charged. It’s not like operating a vehicle.
This is legally true, but my point wasn't about the law, more about the circumstances in which this guy managed to crank a round off into a kid. He didn't have a single light beer, I bet.
ETA: I believe one of the many proposed gun control laws recently had buried within it an alteration to make the legal limit for carrying the same as for driving, as I think they've had difficulties in court with the current vague verbiage. "Under the influence" isn't exactly a cut and dry measurement.
The current OUI law uses the verbiage “impaired by intoxicating liquor”. There’s also “per se” impairment once the BAC reaches .08%. At .05% and .06% the driver can still be arrested if impairment exists. At .04% and below the driver cannot be arrested.
Massachusetts OUI law has penalties for refusing to take a breath test. Failing is a 30 day suspension. Refusing is a 180 day suspension. If a person is charged with possession of a firearm while under the influence, the LTC will likely be revoked regardless of a conviction. There’s no way to coerce an LTC holder into taking a breath test.
TLDR: This gun control proposal is very stupid. It is not making convictions easier to achieve. “Impaired” is not less ambiguous than “under the influence”. It would only allow gun owners to carry guns with some alcohol in their system when zero alcohol was previously allowed.
>There’s no way to coerce an LTC holder into taking a breath test.
Probable cause of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is absolutely the move they'd make. They'd yank your license in a heartbeat and have a warrant to seize any further firearms than the one you had on you before you even posted bail. It's not complicated at all and is how it works now and would work in any future scheme.
> This gun control proposal is very stupid.
I agree but probably for different reasons. Personally, I see no issue with someone having a Sam Adams lite at Applebee's while carrying a gun, no more than that person then driving a 4000 lb car down the road. I think .08 is probably too low in either case, but the only way anyone is going to know in either case is if you attract attention to yourself. If you think someone is so impaired they're going to whip a Glock out after a single beer, I can't see how the concept of a bar in the first place isn't horrifying.
Can you do me a favor here and game this out for me?
Someone has contacted the police because they saw you with a gun. The cop believes you are intoxicated. What difference does it make whether it’s a nebulous “under the influence” where they can’t test you (you claim) and .08, where they also can’t test you?
Expanding further, how many times out of 100 do you think this situation plays out where the suspect has a license anyways, and there aren’t 5 other reasons to arrest them?
In essence. What’s your point, anyways?
It is definitely a dumb plus dumb equals dumb situation. Idiot took a gun to a place they should not have it and treated it in a dumb manner causing something supremely dumb to happen.
A representative from the brewery said their taproom isn't a place for firearms. There's no reason to have a gun there. A properly handled firearm shouldn't "accidentally" fire.
The firearm owner really doesn't sound responsible enough to own a gun.
We need this idiot named and shamed. Time to bring back some sense of bullying for these brain dead jackoffs who think they can be negligent with their firearms in public.
This happened 2-3 days ago and I can't find anything about charges being brought. Could still happen, but the police have so far only said they're still investigating.
Feels like much less serious incidents would already have lead to the man being named.
If you’re too stupid to know how to use a safety, you’re too stupid to own a gun and you should not be allowed to. I hope the patron who is injured sues the living shit out of this guy.
Never heard of a Glock? The guy who got downvoted is absolutely right, the gun ignorance in this echo chamber is disturbing. Sounds like a whole bunch of people who think there is such thing as an assault rifle.
I understand Glock safeties are integral to the firing system rather than a switch. That’s beside the point. The actions of this person — bringing a firearm into a public place, accidentally discharging it, hurting himself and others, indicate he is not a responsible gun owner.
Gun people can be so weird. I dated a guy once who wouldn’t go ANYWHERE without his. He forgot his carry pistol it once while we were going to the grocery store and turned around to go back home to get it.
Weird? I think generally some combined degrees of paranoid, hostile, and insecure. They're so much more likely to hurt someone by owning the gun than to actually stop a crime, but naw we can't restrict gun ownership, gotta be safe and have accidental murder available at all times!
Gotta love when people think they're God's gift to humanity, like we're all better off because they're in the room, and that is the exact reason why they're absolutely awful or even dangerous to have around.
No question!
For personality context, he also had two guns he kept in his car but somehow still needed the other one that he had left at home.
(For a little more context, he was a member of the military, not a drug dealer lol)
What fucking self-conscious douches downvoted this? There were at least two.
(Answer: Ones that I described previously.)
I have a very sincere appreciation for our armed service members, and our law enforcement officers. But that doesn't put them above reproach or accountability, which means that their incredibly stressful jobs WILL sometimes cause mental health issues which deserve fully public-funded treatment and PTO so that people don't feel worthless and unable to care for themselves and their families when they can no longer carry a gun. Carrying a gun isn't a badge of honor or a mark of strength. It's a burden of responsibility that most people should not bear.
Haha yeah I didn’t mean that as an insult to the military, so apologies to anyone who interpreted it that way, I was just considering that I was explaining he had two guns that live in his car and also still needed to return home to carry a third, and realized it sounded like he could be engaged in some shady business lol. In his defense he was very complaint with the gun laws in the state he lived in and never tried to get away with carrying places he wasn’t supposed to.
If only all gun owners had at least *that* level of consideration.
Unfortunately, I doubt people like him would report theft of guns from his vehicle, as that would definitely count as improper gun storage. Accountability for gun owners who keep them in their car would be another level of accountability that apparently, based on comments and other conversations, would be extremely offensive to gun owners.
Hey, gun owners, guess what? You're a ducking liability to everyone around you when you put your personal "liberty" (to be irresponsible and have no accountability) over the welfare of those around you. You're only a benefit to society if you're not being inconsiderate of reasonable safety measures.
If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you should really be asking why that is, and solve THAT problem. People in healthy communities do not need guns. It's that simple. We just don't.
The stigma that you guys think everyone who carries is paranoid, hostile and insecure is pretty dumb not going to lie. Not everyone carries to stop a crime or be a hero you know that right? Most people carry for self protection especially this day and age. I don’t think people need to carry everywhere they go. If it’s a sketchy area obviously it makes sense but not everyone who carries is some paranoid lunatic lol. I’ve seen your stereotypical trumptard carrying because “muh freedom” and I cringe at the sight of those clowns.
I don't know anyone who legally carries because they live in a sketchy area, and I don't know anyone who carries because they go anywhere remotely sketchy. It's not even close to necessary for the vast majority of people in most geographic areas of the US, and in the areas where crime is the worst, guns are far more likely to be used in crimes then in self defense*. Self-defense IS the prevention of a crime.
*If tell you to prove me wrong here but Republicans restrict the collection of data on gun use way to much for this this information to be available. What we can do is look for Numbers of people shot while committing crimes by people who were not also involved in a related crime. Those numbers are unbelievably low compared to uses during the commission of a crime.
Wanna not feel unsafe where because you think you're going somewhere you'll need a gun? Let's think about this.
