"Mom charged after gun found in kindergartener's backpack at school in Cicero" (she put it there!)

[orleans]

CHICAGO (CBS) – A Cicero woman has been arrested for child endangerment and weapons charges, after putting a gun in her 5-year-old son's backpack, which was later found when he went to school.

The gun was found in the kindergartener's backpack during morning procedures at Columbus West Elementary School, located in the 5400 block of West 31st Street.

(snip)

As reported by CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot, Cicero police said the boy's mother, 35-year-old Marissa Embrey, had placed the gun in the boy's backpack to take it to her vehicle. She then drove him to school and forgot to take the gun out of the backpack before dropping him off.

(snip)

Embrey has been charged with misdemeanor counts of endangering the life of a child and carrying a concealed weapon in a prohibited area, police said. Cicero police also notified Illinois State Police regarding Embrey's concealed carry license and Firearm Owner's Identification card.

(more at link)

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/gun-inside-kindergarteners-backpack-columbus-west-elementary/

omg! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE????

i can just imagine what could have happened!

[Sancho]

1. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[AllyCat]

3. People control AND gun control.

[Joinfortmill]

5. Well thought out and it would certainly be helpful

[Phoenix61]

8. And again. No. Just no. It's the guns!!!!! nt

[Sancho]

9. There is no part of a license that prevents gun restrictions!!!

If you also want to ban certain types of guns or whatever - please do so!!

The license is legal in the US (all the parts are in place in different ways somewhere), and it makes it harder for potentially dangerous people to possess guns or ammunition of any kind.

[Phoenix61]

10. But it doesn't solve the problem.

Your belief that there is a mental health screening that can predict future behavior is just one of many things wrong with your regularly posted how to do the problem post.

[Sancho]

13. I happen to know that dangerous behavior can be predicted....

...nothing is 100%, but preventing obvious dangerous people from possessing guns is clear.

For example, do we let 10 years old children drive cars? Why not - because it is dangerous!

People who have been in multiple car accidents while drinking and driving lose their license. Why? Because they are dangerous. No one cares if they have been diagnosed as an alcoholic or if they are being treated for substance abuse by professionals - they are proven dangerous, so they lose the license. The screening is their obvious behavior.

Emotional people who are clinically depressed, overtly out-of-control angry, etc. should not be able to easily possess guns, buy guns, or possess guns. It is not hard to understand. There are plenty of ways to develop screening without a "clinical psychologist" diagnosing some mental condition. If you have a history of abusing your spouse, attacking the neighbors, or attempted suicide, then you should not possess a gun until and unless you can prove your stability at the current time. The burden is on the person with the history before you get the license. Without the license you should not be able to possess a gun, buy a gun, buy ammunition, transport a gun, go hunting with a gun, or practice shooting a gun. It should be very hard to possess that gun without a serious license.

When you go to the Motor Vehicle Department, and they do a vision test they just want to see if you can read road signs - no one is giving you an eye exam or prescription like an ophthalmologist! If you cannot read the signs, you don't get a license until you get your eyes checked and get glasses!

A license is not a "mental health screening". A gun license should be denied if you appear potentially dangerous until you are cleared to possess the gun. Your mental health is up to the professionals.

[edisdead]

15. The mental health screening seems tricky to me

You kind of wash it away with an “It would be easy to do” sort of opinion but I don’t see it that way at all. I agree with a lot of your points otherwise because I see it as a pragmatic approach to a problem that isn’t going away any time soon.

But the mental health piece is a sticky one. With the fact that 4 out of 5 people will experience some form of mental health issue in their life how do you intend to put together a baseline of what the line is to cross. I have been on SSRI’s in my life to combat depression and anxiety. Am I an obvious danger to society? I sure as shit wouldn’t want to be designated as such. What is the fallout of that information after I fail my screening? How os that designation protected from being used against me in other areas of life?

[Sancho]

16. How many murder/suicides would be prevented by screening for a license before possessing a gun?

There is no license for "obvious danger to society", but if you walk into Walmart and want to guy a gun - you should produce a license.

If you have a history of spouse abuse, or 3 attempted suicides in the last 5 years, or your references where you work say you are always threatening people - then you should not get the license or possess the gun. At the very least, you would have to satisfy the license requirement, insurance company, and some mental health professional before getting the license!

Maybe you would have a "restricted license" so you could possess a gun while supervised. The details of the license may be up to your state, but there should be some common components everywhere.

Are there people with vision problems who drive??? Of course - once their sight is corrected. Their license says they should be driving with glasses.

[edisdead]

17. I do not disagree with any of that

I do not disagree with any of that, what I have concern (read: not outright refusal) is in how that is done. What is the baseline for approval disapproval, how is that information safeguarded? Are we really going to use data such as things said at work? That seems very circumstantial, and I am not sure that will hold up under any sort of legal test for something that many Americans (and the USSC) view as a constitutional right.

