A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week pleaded not guilty after becoming the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns.
Michael Tolbert, 44, of Flint, was arraigned Monday on nine felony charges including single counts of first-degree child abuse and violation of Michigan’s gun storage law, said John Potbury, Genesee County’s deputy chief assistant prosecuting attorney.
Tolbert’s daughter remained hospitalized Wednesday in critical condition from the Feb. 14 shooting, Potbury said. The youngster shot herself the day after Michigan’s new safe storage gun law took effect.
Finally, a sensible gun law.
It will get challeged to the Supreme Court and struck down.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
I just don’t understand the US and the 2nd. You’re not allowed to have a lot of various weapons and it just states that people can be “armed”, which could mean a lot of things. And even then, having a gun stored away safely is absolutely not infringing on that right either, as long as you have access to it. This is just obsessive gun fetishism and it constantly gets people killed, including little kids.
It’s literally gun fetishism. Full stop.
The people who will angrily defend 2a are perfectly happy watching children die if it means they get to keep their guns. They’ll give you all kinds of excuses, they’ll come up with all manner of justifications, but the truth is, they just like feeling powerful and are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for it.
Don’t forget the racism. The NRA’s perfectly fine with throwing away gun rights if it means making sure only white people are armed. For example, even as Harlon Carter was ramping up his crusade to turn the NRA from a sportsman’s organization into the gun lobby, the NRA still supported the Mulford Act, because at least that was taking guns away from those damn ni- I mean, “violent extremists”. They were dead silent when a legal, responsible gun owner like Philando Castile was killed. They never said anything when the textbook definition of a “good guy with a gun”, Emantic Bradford, was killed. And we all know damn well why.
The Harlon Carter school of gun rights comes with a major caveat present in many strains of conservatism: no restrictions as long as you’re part of the right group.
I will say this though, the issue is still pretty complicated, because basically both sides have some history of racism (gun control first started as ways to assuage fears of black uprisings, plus the aforementioned Mulford Act), but then, what part of American society isn’t in some way permeated by our racist history?
I dunno, it sounds like you understand it perfectly. A large contingent of the U.S. has decided guns are more important than children’s lives, and that’s why they have more rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you’re allowed “bearable arms”, so essentially anything that can be carried, for self defense. And that requiring a weapon be kept locked up defeats the purpose of self defense.
Oregon has a law that requires guns be locked up, but dodges the self defense aspect by allowing an exception for guns under the direct control of the owner.
So if I’m home and in direct control of my guns, they don’t have to be secured. If I leave home or am not otherwise present, they do.
Can a 2 year old wrestle it away from you?
I dunno… have you seen some two year olds? ;)
“Why can’t I carry my nuclear warhead loaded rocket launcher to Wall Mart?!”
Not “bearable”.
See: JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS 2016
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
It would first have to pass the “dangerous and unusual weapons” test before even getting to the bearable test… At least according to ScaliaLaw.
Could’ve at least quoted Heller’s common use if you wanted to make a point (even though I’d still disagree heavily), because “bearable arms” is a completely ambiguous term without a clear definition that is simply applied willy nilly to justify their gun fetishism.
Caetano supercedes Heller.
Just look at it through the lens of “would this increase or decrease the profits of the gun lobby?” and everything falls into place.
Safe storage? Tbh probably increase, who do you think sells gun safes? They’re in the “gunniverse” too it isn’t just Colt.
Eh, if my in-laws hadn’t bought me a gun safe before my daughter was born, I probably would have given up my guns, because I wouldn’t want to spend the money on a safe, but I also wouldn’t want unsecured guns in the house… But I’m probably not the typical gun owner so what do I know.
They got your money. They don’t care where you store them. They don’t even care if they kill your daughter. They only oppose safe storage because they know the extra upfront cost will lose them sales.
I just don’t understand the US and the 2nd.