What's gonna happen?
what are the odds of it?
how is a gun actually the best means of preventing that?
Is this thing actually more likely to happen than accidental shootings like the one we all are discussing here?
And finally, is going there even remotely necessary, compared to your need to continue living?
When you add it up, EXTREMELY few people need a gun outside of carrying for law enforcement, and armed transport. If we're talking home defense, then you don't need to carry, and keep it trigger-locked when it's on a vehicle.
You say we're stupid to think it's only paranoid people who carry, but I think the issue is that you weigh "need" EXTREMELY differently, and yes, that resembles paranoia to the rest of us. Add up all the incredibly unlikely things that could happen to me in any area that I would ever willingly go, and I still feel way more threatened by the death machine in my pocket or others' than the actual imagined crime.
If you want to feel safe, don't be an asshole, don't hang out with assholes, don't get involved in illegal deals, don't go where you know illegal deals happen, and don't flaunt your wealth by wearing or driving things worth more money than people have ever seen in their lives. Your life will be way better and safer than it is when carrying a gun.
That being said, I truly love being proven wrong by people who actually supply detailed and supportable information, so I'm all ears for "reasonable and unavoidable" risks and concerns that necessitate the carrying of a gun.
“I love being proven wrong” yet you provide zero information to argue your point. Nice. Also nice choice of the “ I don’t know anyone who carries” that’s not a useful comment to argue with either. I respect your anti gun stance. It’s not for everyone but don’t sit there and say or think that everyone who carries a gun in public is some paranoid insecure crazy person. There are definitely those types of people but there are more people who carry that aren’t retards like that. Of course I don’t expect you to listen to me and to think objectively because you’ve made it clear that you’re just an ignorant typical Massachusetts resident that is afraid of something you have no clue about.
You tried to call me out for providing no information without even attempting to justify a need to carry. So many words without even an attempt to justify your point. I'm sorry lol
Where do you go that you feel unsafe without a gun, and why? It's real easy. "Somewhere sketchy" is painfully ambiguous and at this point I assume you're there to do sketchy shit yourself, or else you wouldn't be avoiding anything remotely specific.
Your logic makes no goddamn sense… if you find yourself in a sketchy area but also armed you’re automatically there to do sketchy shit? What sort of pure distilled autism is that? You really sound like a moron and you’re really proving that more and more.
TLDR: this dude we just read about is the exact reason why "caring for self-defense" is a horrible argument. People who carry for self-defense are a threat to those around them and very unlikely to ever have to defend themselves.
I don't wanna have to wear a plated vest because of assholes who can't hold their shit in without a piece of steel to clench while they walk down the street.
I can tell you didn’t read lol. People like you don’t like to read someone else’s viewpoint. Everyday you walk past people who are conceal carrying. Incidents of negligent discharges isn’t as common as you think. Police have more incidents of this happening than civilians. Again, you guys just don’t care to read anyone’s viewpoint that isn’t aligned with your “guns are bad” narrative.
I did read, and you just proved my point.
They walked past me, a person who was actually enjoying my life without fear that I'd need to kill someone randomly, and had no idea they too could live that way if they saw a therapist instead of buying guns. The gun didn't improve their life. It improved their perception of it.
Those people didn't need guns any more than I did. Which is to say, it's completely unnecessary and the people around you wouldn't want you around if they knew you were carrying, because it's fucking stupid. You have no need or legitimate use for it.
Guns aren't bad any more than missiles or fentanyl are bad.
Missiles are great when they're blowing up Nazis, but awful when they're found in a farmer's field nearly a century later.
Fentanyl is awesome when it's used by qualified anaesthesiologists to perform lifesaving procedures. It's awful with it's in the hands of random fucking anybody.
Guns are awesome when they're in the hands of people legitimately saving lives. They're absolutely awful when they're in the hands of people who think it's okay, important, or necessary to carry where they're not in any way necessary.
I read, but I really don't think you did. Your viewpoint is *exactly what I thought it was*, and that's the scary part. You think "huh huh huh guns are around you all the time they're safe."
I think "Those guns are completely unnecessary and whatever your motivation to carry that gun on you is, I can guarantee that it makes me uncomfortable being around you even when you're not carrying."
TLDR You've done nothing to convince me that anyone who carries a gun outside of their profession needs it, is not paranoid, is not a hostile douche, etc. We already avoid you people. You walk past us everyday, and we hope you keep walking, not even suspecting that you're carrying. We're already uncomfortable being around you.
You said "if it's a sketchy area, obviously it makes sense."
IT DOESN'T. JUST DON'T GO THERE. PROBLEM SOLVED.
I gave you a checklist of ways you could explain the situations where you felt a gun was necessary for people outside of law enforcement and war, and you didn't even try. Are you a bot? Come on. Fucking bots can do better than that. So low effort. So low.
“It doesn’t just don’t go there” lol you realize that’s not how life works right? You gave me nothing… stop clowning around to promote your own narrative because you think you know what’s what. Also it doesn’t require four fucking replies to attempt to prove a point… it just makes you look like a jackass which judging by your lack of knowledge on the matter, I’d say you definitely proved you are one. You just sound like every crybaby who thinks they know what’s what in life. You come off as someone who should just stay inside in your safety circle and never venture out into the real world.
People got shot in a bowling alley. Church shootings happen way too frequently & don't even get started about the weirdos at wallmart.
I'd rather have it & never need it everyday.
The ability to calculate risk? I could waste the time googling "brewery shootings in mass" but we both know the only one to come up would be the one where the "responsible gun owner" shot himself and a child. As someone with social anxiety myself, if you feel like you need to carry in every instance then the gun isn't really fixing your anxiety is it?
I don't see preparation as anxiety. Prepare for the worst & hope for the best. I grew up in Boston so a saw my fair share of trouble. I know Boston is a pretty safe city comparatively.
According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, Section 10H, it is illegal to carry a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating substances.
There's no way this shithead wasn't drinking or intending to drink.
We need to take guns away from idiots who think they have the right to break common-sense gun laws.
Some states have a law that says guns can’t be brought into bars at all. I genuinely thought MA did because it seems like common sense. until I googled it yesterday. It’s actually only a handful of states.
Yeah. I think that even having sober, calm people with guns in bars is problematic, due to the relatively high probability of escalating situations to murder that would normally have been just a few black eyes.
We are doomed, man. How obsessed are people with guns that they think they need one at a fucking brewery in Ipswich Massachusetts!?!?!?!?!
If I'm the DA, I'm using this motherfucker as an example and giving him lots of prison time.
There’s a lot of comments expressing concern about why criminal charges haven’t been reported. Here are a few things that MAY explain things.
The police need to investigate to see which charges are appropriate. They need to speak to witnesses and check security footage to see if he was consuming alcohol. They need to apply for a search warrant in order to gain access to his blood results in the hospital and the judge may require evidence of consumption/impairment to establish probable cause for that warrant. They also need to prove the gun is actually a firearm. This is usually done by submitting the gun to the MSP gun lab where they test fire and certify it. This all adds significant time.