I think the problem is that while you are comparing a person’s ability to drive after being shown to be dangerous (accumulated DUI’s, etc), is that is based on actions that the individual has committed versus trying to predict what someone WILL do. Restricting rights (that are currently enshrined) based on facts of what someone has done carries a lot more weight than guessing what someone might do), Which is where the concept of limiting rights based on a history of abuse has a lot of merit. It should absolutely be a factor in determining one’s fitness to own a firearm. Another issue is much if mental health attention is sought by the individual which is a GOOD thing and we absolutely NEED to keep it that way. Turning mental health issues into deterrents for seeking help under the possibility of becoming ineligible for things seems like a bad idea to me. It is one thing that I actually agree with some on the right about (even if I do think they are often dishonest about their mention of it).

Additionally, I have very little if any desire to own a gun. However, I don’t think I would be ok having a right that has been enshrined (supposedly) not available to me based on me seeking medical care. I also think it would be used to beat the hell out of us politically.

[Sancho]

18. No one would be preventing you from having a license to possess a gun...

...but we require licenses for all sort of things to prevent self-imposed danger (like to rent scuba diving equipment) or from danger to others (like buying certain chemicals).

Lots of licenses ask for background checks or interviews or references or medical clearance (airplane pilots).
In every case, your "rights" are only "limited" if you have an issue or problem that the process is designed to discover!!

I think everyone is assuming some kind of global psychiatric examination with a Rorschach ink blot test for a license - that is not the case. I can easily see something with a questionnaire (Have you attempted suicide?), a check on the truthfulness of the answers (Who are family, work, or friend references we can call?), a public record background check (arrest record), proof of safety training (approved gun course), a public media check (Facebook, Twitter), etc., etc.

This is not about your "general mental or emotional health". Nobody cares if you have text anxiety or you are seeing someone for marriage counseling, or you take valium before going to the dentist.

Many shootings involve untrained or careless people, but many are emotional or ill (at least temporarily) people well-known to the family, friends, schools, and coworkers around them as dangerous people who should not have easy access to a gun.

[edisdead]

19. None of those are guaranteed constitutional rights.

[Sancho]

24. Please read this book..."The Second Amendment: A Biography"

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

[edisdead]

26. Sure I will just go read a book.

It doesn’t matter if I agree with the book or not. The point is the current situation.

[Sancho]

35. The book would help you understand the current laws.

It is well sourced.

[Phoenix61]

21. So this person who wants a gun is going to answer truthfully

about suicide attempts? Seriously? Just like they person who has physically abused their spouse but has never been charged will answer truthfully.

[Sancho]

23. Please try to follow...

everything would be externally checked of course. No one would accept a simple questionnaire on face value.

[Phoenix61]

25. I am following and pointing out why this is a poorly

thought out plan. How exactly are you going to check for past suicide attempts? What arbitrary time frame are you going to put in place between most recent attempt and their ability to purchase a gun. What external source are you going to check to ensure the question has been answered truthfully?
On to abusive behavior…
What outside sources are you going to check? How far back are you going to go?

Fact- bad cops get hired all the time by moving and lying on their employment application. Same thing happens with doctors. You think your plan will work better than law enforcement and the entire medical industry?
So one more time…. It’s the guns!!!!

[Sancho]

28. There is NOTHING in a license that would prohibit restriction of guns!!

How many times does it have to be said? A license does not speak to gun bans - that is a separate issue. Go for it!!!
You can ban guns, ban types of guns, ban types of bullets, or any other ban you want...NOW...

some people will be cops, hunters, or shoot guns at targets in the Olympics. SOMEONE is going to have a gun. Those people need a license so that dangerous people do NOT HAVE EASY ACCESS TO GUNS!

You can argue how to do this and how to do that all you want...because there are hundreds of licenses for damn near everything, and they have all kinds of checks and requirements. The requirements are not 100%, but they help!!

There are no details in the "plan" because every state or jurisdiction would create their regulations (read the book!!). Over time, the necessary checks and requirements would evolve - just like DUI laws have evolved.

I hope that makes sense.

[Phoenix61]

31. No, it doesn't make any more sense now than it did before.

But you keep sharing it like it’s a meaningful answer if that make a you happy.

[Phoenix61]

27. And yet there are still 3 people dead.

“The suspected shooter’s parents called Clay County Sheriff’s Office after they told deputies they had found a manifesto, reported WJXT.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/dollar-general-active-shooter-jacksonville-b2400007.html

It’s the guns….

[Sancho]

29. Would a license have prevented someone who posted a manifesto from easy access to guns....

maybe!!!

[Phoenix61]

33. You are delusional. He already had the gun but as I already stated

you keep posing whatever makes you happy.

[Sancho]

36. He had been Baker-acted in Florida. IF there had been a strict license, he would not have the gun.

That's the point. He would have needed to show a license to even buy a bullet.