It is complicated and a lot of people are ignorant.
deleted by creator
They would say, well I have access to buying a Ferrari but I don’t have the right to one.
This isn’t preventing him from getting a firearm this is charging somebody with improper storage of a firearm. Not sure how likely it is the supreme Court will rule against it but it’s different than the laws challenged so far
Theses fucks are going to suggest that any mandate on how a person keeps their gun (as in in a box, in a safe, etc) is a restriction on their rights.
We need an Al Gore like figure who can charismatically drone on about needing a “Locked Box”.
They already have, see the Heller decision cited above.
Doesn’t seem much different than a parent getting charged when their kids find their stash of drugs and consume them or take them to school.
It isn’t. But the freedom to own guns without any sort of restriction is much more loudly, enthusiastically, and financially supported than the freedom to consume drugs in your own home.
And thus it won’t matter that the key thing is being irresponsible. Being irresponsible with guns and drugs in the home are completely different things in the Modern Republican mind.
Not to mention both major parties are anti-drug, no matter that conservative originalism would have long ago recognized that the founding fathers were all stoners, but both parties packed the court with their own flavors of authoritarians.
As a felon, legally, they couldn’t get the gun in the first place but that’s not going to stop a lot of felons.
It’s also not going to stop the Supreme Court from striking that down, too.
The money and power behind the GOP want us out here killing each other.
That’s actually one of the angles on the Hunter Biden firearms case… it will be interesting to see how far they’re willing to go.
They’d never grant hunter biden cert. They’ll wait for someone else to raise the point.
This isn’t preventing him from getting a firearm
Well, that depends on what you mean. If you mean “it would still be possible for him to illegally acquire or make a firearm,” yes. In fact it looks like he was already a felon in possession (or prohibited possessor) before this incident, clearly this specific guy can get guns regardless of the law.
But if you mean “this does nothing in a legal sense to bar him from arms possession,” actually being indicted on a felony count will pop up on NICs if it has been entered properly, and if it isn’t input properly and he does a 4473, he now has another felony count for lying on the form. Once this conviction hits, it’ll be added to the list, so his prior felony convictions for drugs/firearms related stuff and his felony conviction for safe storage will flag in NICs, this guy will never legally be able to buy a gun again.
Like I said though, “legal” and “possible” are two very different things, just depends on what we mean.
The point I was addressing is that the supreme Court shouldn’t strike this law down as it doesn’t affect ownership of guns. If the guy’s a felon he probably should not have had a firearm but I can understand why he would want one.
Oh my mistake. Imo they may depending on the law if it significantly hinders (or can be argued that it does in court, anyway) home defense, but if the law is built in a way that allows people to have one out on body like Oregon’s (iirc) it’ll probably stand, only time can tell really.
But yeah he was a felon before these new felony charges it seems, wasn’t allowed to even have this gun lol, and won’t be allowed future ones.
I can understand why felons would want one too, and imo nonviolent felons should have a path back to their rights (both bullets and ballots), especially since that law is actually a tad racist. That said, this guy shouldn’t have them because of his criminal negligence.
Where does the 2A say anything about “immediate self-defense”? Oh that’s right, no where. Fuck SCOTUS
In the context of the second amendment what do you think the word bear means? I’m not convinced that this law would violate what I think bear means. If it’s not on or near your person, I don’t mind it needing to be locked.
The word “bear” means whatever SCOTUS says it means. Much like “arms.” And “right.” And “infringed.” And “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
And fuck whoever decided these posts fall under the definition of “speech” too, right? Right?
My god this is a shitty take.
Except these posts don’t fall under free speech
Sure they do. I can make whatever criticisms of the government that I want and they can’t prosecute me for it. Look how Russia and China handle online criticism.
‘scuse me? you just drop in from a different conversation?
Doubt SCOTUS ever touches this.
The language matters A LOT: Michigan’s mirrors California’s, which would absolutely hold up to any constitutional challenge because it requires negligence with an adverse outcome. Michigan’s and California’s basically say you’re a criminal if two things are met: you had any plausible expectation of a child being around, AND something bad actually happens.