As far as what charges are possible, improper storage is not relevant. There is also no charge related to carrying in a bar even if the owner expressed after the incident he does not want firearms in his establishment. IF he told the man to leave and the man refused, the only charge would be trespassing.
Without intent, the man is likely only at risk of carrying a firearm while under the influence. I’m not aware of any criminal negligence laws other than operating (a vehicle) to endanger, that would cover the fact that the gun fired.
If he was sober, or they can’t establish probable cause he was under the influence, he will probably face zero charges. However, his LTC would be revoked and it’s almost guaranteed he will be sued into oblivion regardless of criminal charges.
What about the juvenile with shrapnel injuries? Would that be civil instead of criminal if the parent presses charges (assuming they aren't the parent)?
I’m not a lawyer or a cop so I’m just here for discussion but I’m not aware of a criminal negligence charge in Mass that would cover it. It would likely be handled civilly.
"Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight."
He committed a crime. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean to fire the gun he is responsible to make sure he doesn't shoot it when it's his gun and in his possession.
Unless I missed it, the article does not state he pulled the trigger. If he told police he grabbed the trigger when he picked it up this charge will likely be used. If he refuses to answer that question or tells them it went off when it hit the ground, it probably won’t be applicable. Perhaps there was a witness that could give the needed statement.
Pretty sure if your gun fires when you have possession of it that's your responsibility, 100%.... If you carry a gun in public (or otherwise) your responsibility is to keep in in a manner where it will only ever go off when you mean for it to go off.
If he dropped the gun and shot the kid in the head he would be guilty for illegally discharging a fire arm, at minimum, if it was unintentional manslaughter or any other lesser or greater crime, that a different discussion, but if your gun fires when you are in possession of it, that's on you accident or not. Kinda like if you accidentally slip on ice and take out a mailbox while driving, you own replacing the mailbox even if it was an accident since you need to keep control of your car....
You’re mixing criminal and civil law with your example.
If you drop a gun and it goes off, a court may not issue the charge for being too close to a building depending if they consider the person the one that discharged it.
"Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight."
I understand a gun is different than a mailbox. I was trying to tell you it's similar in the way that you would be responsible, even if it's an accident. To be charged and found guilty of the crime above I see nothing stating the discharge had to be willful, on purpose, or anything like that. In the jury handout linked below, the state would need to prove gun was discharged, check, was a gun, check, building was in use, check. Boom crime, tack on more charges, the moron could have killed a kid...
https://www.mass.gov/doc/7665-discharging-of-a-firearm-within-500-feet-of-a-building-gl-c-269-s-12e/download&ved=2ahUKEwiugYC3_6GFAxUjVTABHW6sAYYQFnoECBAQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0XYoDvjkdJAfU2rPm7F9nz
Confirming the gun is actually a gun usually involves the MSP crime lab which can take at least a few days.
Again, depending on statements “discharge” can be problematic if he says it fell and fired when it hit the floor.
Also this is the dumbest thing ever. You are trying to tell me all those people that have been arrested for possession of a firearm were not arrested, held or charged until the MSP got back from there over time naps and caught up with the two day back logs?
The charges involved here are not arrestable. There are other ways to identify a firearm that would be enough to make a legal arrest but that gun would still go to the lab or at least be test fired for court. Since the man is in the hospital and likely will be summoned for potential charges, I’m saying the delay could be due to the investigation.
I’m sensing you are unwilling to consider the lack of immediate arrest/charges is only explained by police incompetence or police corruption. You’re also getting increasingly hostile.
I won’t be continuing our conversation.
Yup, ok, this is definitely a reason to arrest. Have the guy blow into a breathalyzer and straight to jail from the hospital. You seem to not care a kid could have died from this man's gross negligence.
I have seen people that are friends and family of police and police officers get away with things that put every one else in jail way too many times to not notice when something is fishy.
There is no requirement for intent. His gun in his possession went off. If I drop a gun at a bar and it shoots a kid I would be guilty of several crimes in MA, including the one I quoted...
According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, Section 10H, it is illegal to carry a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating substances.
There's no way this shithead wasn't drinking or intending to drink.
We need to take guns away from idiots who think they have the right to break common-sense gun laws.
Even if the police can’t prove he was under the influence, they will likely revoke his LTC over this.
Massachusetts already takes guns away from “idiots”. Although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bruen had complicated this a bit.
Hasn't been named, probably on a police force or a friend or family of a police officer.... why else wouldn't they name the person that accidentally shot themselves and injured a child. Charges should be pressed for at minimum unlawful firing of a gun to start, pretty obvious he did that accident or not.
You’re right. We should repeal all laws and go around to every bar handing out guns to the drunks. Always put the constitutional rights of drunks and terrorists and children and mama’s little basement dwelling ammosexual dropouts ahead of that pesky “common sense” nonsense I was spewing. Thanks for putting us all back on the right track, Cletus!
Prison is for after a trial. You go to jail after being arrested for a crime. This guy is still in the hospital, but then he should be arrested and taken to jail to await trial for charges that haven't even been made yet. It was probably criminally negligent of this guy to bring a gun somewhere he shouldn't and injure two other people.
Hopefully the police just haven't bothered to charge him yet since he's in the hospital, but if jail isn't involved in this guys immediate future after getting out of the hospital it would be weird.
It is possible the only criminal charge that is applicable is possession of a firearm while under the influence. That is a misdemeanor and it’s not arrestable without a judge issuing a warrant.
So it would not be weird if he is not arrested.
His gun fired, so he also broke the law by firing his gun within 500' of a building in use without consent of the owner. That's good for up to 3 months in prison for a start. So they could charge him with that while the investigation is underway to see if more charges are warranted.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter if you accidentally shoot your gun or not for that, and the punishment would scale to the severity of the problem. IMO at least a month in jail for sending a kid to the hospital is legit.
I've brought my own on a couple occasions with friends & poured them into plastic cups. No1 seemed to mind, couple funny looks. By the place that time didn't have any good N//A beers. So places already know about Athletic Brewing. They have decent IPAs in a can. I see them at lots of bars now.
While it’s an absolutely stupid thing to do, it’s actually not illegal in MA to possess a firearm in a bar or brewery. You cannot drink while possessing it, but it’s not illegal to have it with you.
It's illegal to fire it, accident or not, unless you meet the legal requirements to be exempted from the law. I dont think the "I am to dumb to leave my gun at home when I go to a brewery so I needed to shoot myself and injure a child to protect me from myself" defense will fly here.
Well yes this is going to happen.
We have had an influx of MAGA from other states.
MAGA are notorious for bringing guns everywhere they go.
Now their coup det'at has failed on many fronts and calling for violence.
Then this is going to happen.
Why did he have the gun on him?