Social media posts would have revealed that he was a danger.

There is a good chance he would have found it more difficult to possess the gun - yes, he may have gotten one - but it would not have been easy access.

[Lurker Deluxe]

34. This gets posted every once in a while

I am assuming by you.

Every once in a while I will respond ... why not today.

There is not one single thing that can be purchased by the general public that requires a license to own in the USA.

Not one.

There is no single activity that is legal that requires you to have a license to perform in the USA.

Not one.

This would be struck down immediately, unanimously, by the courts.

[Phoenix61]

20. I'll try one more time.

Who exactly is going to “clear you to possess a gun”? What criteria are they going to basis that decision on?

[Sancho]

30. This has been explained repeatedly...

...a license would be "cleared" by the rules, laws, and regulations that dictated what you needed to obtain the license.

There is no "person" involved.

[Phoenix61]

32. No it hasn't been "explained" An explanation would include

who is going to do whatever you’re suggesting. The idea that there is no person involved is ludicrous at best.

[Sancho]

37. That is like saying, "Who is the clerk that takes your picture for your driver's license?"

It may be Jane Doe or John Smith, but it doesn't matter. The license would not be a "king of licenses". You would apply for the license and it would be processed.

[Phoenix61]

39. Who is going to do all the steps you suggest?

What agency? What position in that agency is going to be assigned they task?
You keep saying “they” will do it. And I’m asking, once again, who is that “they”? Who is going to a research someone’s social media accounts?

[Sancho]

41. Licenses would be issued by the state government...

...just like a Hunting License, Driver's License, License to Practice Medicine, etc. etc.

[Phoenix61]

40. I'm not asking for the name of the person.

I’m asking what position. In your example the position is “clerk at DMV.”

[Sancho]

42. Most licenses would be state licenses, but it is possible to have a Federal license...

...but more likely it would be like a Driver's License. Issued by your resident state, but recognized (usually) by other states. If you have NC License, you can drive in Virginia. Every state has its own structure to issue licenses, so the exact department or agency in each state would be decided by their organization.

[Phoenix61]

43. So it's a plan without any thought given to how it would

actually be implemented. Just a “the state would do it.”

[Sancho]

44. Plenty of thought... but every state would have it's own parallel process.

The point of the post is not to teach the organization of state governments.

Every single point on the proposed license already exists or has previously existed in some form in the US. No state has put together a strict, comprehensive license yet as far as I know.

Read the book and its references.

[Phoenix61]

45. No, the point of the post is to "prove" that the way to

mange the problem is through licensing.

[NowISeetheLight]

22. Grew Up NRA As Well

Dad was a cop so we’d go to shooting matches on weekends. Dad had trophies in his den. I remember getting those round NRA patches they gave kids after gun classes. Responsible gun use from the 70s. Sure not the free for all we have now.

[Sancho]

38. Me too...NRA in the late 50s and 60s was a training and safety organization.

I dropped out of the NRA in the mid-70s when it changed.

[Duppers]

2. This could and did happen.....

Mother pleads guilty to felony child neglect after 6-year-old son used her gun to shoot teacher.

(Here in Newport News, Virginia)

https://apnews.com/article/teacher-shooting-virginia-boy-classroom-81d52f6bf35512c5684acb93baa8700b

[Old Crank]

4. These people

Need to be banned from ever having guns. Same with people who forget they are packing heat on airplanes. No Fly list. If you can't keep track of your deatj machine you don't get to have one.

[tanyev]

6. I shudder to think how many people routinely drive around with a loaded gun in easy reach.

[Kaleva]

7. The standards to get a CPL are really, really low

Last edited Sat Aug 26, 2023, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Nobody fails the written or practical exams. In the course I took, the written exam was a group effort and at the firing range for the practical test, a woman didn't know how to load her own gun and she and another lady couldn't hit their targets. They both still passed.

I took the course seriously and aced the written exam on my own and was the best shot at the range.

Based on my experience, one can get a CPL as long as you can pass the background check and even if you can't load your own gun or hit a target that's 5 feet away.

[Talitha]

11. Why didn't she put it in her purse, instead of into the child's backpack??

"...had placed the gun in the boy's backpack to take it to her vehicle. She then drove him to school and forgot to take the gun out of the backpack before dropping him off."

Something stinks.

[orleans]

12. i thought the same thing. nt

[niyad]

46. That was my first thought.

[Brainfodder]

14. Sly wicked way to get your bad child taken away from you?

I went the other way with it...

You are a bad MOTHER, we are sorry mame, but Damien Dahmer is coming with us!

Fake the tears to sell it!

And end scene!

[niyad]

47. "morning procedures"??? Let me guess .patting kids down, searching

their belongings? Training them to be obedient and docile to these invasions? So much more useful than. .oh, maybe. .GETTING RID OF THE FUCKING GUNS?!!