msbadger wrote:[quote]ECOs found a scoped rifle and box of ammunition next to the window in his room where apparently he would sit and shoot at wildlife that ventured onto the property. The firearm and the eagle carcass were seized, and the man was ticketed for illegally taking a protected bird, for which he paid a heavy fine.[b] Additionally, the man's other firearms were locked in the facility owner's gun safe, available only for legitimate hunting activities.[/b]
We both have strong thoughts on this but I need to remind you ....no in this day and age.... kids do not have until 18 before their toes are held to the fire ...many 16yr olds and more than a few 14 have been triad as adults in this country...also perhaps the ones in charge of the legal system concerning this should be held accountable for if I were to assume... as you... his possible mental deterioration and knowing the obvious lack of common sense and deceitful ways of the care giver...how could they find it reasonable to allow her to keep his guns under lock and key...FOR FUTURE LEGITIMATE HUNTING?....I was wrong it's more a "keystone " cops thing[/quote]
I read the article several times now ma'am, and at no time is there mention of any other wildlife being harmed. There is only a guess.(did they even count the remaining bullets?) And how old is the ammo? As to young children 14-16 being held accountable for thier actions as an adult requires something far and above the norm. Manslaughter, armed robbery, multiple voilations without change of behavior, incorargable. That most often happens when a human being dies. or at least nearly dies. As to the guns. I would like to say he should have lost them all, plus the privledge of ever hunting again, But I would be tresspassing on his right to bare arms. He lost the rifle with which he commited a crime, that is as it should be, But hunting is a privledge and a resposibility. If he can't handle the resposbility, he should not be allowed to hunt. Here in Ohio, I believe hunting is a privledge to be lost if you break the rules, a right (like the right to bare arms) is harder to diminish and requires more proof. Like proof of a felony conviction. He has a RIGHT to his guns, unless the courts deside against him (convicts can not own guns) But that has to be a decision of the courts. Do you really want the courts involved with the taking away rights involving guns? (or bows, they too are arms) That could be a very slippery slope. Remember, evry case is laid on the bone of another, and every case effects all the cases that follow. It is easy to jump on board and punish the guy, but when the courts are involved, it effects us all.