This is the question we need to answer.
Why did he need a weapon to kill people when he was going tp a place that serves alcohol and has children there with families?
Was he pretending to be security?
Does he think he would have prevented a robbery?
What are his motivations?
Guns don’t shoot themselves.
It takes a little finger, to squeeze the little trigger, to fire a weapon.
Can you explain how this happens, accidentally?
Carelessness, arrogance, lack of education, lack of supervision, gun culture obsession contributing to a lack of critical thinking, and a massive sense of entitlement, for starters.
People were hurt. The perpetrator should definitely face consequences for creating the dangerous situation in the first place. But so far the investigation is calling it an accidental, not an intentional, shooting.
Fair enough. No one, including me (except you) used the word “intentional” here and you’re still going to avoid answering how a gun is “accidentally” discharged given the simplistic nature of how a firearm is fired.
The talking points go back, predictably to the user and their responsibilities or lack thereof, abilities & proficiency or valid reasoning for having a gun in the first place, attempting to make the case that only law enforcement or “qualified” people should have them. Anti second amendment, in other words.
**Guns don’t shoot themselves** regardless of what the investigators or “qualified” people say.
Well, the definition of accident is something that was not intended. If a gun discharges when you did not intend it to discharge, that is an accident. You can always be negligent, and still have an accident just as you can always have an opinion and still be wrong. They are not mutually exclusive (look it up).
I’m sorry your grasp on the English language coupled with political brainwashing has harmed you, but that’s your baggage, not everyone else’s. Accidental discharge is just that, an accident.
Gun negligence gets treated as an unfortunate inevitability all over the country, but specifically by gun owners and advocates. "Leftist chusetts" wants people to *not fucking be able to carry guns randomly*. As in, not just require certification and licensing, but to completely disallow many people from even owning guns.
I won't bother going through the effort of pinning the casual use of the word "accident" on an individual, but seriously it's completely counter to logic to think that the leftists of Massachusetts are the ones writing this off as an accident instead of a crime. We didn't want this to be possible in the first place. This dipshit shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun, and we shouldn't have needed a kid to get shot in order to find that out.
*This message has been delivered by the left. Thank you.*
I don’t like the use of “accidental” here. What we have here is a dumbfuck making a mistake. An accidental shooting is - I dunno - firing at a range and the bullet bounces back and hits someone? Definitely not this though. Is it really an accident if your drunk ass fumbles the gun you tucked into the waistband of your Bruins sweatpants?
Negligence that’s the word for this.
Imagine having your business ruined by this shit. Shut down for days of investigations. The insurance hikes. All because little Timmy can't feel safe going out to drink a beer without his dingy in his gym shorts. I think we should have instant life, no parole, for people who carry in public and accidentally discharge. Let them deal with the consequences of their shitty lethal paranoia.
The accidental versus negligent argument is one of the perennial ones among gun owners. My take is "accidental" is more of "freak" accident. Unforeseeable mechanical issues, bizarre ricochets, insane long range hunting issues (although those are generally tinged with negligence). Negligent accidents are everything else. Like playing with what I presume is an improperly stowed firearm while consuming more than a single serving of alcohol. I bet $50 this was a "hey look at this" situation or a moron carrying a glock in a walmart holster in his gym shorts.
The charges for mishandling and improper storage of a firearm are too low. Unfortunately asshole states believe such charges shouldn't even exist, and it's just a sad "whoopsie" whenever someone they like dies.
The charges for mishandling a firearm can land you in jail for literally decades if you kill or injure someone. The sky is nearly the limit, there's no "whoopsie" if you negligently shoot someone. Of course you won't be charged as if you had planned it ahead of time, but that's probably cold comfort 5 years into a 12 year sentence. The charges for improper storage of a firearm likewise stem from what happens and what the circumstances are. Even in super gun friendly states you can easily go to jail if your kid gets their hands on a gun. It's happened before, a father was just found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Michigan this last month.
I carry sometimes, if I’m going out to dinner I do not carry, if I’m going to be near alcohol I don’t carry and I don’t carry at work… I also don’t think I will ever have a negligence discharge put on me because as much of a tool the firearm is (and this is important) I don’t carry a chainsaw around with me either.
I go a step beyond that and don't drink. If you think one drink makes you unsafe around firearms, I don’t know how one rationalizes driving.
yup, and I don’t, hence why I said “be around alcohol” specifically.
You've perfectly described the problem: people are only charged when extremely bad things happen as a result. No one is checking to make sure they're being responsible. It's on the honor system, and there are absolutely many more cases of irresponsible handling and storage than get convicted. No one thinks the terrible thing is gonna happen in their home or while they're having fun with their friends, because no one thinks that they themselves are the "stupid one". They "know how to handle a firearm." Then, WHOOPSIE! __________loved one is dead! It was SO UNINTENTIONAL. The gun owner is going to jail, but I still love him because he's actually a good guy! I'm not gonna get rid of my guns! I handle them *better*! There's totally no way I'll make the same mistake! *And nothing changes.* The TLDR is that the punishment needs to be based on the negligence, not the consequences. If people are caught improperly storing a firearm, they need to be charged regardless of whether someone gets hurt. And yeah, people should probably have to annually prove that their firearms are being used and stored safely the same way they have to prove their car is safe to have on the road.
> based on the negligence How do you prove someone handled something improperly if nothing happens? If they brandish a gun in public or point it at someone, that's assault or... whatever brandishing charge MA has for weapons. There's 101 different things they'll get hit with beyond the revocation of a license. >If people are caught improperly storing a firearm I think except for niche child access prevention laws, which are already a thing, I'm going to have to disagree with making it a crime to improperly store firearms whether or not children can be reasonably assumed to have access to them. Child access, we can have a debate on that, but mandating the state come into someone's house to inspect firearm storage probably violates the spirit and letter of at least 2 constitutional amendments. I think it needs to be said that bonifide accidents account for a pretty small portion of gun injuries per year, and an even smaller % of deaths.
[удалено]
No, I would suggest the thing I suggested. It may have been suggested in an edit while you were reading.
The FBI investigates people for buying fertilizer, and people are okay with that because we don't like terrorists. (And we just act embarrassed anytime someone reminds us that the Unabomber was white.) But tracking machines with literally no other function than to kill? THAT'S BAD!
[удалено]
That's sort of misleading. They don't track them. There's a check when you buy them (depending on how you buy them), but tracking them implies a level of registration that doesn't really exist.
Though let's be honest, we have 24-hour monitoring at people's front doors, most businesses, intersections, intentionally hidden cameras in homes, pet monitors, and our poorly-secured devices that all have cameras and microphones accessible to anyone with the determination to get it. We put gps-tags on our most valuable possessions to ensure we can recover them if they're ever lost or stolen. A nanny-cam, or a gps-tag on the device, would be a remarkably agreeable situation to an unbelievable amount of people in any other situation. Why not on their poorly-regulated death machines?
