School shooting - 3 dead - Here we go again

**mrbieler** · 12-06-21, 11:52

Originally Posted by .45fan

The state the shooting happened in does require registration if handguns.

Again, it get back to semantics. They can tell the boy this is for you, but we know it’s not legal to do that right now. It’s not registered to the boy. Legally, It belongs to the father.

After my son passed his Cub Scout training program for firearms, I got him a Rossi pump action 22 rifle. I told him it was for him. It was obviously not going to belong to him at his age, but it was “his”.

**.45fan** · 12-06-21, 12:00

Originally Posted by mrbieler

Again, it get back to semantics. They can tell the boy this is for you, but we know it’s not legal to do that right now. It’s not registered to the boy. Legally, It belongs to the father.

After my son passed his Cub Scout training program for firearms, I got him a Rossi pump action 22 rifle. I told him it was for him. It was obviously not going to belong to him at his age, but it was “his”.

Legally, "own" has a meaning.
You can say semantics, but it isn't.

Your son doesn't own the truck you referred to because the title isn't in his name. Just because you say its his doesn't mean it is.
If you and your wife die tomorrow and have no will, you saying the truck is his means zero, it will go to probate court to be decided on who gets it like all other assets. If you owe anybody money they could very well end up owning the truck you claim to be your sons.

If the kid actually owned the gun, like you guys claim is legal, then dad wouldn't be in the discussion.

**mrbieler** · 12-06-21, 12:06

Originally Posted by .45fan

Legally, "own" has a meaning.
You can say semantics, but it isn't.

Your son doesn't own the truck you referred to because the title isn't in his name. Just because you say its his doesn't mean it is.
If you and your wife die tomorrow and have no will, you saying the truck is his means zero, it will go to probate court to be decided on who gets it like all other assets. If you owe anybody money they could very well end up owning the truck you claim to be your sons.

If the kid actually owned the gun, like you guys claim is legal, then dad wouldn't be in the discussion.

I’ve never said the boy legally owned the gun. I don’t think he can, legally. Possessing it in his own home is a different matter. Once he steps outside and he’s not with an adult, it’s an issue. I don’t think I’ve been unclear on that.

**AKDoug** · 12-06-21, 12:18

Originally Posted by .45fan

The state the shooting happened in does require registration if handguns.

Then since it must be registered to the parents, it doesn't belong to the kid. Simple as that. It's just a narrative the press wants to push... OMG people buy guns for their kids !! Still not a good reason to charge manslaughter for, but I would understand a civil case against them.

Originally Posted by Adrenaline_6

Bottom line...this will slowly disappear.

No narrative to push. All white, middle income. No AR. Nothing right wing or somehow Trump related.
DOA.

The leftists are already pushing the fact that the mom was a "Trumper"..

**mrbieler** · 12-06-21, 12:28

Originally Posted by AKDoug

Then since it must be registered to the parents, it doesn't belong to the kid. Simple as that. It's just a narrative the press wants to push... OMG people buy guns for their kids !! Still not a good reason to charge manslaughter for, but I would understand a civil case against them.

The leftists are already pushing the fact that the mom was a "Trumper"..

In civil court, I think they will have their asses handed to them. The school too would be nice as well since we’ve tossed the parents on the clink. I just really question the criminal arrest and bond based on existing law in Michigan. That part is scary.

**.45fan** · 12-06-21, 12:55

Originally Posted by mrbieler

I’ve never said the boy legally owned the gun. I don’t think he can, legally. Possessing it in his own home is a different matter. Once he steps outside and he’s not with an adult, it’s an issue. I don’t think I’ve been unclear on that.

Go back and read post 105 number 3. (Not your post)
That is the the post that got you and I into this debate.
I replied to 105 and you disagreed and gave examples from from reply (link) that didn't "always" apply (he was not at a range, parents aren't always present, etc) so I'm still saying he can "own" a gun per MI law like post 105 claims.

You and I are debating just to debate.

**mrbieler** · 12-06-21, 13:14

Originally Posted by .45fan

Go back and read post 105 number 3. (Not your post)
That is the the post that got you and I into this debate.
I replied to 105 and you disagreed and gave examples from from reply (link) that didn't "always" apply (he was not at a range, parents aren't always present, etc) so I'm still saying he can "own" a gun per MI law like post 105 claims.

You and I are debating just to debate.

Gotcha.

I think the issue becomes the debate over own versus “own”. Did he really own the gun? No. I don’t think he legally can. Did he “own” the gun because his parents said it was for him? Very likely. Not unusual. Not illegal either. Provided all the other points listed before are followed. Under supervision, at a range, at training, not in public, etc., there is nothing that says he can’t possess it.

**.45fan** · 12-06-21, 13:28

Originally Posted by mrbieler

Gotcha.

I think the issue becomes the debate over own versus “own”. Did he really own the gun? No. I don’t think he legally can. Did he “own” the gun because his parents said it was for him? Very likely. Not unusual. Not illegal either. Provided all the other points listed before are followed. Under supervision, at a range, at training, not in public, etc., there is nothing that says he can’t possess it.

I would hit the "like" button if it were available on thus post.