I see no problem if the "kid" is of legal age to own the firearm and
it is transferred to him along with a new registration of ownership.
That leaves the original owner (gifter) with no further responsibility.
Of course under the rules I have proposed if someone just gifts a
firearm to someone without any documentation of the transfer, the
original owner should still be held responsible if that firearm ever
becomes used in criminal activity.
I still ask, why is documentation a mitigator in any crimes?
What difference does it really make?
Virtually every one of these mass shootings involve legally purchased
and properly documented firearms.
When you look at the bulk of the murders (around the drug trade), the
guns are usually stolen and I doubt anyone will be rushing down to the
police station to register a stolen gun, particularly since most are
barred from owning one in the first place.
Because we have to change our thinking about gun ownership, not outlaw them.
You said you had a shotgun at 15 and "unfettered" access to a .22 before
then. Tim just mentioned that he had a .357 at 15 and a .44 at 17.
Obviously both of you were responsible and careful with them otherwise
either or both of you would not be around to be posting in rec.boats today.
But, let me ask you this:
Do you (and Tim) think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your
neighborhoods should have the right to have a shotgun or a .357 whatever
it was?
Is your confidence in other families and the parents that control
them high enough to feel comfortable with kids barely beyond puberty
walking around with those firearms?
Not me. Many parents today don't even enforce some of the basic
rules we grew up with.
![Mr. Luddite[_4_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Another ...
Threaded Mode