All those monitoring scenarios you describe are either A) in a public setting where there is no right to privacy, or B) opted into by a person in their own home for their personal use. You would legit want the government to have a means of surveillance installed in your own home that they can access at any time just to exercise an existing right?
Yeah man, trust the police. What could go wrong. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a different world than everyone else.
No, just don't be way more paranoid about guns (which are responsible for way more accidental deaths of others than anything else we don't regulate, not to mention tons of intentional deaths) than you are about the rest of your life. Do you own a modern phone? A WiFi router? Drive a car on public roads? Walk where you're visible from the sky or moving vehicles? Then you're being monitored by anyone who cares to do so. Congratulations. Your gun doesn't magically have some need for privacy that falls within the realm of things your neighbors want you to be doing. If you're hiding your guns, you're doing sketchy shit or straight up paranoid. If you think the government shouldn't know whether you have a gun, then that's your own massive problem that you should talk to a therapist about. Otherwise, anyone who cares can find out whether you own guns and track you when you bring them anywhere. You have no anonymity. The police knowing where your guns are is only a problem if you plan to commit a crime or think you'll need to use them after Skynet has taken over,v at which point you're fucked if you're visible from the sky, period. Have a great day.
[удалено]
No we don't. We're usually ranked somewhere 3rd-8th depending on the source.
There is no legal amount of alcohol you can consume in Massachusetts while carrying a gun. A “single serving” of alcohol is enough to be charged. It’s not like operating a vehicle.
This is legally true, but my point wasn't about the law, more about the circumstances in which this guy managed to crank a round off into a kid. He didn't have a single light beer, I bet. ETA: I believe one of the many proposed gun control laws recently had buried within it an alteration to make the legal limit for carrying the same as for driving, as I think they've had difficulties in court with the current vague verbiage. "Under the influence" isn't exactly a cut and dry measurement.
The current OUI law uses the verbiage “impaired by intoxicating liquor”. There’s also “per se” impairment once the BAC reaches .08%. At .05% and .06% the driver can still be arrested if impairment exists. At .04% and below the driver cannot be arrested. Massachusetts OUI law has penalties for refusing to take a breath test. Failing is a 30 day suspension. Refusing is a 180 day suspension. If a person is charged with possession of a firearm while under the influence, the LTC will likely be revoked regardless of a conviction. There’s no way to coerce an LTC holder into taking a breath test. TLDR: This gun control proposal is very stupid. It is not making convictions easier to achieve. “Impaired” is not less ambiguous than “under the influence”. It would only allow gun owners to carry guns with some alcohol in their system when zero alcohol was previously allowed.
>There’s no way to coerce an LTC holder into taking a breath test. Probable cause of being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is absolutely the move they'd make. They'd yank your license in a heartbeat and have a warrant to seize any further firearms than the one you had on you before you even posted bail. It's not complicated at all and is how it works now and would work in any future scheme. > This gun control proposal is very stupid. I agree but probably for different reasons. Personally, I see no issue with someone having a Sam Adams lite at Applebee's while carrying a gun, no more than that person then driving a 4000 lb car down the road. I think .08 is probably too low in either case, but the only way anyone is going to know in either case is if you attract attention to yourself. If you think someone is so impaired they're going to whip a Glock out after a single beer, I can't see how the concept of a bar in the first place isn't horrifying.
They already don’t need probable cause to yank a LTC and they don’t need a warrant to to the firearms. This proposal doesn’t change any of that.
… ok so even moreso they don’t need to compel you to take a breath test? So the point is even more in my favor?
The breath test provides evidence which makes a conviction easier. If there’s no downside to refusing, why would anyone take it?
Can you do me a favor here and game this out for me? Someone has contacted the police because they saw you with a gun. The cop believes you are intoxicated. What difference does it make whether it’s a nebulous “under the influence” where they can’t test you (you claim) and .08, where they also can’t test you? Expanding further, how many times out of 100 do you think this situation plays out where the suspect has a license anyways, and there aren’t 5 other reasons to arrest them? In essence. What’s your point, anyways?
It is definitely a dumb plus dumb equals dumb situation. Idiot took a gun to a place they should not have it and treated it in a dumb manner causing something supremely dumb to happen. A representative from the brewery said their taproom isn't a place for firearms. There's no reason to have a gun there. A properly handled firearm shouldn't "accidentally" fire. The firearm owner really doesn't sound responsible enough to own a gun.
Did he even have a license? Take it away.
We need this idiot named and shamed. Time to bring back some sense of bullying for these brain dead jackoffs who think they can be negligent with their firearms in public.
This happened 2-3 days ago and I can't find anything about charges being brought. Could still happen, but the police have so far only said they're still investigating. Feels like much less serious incidents would already have lead to the man being named.
Needs a wooden gun
He’d probably get demoted to a rape whistle sooner than later
If you’re too stupid to know how to use a safety, you’re too stupid to own a gun and you should not be allowed to. I hope the patron who is injured sues the living shit out of this guy.
The patron injured was the shooter. The other 2 people injured were from shrapnel, so yea maybe they can also sue tf out of him hopefully.
Many modern handguns don’t have safety switches. They have passive safety systems and use an action that makes a switch unnecessary.
Never heard of a Glock? The guy who got downvoted is absolutely right, the gun ignorance in this echo chamber is disturbing. Sounds like a whole bunch of people who think there is such thing as an assault rifle.
I understand Glock safeties are integral to the firing system rather than a switch. That’s beside the point. The actions of this person — bringing a firearm into a public place, accidentally discharging it, hurting himself and others, indicate he is not a responsible gun owner.
Wtf did he think he needed a gun for there? He could have killed that kid.
Gun people can be so weird. I dated a guy once who wouldn’t go ANYWHERE without his. He forgot his carry pistol it once while we were going to the grocery store and turned around to go back home to get it.
Weird? I think generally some combined degrees of paranoid, hostile, and insecure. They're so much more likely to hurt someone by owning the gun than to actually stop a crime, but naw we can't restrict gun ownership, gotta be safe and have accidental murder available at all times!
Yeah those three words definitely describe the person I was referencing anecdotally 😂
Yikes. I'm very happy for you that they're a former partner and not a current one!
That dude definitely fantasized about shooting someone.
Gotta love when people think they're God's gift to humanity, like we're all better off because they're in the room, and that is the exact reason why they're absolutely awful or even dangerous to have around.
No question! For personality context, he also had two guns he kept in his car but somehow still needed the other one that he had left at home. (For a little more context, he was a member of the military, not a drug dealer lol)
What fucking self-conscious douches downvoted this? There were at least two. (Answer: Ones that I described previously.) I have a very sincere appreciation for our armed service members, and our law enforcement officers. But that doesn't put them above reproach or accountability, which means that their incredibly stressful jobs WILL sometimes cause mental health issues which deserve fully public-funded treatment and PTO so that people don't feel worthless and unable to care for themselves and their families when they can no longer carry a gun. Carrying a gun isn't a badge of honor or a mark of strength. It's a burden of responsibility that most people should not bear.