Every states are a little different, and at the other end of the intelligence spectrum are New Jerseys and New Yorks, and nobody even cared to challenge those yet. New Jerseys statute says you’re a criminal, regardless of circumstances, if the guns are not locked up per some collection of criteria at all times when you’re not actively accessing them. I do know that most of New Jerseys rare prosecutions are actual bullshit, for example a cop going door to door to gun owners because of some local crime, asking to see someone’s gun to check it and not liking that the safe in the room he was in when they showed up was not completely locked (never mind he lives alone). Expect any challenge to arise there.
If SCOTUS does throw out all storage laws, it’ll be because of politicians who care more about their resume than about writing really good laws.
IIRC there’s already a storage law being challenged, I can’t remember if it’s California or somebody else. CA also has the magazine size ban.
I’m sure there’s every kind of law being challenged, anyone with a conviction can challenge a law and any idiot city council can pass garbage statute. Don’t let political rhetoric cloud judgement (can’t say “common sense” because common sense actually ignores deep analysis). Magazine size ban is wildly different from California’s implementation of a safe storage law. Magazine bans are as constitutional as would be a law limiting the number of words you may post online in one go.
The “common sense gun law” thing was just stupid. Remember when they were arguing to block people on the no-fly list from buying guns?
Despite the fact that there’s no due process for the no fly list and none of the shooters were actually on the no fly list…
“It’s common sense!” 🤔
They did leave some wiggle room which has allowed the law here in Washington to stick around. Basically if there is a reasonable possibility that a person who is not allowed to handle firearms would have access to them, you can apply restrictions. Guns here have to either be on your person or locked if there is a possibility that your kids could access them.
That’s the primary thing that’s going to send this guy away… felon in possession.
And yet still another kid dead.
Congrats on passing that super effective gun law, dude!
Removed by mod
And the “nothing” it sounds like you’d vote for wouldn’t even punish the father! You’d rather have a kid die for nothing? Or would you rather we took the gun away? Are you saying that the only thing that actually works? Then we might agree on something.
Yeah and people still get murdered so i guess you would like to legalize killing people?
Is your argument that laws have no effects?
I do not understand how a parent can be so irresponsible as to leave a gun easily accessible in a house with children. Kids are really really resourceful. Its bit like keeping a hyper intelligent racoon inside with a drive to kill itself through curiosity. Guy definitely deserves charges
Because a gun lock is liberal and gay and if you use one you basically are announcing to the world you just bought Beyoncé tickets.
Man how fucked is this timeline that I had to scratch my head a bit over whether this was a sincere response or a caricature of a particular US demographic?
I wrote the goddamn thing and even then I was like holy shit that almost comes off sincere
The sad thing is, in this timeline it isn’t out of place among the whackadoo things they’ve said.
The hillbillies think Taylor Swift is part of a conspiracy to prevent electing their chosen dictator of all things. That’s where they are now. It isn’t like what you wrote is too far ahead on the road of crazy; more like it’s barely visible on the rearview.
The film idiocracy is almost a documentary at this point, we keep inching closer and closer
https://thedenforum.com/uploads/db3957/original/3X/9/5/95f66b45b601a0790bc34df2efc3948c61ab42c2.gif
A few weeks ago, a stud football player was being called gay by Conservatives because he had the audacity to date a woman over the age of 30.
This is where we are as society. It’s fascinating.
Fellas, is it gay to fuck women?
That at least I think came astroturfed from the billionaire think tanks who’ve been throwing anything they can at the wall to try to discredit Swift, who’s dangerous because she encourages voting. They know there’s nothing to really attack her on (except on stuff like using a jet too much and having expensive tickets, but those things can’t be criticized from the right), so they’re just barfing out anything they can.
thanks for the meme kind stranger
“You wouldn’t wear a condom on your man weapon would ya? Why would you safely secure your firearm? Murica! Fuck yeah!” - probably some dumbass
Just like washing your ass.
