Bill History - H. 3604

A chronological history of GrassRoots activities concerning H. 3604

H. 3604: This bill would make it a crime for a parent or guardian to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly permit a child under eighteen to possess a firearm if he is aware of a substantial risk that the child may carry it onto school property. It also makes the parent or guardian liable for civil damages suffered for the brandishing or discharge of the firearm on school grounds. Interestingly, a non parent or non guardian of the child can do exactly the same thing and NOT be guilty of a crime or specifically liable for civil damages.
Principles Involved: Criminal laws should not be vague and subject to substantial differences in interpretation. While it may be reasonable to hold a person criminally liable for knowingly or recklessly enabling the commission of criminal activity by another, it is never reasonable to hold a person criminally liable for what another might have considered doing but did not actually do. People should be held civilly liable for the actions of themselves and their minor children.
GrassRoots Position: GrassRoots strongly opposes this bill for the following reasons. The words “aware of a substantial risk” are too vague to hold a person criminally liable for the actions of another. What exactly does “aware of a substantial risk” mean? What exactly does “recklessly” mean in this context? Would “recklessly” include leaving a self defense firearm unlocked in the house even after the child has been properly trained in the use of firearms? What if the child is 17 years old? How is one to determine if a child “may carry” a firearm onto school grounds? This bill requires parents and guardians to become mind readers. This bill does not even require that a crime be committed by the child before the parent or guardian can be found guilty of a crime. Thus, a parent or guardian could be found guilty of committing the crime of enabling their child to commit a crime even though no such crime was ever committed or even attempted by the child. As shown, this bill is both too vague and too overreaching to allow for criminal prosecutions. Interestingly, this bill is quite specific and eliminates all vagueness when defining what must occur before a person is liable for civil damages. If this bill is amended to provide the same protections to criminal defendants that it now provides to civil defendants, then GrassRoots will reconsider its position.
Current Status: In House Judiciary committee.
Primary Sponsor: Ballentine.
Full Text: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3604.htm

Feb. 28, 2007 House Introduced and read first time
Feb. 28, 2007 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
Mar. 1, 2007 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Harrell, E.H.Pitts