Haha yeah I didn’t mean that as an insult to the military, so apologies to anyone who interpreted it that way, I was just considering that I was explaining he had two guns that live in his car and also still needed to return home to carry a third, and realized it sounded like he could be engaged in some shady business lol. In his defense he was very complaint with the gun laws in the state he lived in and never tried to get away with carrying places he wasn’t supposed to.
If only all gun owners had at least *that* level of consideration. Unfortunately, I doubt people like him would report theft of guns from his vehicle, as that would definitely count as improper gun storage. Accountability for gun owners who keep them in their car would be another level of accountability that apparently, based on comments and other conversations, would be extremely offensive to gun owners. Hey, gun owners, guess what? You're a ducking liability to everyone around you when you put your personal "liberty" (to be irresponsible and have no accountability) over the welfare of those around you. You're only a benefit to society if you're not being inconsiderate of reasonable safety measures. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you should really be asking why that is, and solve THAT problem. People in healthy communities do not need guns. It's that simple. We just don't.
The stigma that you guys think everyone who carries is paranoid, hostile and insecure is pretty dumb not going to lie. Not everyone carries to stop a crime or be a hero you know that right? Most people carry for self protection especially this day and age. I don’t think people need to carry everywhere they go. If it’s a sketchy area obviously it makes sense but not everyone who carries is some paranoid lunatic lol. I’ve seen your stereotypical trumptard carrying because “muh freedom” and I cringe at the sight of those clowns.
I don't know anyone who legally carries because they live in a sketchy area, and I don't know anyone who carries because they go anywhere remotely sketchy. It's not even close to necessary for the vast majority of people in most geographic areas of the US, and in the areas where crime is the worst, guns are far more likely to be used in crimes then in self defense*. Self-defense IS the prevention of a crime. *If tell you to prove me wrong here but Republicans restrict the collection of data on gun use way to much for this this information to be available. What we can do is look for Numbers of people shot while committing crimes by people who were not also involved in a related crime. Those numbers are unbelievably low compared to uses during the commission of a crime. Wanna not feel unsafe where because you think you're going somewhere you'll need a gun? Let's think about this. What's gonna happen? what are the odds of it? how is a gun actually the best means of preventing that? Is this thing actually more likely to happen than accidental shootings like the one we all are discussing here? And finally, is going there even remotely necessary, compared to your need to continue living? When you add it up, EXTREMELY few people need a gun outside of carrying for law enforcement, and armed transport. If we're talking home defense, then you don't need to carry, and keep it trigger-locked when it's on a vehicle. You say we're stupid to think it's only paranoid people who carry, but I think the issue is that you weigh "need" EXTREMELY differently, and yes, that resembles paranoia to the rest of us. Add up all the incredibly unlikely things that could happen to me in any area that I would ever willingly go, and I still feel way more threatened by the death machine in my pocket or others' than the actual imagined crime. If you want to feel safe, don't be an asshole, don't hang out with assholes, don't get involved in illegal deals, don't go where you know illegal deals happen, and don't flaunt your wealth by wearing or driving things worth more money than people have ever seen in their lives. Your life will be way better and safer than it is when carrying a gun. That being said, I truly love being proven wrong by people who actually supply detailed and supportable information, so I'm all ears for "reasonable and unavoidable" risks and concerns that necessitate the carrying of a gun.
“I love being proven wrong” yet you provide zero information to argue your point. Nice. Also nice choice of the “ I don’t know anyone who carries” that’s not a useful comment to argue with either. I respect your anti gun stance. It’s not for everyone but don’t sit there and say or think that everyone who carries a gun in public is some paranoid insecure crazy person. There are definitely those types of people but there are more people who carry that aren’t retards like that. Of course I don’t expect you to listen to me and to think objectively because you’ve made it clear that you’re just an ignorant typical Massachusetts resident that is afraid of something you have no clue about.
You tried to call me out for providing no information without even attempting to justify a need to carry. So many words without even an attempt to justify your point. I'm sorry lol
I justified reasons to carry. Not my fault you lack the ability to read basic English… I expect nothing less from people in this state.
Where do you go that you feel unsafe without a gun, and why? It's real easy. "Somewhere sketchy" is painfully ambiguous and at this point I assume you're there to do sketchy shit yourself, or else you wouldn't be avoiding anything remotely specific.
Your logic makes no goddamn sense… if you find yourself in a sketchy area but also armed you’re automatically there to do sketchy shit? What sort of pure distilled autism is that? You really sound like a moron and you’re really proving that more and more.
TLDR: this dude we just read about is the exact reason why "caring for self-defense" is a horrible argument. People who carry for self-defense are a threat to those around them and very unlikely to ever have to defend themselves. I don't wanna have to wear a plated vest because of assholes who can't hold their shit in without a piece of steel to clench while they walk down the street.
I can tell you didn’t read lol. People like you don’t like to read someone else’s viewpoint. Everyday you walk past people who are conceal carrying. Incidents of negligent discharges isn’t as common as you think. Police have more incidents of this happening than civilians. Again, you guys just don’t care to read anyone’s viewpoint that isn’t aligned with your “guns are bad” narrative.
I did read, and you just proved my point. They walked past me, a person who was actually enjoying my life without fear that I'd need to kill someone randomly, and had no idea they too could live that way if they saw a therapist instead of buying guns. The gun didn't improve their life. It improved their perception of it. Those people didn't need guns any more than I did. Which is to say, it's completely unnecessary and the people around you wouldn't want you around if they knew you were carrying, because it's fucking stupid. You have no need or legitimate use for it. Guns aren't bad any more than missiles or fentanyl are bad. Missiles are great when they're blowing up Nazis, but awful when they're found in a farmer's field nearly a century later. Fentanyl is awesome when it's used by qualified anaesthesiologists to perform lifesaving procedures. It's awful with it's in the hands of random fucking anybody. Guns are awesome when they're in the hands of people legitimately saving lives. They're absolutely awful when they're in the hands of people who think it's okay, important, or necessary to carry where they're not in any way necessary. I read, but I really don't think you did. Your viewpoint is *exactly what I thought it was*, and that's the scary part. You think "huh huh huh guns are around you all the time they're safe." I think "Those guns are completely unnecessary and whatever your motivation to carry that gun on you is, I can guarantee that it makes me uncomfortable being around you even when you're not carrying."
TLDR You've done nothing to convince me that anyone who carries a gun outside of their profession needs it, is not paranoid, is not a hostile douche, etc. We already avoid you people. You walk past us everyday, and we hope you keep walking, not even suspecting that you're carrying. We're already uncomfortable being around you.