Or wiping
Know when you see a conservative meme and think, “Fuck they’re dumb. Nobody talks or thinks that way.”
That’s you. Right now.
Know when you see an ate-the-onion meme and think, “Fuck they’re dumb. Nobody would fall for that.”
That’s you. Right now.
Yep. It was an over the top joke about them.
Removed by mod
It doesn’t take much to understand it. He’s from Flint. If you know the area, there’s a lot of reciprocal violence. He has previous offenses. It’s hard to get out. He probably knows plenty of people who’ve had loaded guns around their kids and nothing ever happened.
Yes, he deserves the charges, but like, this isn’t some gentrified place. As a society, we really aren’t helping folks in depressed urban areas to get better lives either.
I do not understand how a parent can be so irresponsible as to keep a weapon designed only to maim or kill in their house with their children.
The farther you get from America, the more woefully absurd it sounds. But, right in the middle of America, it’s a very different place.
And at this point in time, gun fetishism has gone meta-static and is afflicting many different states.
And it’s not the possession of guns alone: I’ve seen the exposé where Switzerland’s gun culture is compared, and questions are asked about how they can have one gun per adult and still suffer an almost non-existent rate of accidents and murders. A lot of it resembles the 1950s where kids would be part of a school .22 target rifle team, store their guns and ammo on the premises and still no one got hurt.
I really think it’s the worship of guns, where Meal Team 6 tries to emulate cowboys of old, and fails on every level.
Honestly I just think it’s irresponsible people. No proof but I have a hunch that Americans tend to be more laid-back with things like firearms than people in Switzerland might be. We used to be more careful but we got far too comfortable with them.
I’m American and I can confirm. All the people I know who are really into guns treat them like toys. They may spout off the “3 rules” but it pretty much stops there. The whole attitude they have is just gross to me and so different from how I was raised to treat firearms.
I mean you can make the same argument about items like a bow and arrow, crossbows, and swords. There are valid reasons to have weapons in the house however they should be locked up so that they aren’t accessible normally.
What are valid reasons to keep something designed to maim and kill in your home?
Target practice. Inherited heirlooms. Defense while camping. People find them cool. People keep guns for the same reason people keep swords. I understand that it is a tool designed for killing but at the end of the day it is still a tool. Don’t get me wrong I’m still all for gun control but I do understand why people would want to keep a gun in their home. You don’t have to agree with it but you shouldn’t punish people who responsibly own firearms.
That’s the problem. I don’t think it’s possible to be responsible and own a firearm.
I wouldn’t keep a tiger in my house. I don’t care if dad bequeathed it to me, or I totally have a lock on the door, or it’s ok, I’ve done a tiger training course. Why invite the risk? Because I really fucking like tigers? Fuck everyone else, I like tigers.
Okay that’s interesting thought. See the difference in your example is that a tiger is a sentient being but you have no control over. If I got bequeathed a tiger I probably surrender that too. A gun is a tool which is easily contained. What’s the difference between keeping a firearm and a sword or a bow and arrow when there are also tools initially designed to kill/maime?
The control in both these examples comes from the human. Who should be smart enough not to keep weapons or tigers in a house. That decision is available to everyone. Unless your intention is to maim or kill. Then it makes sense.
Do you drive a car?
A car can be used to maim and kill. But its main use is transport. Try again.
Hunting, keeping destructive varmints off your property, self defense.
In the suburbs?
Not everyone lives in the suburbs buddy and some suburbs are less policed than others.
So where are the stories of gun related death
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t focus on his plea. He’s likely doing this on the advice of his lawyer to secure plea deal. Initial charges always very harsh and this is a pretty common tactic in American court. It’s like companies who won’t say “you’re sorry” because it opens them up to liability.