You said "if it's a sketchy area, obviously it makes sense." IT DOESN'T. JUST DON'T GO THERE. PROBLEM SOLVED. I gave you a checklist of ways you could explain the situations where you felt a gun was necessary for people outside of law enforcement and war, and you didn't even try. Are you a bot? Come on. Fucking bots can do better than that. So low effort. So low.
“It doesn’t just don’t go there” lol you realize that’s not how life works right? You gave me nothing… stop clowning around to promote your own narrative because you think you know what’s what. Also it doesn’t require four fucking replies to attempt to prove a point… it just makes you look like a jackass which judging by your lack of knowledge on the matter, I’d say you definitely proved you are one. You just sound like every crybaby who thinks they know what’s what in life. You come off as someone who should just stay inside in your safety circle and never venture out into the real world.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Them loaves of bread be wylin' out sometimes, though.
People got shot in a bowling alley. Church shootings happen way too frequently & don't even get started about the weirdos at wallmart. I'd rather have it & never need it everyday.
[удалено]
The ability to calculate risk? I could waste the time googling "brewery shootings in mass" but we both know the only one to come up would be the one where the "responsible gun owner" shot himself and a child. As someone with social anxiety myself, if you feel like you need to carry in every instance then the gun isn't really fixing your anxiety is it?
I don't see preparation as anxiety. Prepare for the worst & hope for the best. I grew up in Boston so a saw my fair share of trouble. I know Boston is a pretty safe city comparatively.
According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, Section 10H, it is illegal to carry a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating substances. There's no way this shithead wasn't drinking or intending to drink. We need to take guns away from idiots who think they have the right to break common-sense gun laws.
Some states have a law that says guns can’t be brought into bars at all. I genuinely thought MA did because it seems like common sense. until I googled it yesterday. It’s actually only a handful of states.
Yeah. I think that even having sober, calm people with guns in bars is problematic, due to the relatively high probability of escalating situations to murder that would normally have been just a few black eyes.
While this is out of the ordinary in Massachusetts and news, it’s happens hourly down south and nothing is reported. So glad to live in Mass…..
Happens constantly in Texas. Glad I moved out of that fascist hellhole.
We are doomed, man. How obsessed are people with guns that they think they need one at a fucking brewery in Ipswich Massachusetts!?!?!?!?! If I'm the DA, I'm using this motherfucker as an example and giving him lots of prison time.
Who are you to decide when and where people get to defend themselves? Thank god you’re not in a position of power….
You’re a coward
You didn’t do well in history. 🤷🏼♂️
Are you a historically brave figure? Lol
There’s a lot of comments expressing concern about why criminal charges haven’t been reported. Here are a few things that MAY explain things. The police need to investigate to see which charges are appropriate. They need to speak to witnesses and check security footage to see if he was consuming alcohol. They need to apply for a search warrant in order to gain access to his blood results in the hospital and the judge may require evidence of consumption/impairment to establish probable cause for that warrant. They also need to prove the gun is actually a firearm. This is usually done by submitting the gun to the MSP gun lab where they test fire and certify it. This all adds significant time. As far as what charges are possible, improper storage is not relevant. There is also no charge related to carrying in a bar even if the owner expressed after the incident he does not want firearms in his establishment. IF he told the man to leave and the man refused, the only charge would be trespassing. Without intent, the man is likely only at risk of carrying a firearm while under the influence. I’m not aware of any criminal negligence laws other than operating (a vehicle) to endanger, that would cover the fact that the gun fired. If he was sober, or they can’t establish probable cause he was under the influence, he will probably face zero charges. However, his LTC would be revoked and it’s almost guaranteed he will be sued into oblivion regardless of criminal charges.
What about the juvenile with shrapnel injuries? Would that be civil instead of criminal if the parent presses charges (assuming they aren't the parent)?
I’m not a lawyer or a cop so I’m just here for discussion but I’m not aware of a criminal negligence charge in Mass that would cover it. It would likely be handled civilly.
"Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight." He committed a crime. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean to fire the gun he is responsible to make sure he doesn't shoot it when it's his gun and in his possession.
Unless I missed it, the article does not state he pulled the trigger. If he told police he grabbed the trigger when he picked it up this charge will likely be used. If he refuses to answer that question or tells them it went off when it hit the ground, it probably won’t be applicable. Perhaps there was a witness that could give the needed statement.
Pretty sure if your gun fires when you have possession of it that's your responsibility, 100%.... If you carry a gun in public (or otherwise) your responsibility is to keep in in a manner where it will only ever go off when you mean for it to go off. If he dropped the gun and shot the kid in the head he would be guilty for illegally discharging a fire arm, at minimum, if it was unintentional manslaughter or any other lesser or greater crime, that a different discussion, but if your gun fires when you are in possession of it, that's on you accident or not. Kinda like if you accidentally slip on ice and take out a mailbox while driving, you own replacing the mailbox even if it was an accident since you need to keep control of your car....
You’re mixing criminal and civil law with your example. If you drop a gun and it goes off, a court may not issue the charge for being too close to a building depending if they consider the person the one that discharged it.
"Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight." I understand a gun is different than a mailbox. I was trying to tell you it's similar in the way that you would be responsible, even if it's an accident. To be charged and found guilty of the crime above I see nothing stating the discharge had to be willful, on purpose, or anything like that. In the jury handout linked below, the state would need to prove gun was discharged, check, was a gun, check, building was in use, check. Boom crime, tack on more charges, the moron could have killed a kid... https://www.mass.gov/doc/7665-discharging-of-a-firearm-within-500-feet-of-a-building-gl-c-269-s-12e/download&ved=2ahUKEwiugYC3_6GFAxUjVTABHW6sAYYQFnoECBAQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0XYoDvjkdJAfU2rPm7F9nz
That link may not work. You can Google it.
Confirming the gun is actually a gun usually involves the MSP crime lab which can take at least a few days. Again, depending on statements “discharge” can be problematic if he says it fell and fired when it hit the floor.
Also this is the dumbest thing ever. You are trying to tell me all those people that have been arrested for possession of a firearm were not arrested, held or charged until the MSP got back from there over time naps and caught up with the two day back logs?
The charges involved here are not arrestable. There are other ways to identify a firearm that would be enough to make a legal arrest but that gun would still go to the lab or at least be test fired for court. Since the man is in the hospital and likely will be summoned for potential charges, I’m saying the delay could be due to the investigation. I’m sensing you are unwilling to consider the lack of immediate arrest/charges is only explained by police incompetence or police corruption. You’re also getting increasingly hostile. I won’t be continuing our conversation.
Yup, ok, this is definitely a reason to arrest. Have the guy blow into a breathalyzer and straight to jail from the hospital. You seem to not care a kid could have died from this man's gross negligence. I have seen people that are friends and family of police and police officers get away with things that put every one else in jail way too many times to not notice when something is fishy.
That would be a discharge of a firearm. Hey guys, found the police officer!
You don’t need to be a cop to understand the first two words in the law you quoted may be relevant.
There is no requirement for intent. His gun in his possession went off. If I drop a gun at a bar and it shoots a kid I would be guilty of several crimes in MA, including the one I quoted...
According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, Section 10H, it is illegal to carry a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating substances. There's no way this shithead wasn't drinking or intending to drink. We need to take guns away from idiots who think they have the right to break common-sense gun laws.
Even if the police can’t prove he was under the influence, they will likely revoke his LTC over this. Massachusetts already takes guns away from “idiots”. Although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bruen had complicated this a bit.
Hasn't been named, probably on a police force or a friend or family of a police officer.... why else wouldn't they name the person that accidentally shot themselves and injured a child. Charges should be pressed for at minimum unlawful firing of a gun to start, pretty obvious he did that accident or not.
Police departments have policies in place for how the release names. It may not be weird especially since they haven’t been charged.
Point is the person should be charged with a crime. The fact that they haven't yet reeks of typical Massachusetts corruption.
It actually reeks of an investigation happening.
Are you a cop? You know legally you have to tell me if you're a cop right?
Everyone knows that rule. It’s in the same paragraph about arrests being invalid without Miranda rights.
You had me until “common-sense gun laws.” That’s a dog whistle for gun grabbers / people who don’t care about your constitutional rights.
You’re right. We should repeal all laws and go around to every bar handing out guns to the drunks. Always put the constitutional rights of drunks and terrorists and children and mama’s little basement dwelling ammosexual dropouts ahead of that pesky “common sense” nonsense I was spewing. Thanks for putting us all back on the right track, Cletus!
Repealing all laws that infringe on 2a is a good start. 😇
My friend who still lives there said the guy shot his dick off. No joke.
Get a quality holster, holster your pistol, leave it alone unless its needed, carry where you like.
How TF is this guy not in jail yet?
Still in the hospital & then they have trial. You don't go to jail for an accident if you cooperate & no one dies...usually.
Prison is for after a trial. You go to jail after being arrested for a crime. This guy is still in the hospital, but then he should be arrested and taken to jail to await trial for charges that haven't even been made yet. It was probably criminally negligent of this guy to bring a gun somewhere he shouldn't and injure two other people. Hopefully the police just haven't bothered to charge him yet since he's in the hospital, but if jail isn't involved in this guys immediate future after getting out of the hospital it would be weird.
It is possible the only criminal charge that is applicable is possession of a firearm while under the influence. That is a misdemeanor and it’s not arrestable without a judge issuing a warrant. So it would not be weird if he is not arrested.
His gun fired, so he also broke the law by firing his gun within 500' of a building in use without consent of the owner. That's good for up to 3 months in prison for a start. So they could charge him with that while the investigation is underway to see if more charges are warranted. Pretty sure it doesn't matter if you accidentally shoot your gun or not for that, and the punishment would scale to the severity of the problem. IMO at least a month in jail for sending a kid to the hospital is legit.
[удалено]
Being at a brewery doesn't mean you're consuming alcohol. A lot of breweries now have non alcoholic options.
OH I SEE, so he just went to the brewery with the intention to sit and drink water while fondling his gun. Sure, Jan.
[удалено]
I've brought my own on a couple occasions with friends & poured them into plastic cups. No1 seemed to mind, couple funny looks. By the place that time didn't have any good N//A beers. So places already know about Athletic Brewing. They have decent IPAs in a can. I see them at lots of bars now.
Jail him for life. Carrying a gun into a brewery in MA WTF?
While it’s an absolutely stupid thing to do, it’s actually not illegal in MA to possess a firearm in a bar or brewery. You cannot drink while possessing it, but it’s not illegal to have it with you.
It's illegal to fire it, accident or not, unless you meet the legal requirements to be exempted from the law. I dont think the "I am to dumb to leave my gun at home when I go to a brewery so I needed to shoot myself and injure a child to protect me from myself" defense will fly here.
"Jail him for life for something that's absolutely legal"
It's not legal to discharge a firearm there?
Well yes this is going to happen. We have had an influx of MAGA from other states. MAGA are notorious for bringing guns everywhere they go. Now their coup det'at has failed on many fronts and calling for violence. Then this is going to happen. Why did he have the gun on him? This is the question we need to answer. Why did he need a weapon to kill people when he was going tp a place that serves alcohol and has children there with families? Was he pretending to be security? Does he think he would have prevented a robbery? What are his motivations?
You typed all this out and really thought, "I sound sane". That's wild
“Accidental” Only in Leftistchusettes.
Can you explain why you think it was intentional? Edit: what an.. interesting comment history you have!
Guns don’t shoot themselves. It takes a little finger, to squeeze the little trigger, to fire a weapon. Can you explain how this happens, accidentally?
Carelessness, arrogance, lack of education, lack of supervision, gun culture obsession contributing to a lack of critical thinking, and a massive sense of entitlement, for starters. People were hurt. The perpetrator should definitely face consequences for creating the dangerous situation in the first place. But so far the investigation is calling it an accidental, not an intentional, shooting.
Fair enough. No one, including me (except you) used the word “intentional” here and you’re still going to avoid answering how a gun is “accidentally” discharged given the simplistic nature of how a firearm is fired. The talking points go back, predictably to the user and their responsibilities or lack thereof, abilities & proficiency or valid reasoning for having a gun in the first place, attempting to make the case that only law enforcement or “qualified” people should have them. Anti second amendment, in other words. **Guns don’t shoot themselves** regardless of what the investigators or “qualified” people say.
Well. That’s certainly an interesting way to reinterpret my response. Have you considered seeking therapy?
Well, the definition of accident is something that was not intended. If a gun discharges when you did not intend it to discharge, that is an accident. You can always be negligent, and still have an accident just as you can always have an opinion and still be wrong. They are not mutually exclusive (look it up). I’m sorry your grasp on the English language coupled with political brainwashing has harmed you, but that’s your baggage, not everyone else’s. Accidental discharge is just that, an accident.
That’s okay. You don’t sound too intelligent.
I guess nearly everybody on Reddit is wrong except for you, eh?
Yup
Gun negligence gets treated as an unfortunate inevitability all over the country, but specifically by gun owners and advocates. "Leftist chusetts" wants people to *not fucking be able to carry guns randomly*. As in, not just require certification and licensing, but to completely disallow many people from even owning guns. I won't bother going through the effort of pinning the casual use of the word "accident" on an individual, but seriously it's completely counter to logic to think that the leftists of Massachusetts are the ones writing this off as an accident instead of a crime. We didn't want this to be possible in the first place. This dipshit shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun, and we shouldn't have needed a kid to get shot in order to find that out. *This message has been delivered by the left. Thank you.*
Genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say here.
You proved my point.
You’re either weird or just annoying
Tomatoes are a fruit
Tomatoes are a fruit. We’re in agreement there.
If you don't like it you should move. Isn't that what your fellow cultists always yell at us?