Because people who like guns are generally VERY stupid.
First of all, I agree with you that guns should be locked up if there’s going to be kids/morons around them. I want to add that there’s also a responsibility if you have both guns and children in your house that you should be teaching the children not to touch them (this is probably a good idea even if you don’t have guns and live in the USA). DO NOT TOUCH THE GUNS was drilled into me and my siblings for longer than I can remember. My grandfather kept a rack of long guns in the back bedroom of their house where we would sometimes play as kids and none of use ever even looked at them for more than a few seconds without somebody being like “don’t touch those”. I do consider that to be irresponsible as fuck but my point is education would certainly help prevent injuries if a kid did happen to get access to a gun.
I mean I completely agree with you and that is definitely a rule in my house however if a parent can’t be bothered to lock up their gun I’m not entirely sure they’re going to bother teaching their kid not to touch the gun.
Yeah, unfortunately the common trends with gun violence are morons, criminals, and crazy people. All of which are a much bigger problem to solve.
Surprised that’s a new law. In NM recently, in a particularly stupid case, some 14 year old kid shot his friend, a girl, I think on accident… then dragged her body outside and made up an idiotic story about how it was a unknown-motive drive-by and someone in a black SUV shot her. Anyway, his dad had a ton of guns just casually laying around their trailer or house or whatever. The father has been charged with ‘negligent making a firearm accessible to a minor resulting in death’.
Gun laws vary by state, my guy.
Yes, this is a great example of that.
Hope he rots in prison.
deleted by creator
That can be a claim, whether or not they’re disputing the basic facts, that the situation doesn’t match the specific crime the defendant is accused of.
If he plead guilty he’d be accepting a felony charge and would have to give up his guns. He’s probably holding out for a plea that lets him keep them.
He was already a felon:
A not guilty plea was entered Monday on behalf of Tolbert, who also faces one count each of felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, lying to a peace officer in a violent crime investigation and four counts of felony firearm, Potbury said.
He said Tolbert is barred from possessing firearms and ammunition because he has multiple firearms-related felony convictions and drug-related convictions.
So, he was already banned from having guns…
Pretty shitty parent/person prioritizing his guns over the safety of his two-year old.
Well, I mean, the kid is already injured but they don’t have his guns yet!! /S /S /S
Removed by mod
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think defendants almost always start by pleading not guilty, then later accept a plea bargain.
With these guns storage laws, don’t forget to hold gun safe manufactures responsible for selling ones that can be opend with a spoon. Lock Picking Lawyer
I say about a $10 million fine per unit sold with vulnerabilities that allows it to be opened non-destructivly (or minor cosmetic damage) without touching the lock mechanism.
$10 million if it can opened by sticking any object in the key way and it opens
$5 million if it requires a lock pick set, but can be opened by a noive in less than a minute.
$15 million if it uses a master lock.
Seem fair?
Using a masterlock should be immediate execution for entire c-suite, board members, and anyone involved in the design process. Let’s be real here.
His defense should be insanity due to drinking too much of the municipal water.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Awful
Oh jeez. He is from Flint, Michigan.
I mean, I don’t know how else you defend this level of stupidity. Leaving loaded guns accessable to children. SMDH
I’m 100% for mandatory safe storage laws and prosecution of those who fail to do so, especially if that failure leads to injury, death, of theft of said firearm and that gun is used in a crime.
The Largest Source of Stolen Guns? Parked Cars.
So the assholes that need to have guns with them, constantly available, unsecured, because the “might need to access them instantly” or some such nonsense are the very people feeding guns into criminals hands and causing death and injury via accidental shootings and suicides.
I told my 19-year-old sister-in-law that toddlers are kill-myself machines, she has a 2-year old who’s always getting into the cabinets under this sink. She said that I was over reacting. I can’t wait to show her this.
Let’s be real, a 19 years old having a 2 years old to begging with is in itself a problem.
Only because she’s poor.
