Mother of Boy Who Brought Gun to School Sentenced

[SecularMotion]

The mother of a Washington state boy who brought a gun to school that went off in his backpack and critically wounded a classmate will spend more than a year behind bars.

Jamie Lee Chaffin was sentenced to 14 months Friday in Kitsap County Superior Court. She initially faced third-degree assault charges but was eventually prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm. She was convicted of forgery in 2007 and barred from owning or accessing weapons.

In February 2012, the gun that Chaffin's 9-year-old son brought to the city of Bremerton elementary school fired inside his backpack, injuring 8-year-old Amina Kocer Bowman. She had multiple surgeries and spent more than a month in the hospital.

The boy told investigators he took the gun from a dresser at the home of his mother's boyfriend, Douglas Bauer, because he was afraid of other students. Chaffin did not have custody of her son, who lived with his uncle.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mother-boy-brought-gun-school-sentenced-25190878

[blueridge3210]

1. "Criminal illegally in possession of firearm convicted and sentenced".

Was there something you wished to discuss in your latest "Google Dump"?

Is there not sufficient activity in Castle Bansalot to suit you?

[MH1]

11. I would just point out that the negligent firearm OWNER was unable to be prosecuted,

per the article.

The woman who felt she add to hang with this guy (apparently for economic reasons) despite violating her firearms prohibition, now goes to jail even though it was his negligence that resulted in the tragedy of the child being shot. She used bad judgment in hanging with him and allowing her kid around him, but the unsecured firearms were his, and yet he goes free.

Just pointing that out. Even though I am not the OP and thus not the person to whom you are posing the question. Someone should be pointing it out.

[blueridge3210]

12. Constructive Possession.

In her residence and, if the child was able to access the weapon, under her control as well. As a convicted felon she is well advised to "sanitize her surroundings" in order to avoid this issue. As you have noted, bad judgment on her part.

[MH1]

18. But she wasn't convicted for the kid having access to the gun.

She was convicted for HERSELF having access to the gun.

My point being, there was no punishment for the irresponsible gun owner. None at all. (well, his homeowner's insurance premium will probably go up).

And the kid is just screwed in all this.

[blueridge3210]

19. The boyfriend was not a prohibited person.

She was, due to her felony conviction, and any unsecured weapon in the residence was available to her. Therefore she had "possession" in that the firearm was capable of being under her control. Should the boyfriend face charges for leaving unsecured weapons where a minor could access them? Certainly plausible; U-Turns and generally legal unless an accident results (unless specifically prohibited) at which time the person making the U-Turn could be charged. Same rationale could apply; no charges for unsecured firearm unless some injury occurs due to a minor/prohibited person gaining access. Then strict liability could apply unless the owner could demonstrate inability to control access (burglary/home invasion/natural disaster).

[Eleanors38]

22. Continuing this legal discussion, if I (a qualified gun-owner)

lived in the residence of a person disqualified, but took reasonable steps to secure and lock up the weapon, but some wizz kid jiggered the lock box and got the gun, would the disqualified resident still be in violation of the law?

[blueridge3210]

24. I would not think so

If the weapon were secured. I have heard, anecdotally, of a similar case where no charges were filed.

[flamin lib]

26. This begs the question, how does society prevent this from happening?

Yeah there are laws but those laws are intentionally unenforceable. How could the laws be changed to make them more enforceable? Got any suggestions?

[clffrdjk]

27. It seems like they were enforced in this case.

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of laws, they punish after the fact, they don't actually prevent crime.

[blueridge3210]

28. The law is being enforced. The mother is being charged for Felon in Possession of a Firearm.

Not sure what else you want; laws are crafted to impose penalties after they are violated. If the penalty deters some criminal activity that is a plus but not the primary intent of the law being crafted.

[flamin lib]

29. I'm interested in prevention. I'm sure her jail time will be of great consolation to the

parents if the injured child. What would you do to enforce the laws that are supposed to prevent access to guns by felons?

[IronGate]

30. Beef up the ATF to go after straw buyers.

Double the penalties for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, UBC bill re-introduced in the Congress.

[flamin lib]

37. Good. Have you personally done anything to further those goals?

I, personally, have contributed to a number of organizations working toward UBC and other proposals, both money and time (volunteered time but no opportunity yet). I've written and called every legislator who will receive my contact.

We can all do something, however small.

[IronGate]

38. I've written and called my state and fed. reps urging them to do what I've outlined. nt.

[flamin lib]

39. Thank you. nt

[blueridge3210]

31. I'm also interested in prevention.

However, the Department of Pre-Crime does not currently exist. I would enforce the laws prohibiting access to guns by felons by prosecuting those who violate the law.

[flamin lib]

32. Yes, but as you said the law was enforced in this case except for the fact that

a prohibited person got access to a gun. How do you propose enforcing laws designed to prevent that?

Would it not be better if the 8 year old not be injured by an illegal gun?

[blueridge3210]

33. Yes it would be better if the child was not injured.

It would also be better if people were not murdered, residences were not burglarized and cars were not stolen. Yet we have these laws on the books to prosecute people who violate the laws.

[flamin lib]

34. So your position is that absolutely nothing that can be done to decrease

gun violence in the US.

[blueridge3210]

35. No.

Try to improve your reading comprehension.

Prosecute those who break the laws. Longer sentences for violent offender in lieu of non-violent offenders. Unless you know of some way to arrest someone before they commit a criminal offense.

Gun violence in the US has been decreasing over the last two decades.

Try again.

[flamin lib]

36. There were a number of crimes committed before the shooting.

Someone provided the gun to a prohibited person who provided it to another prohibited person who allowed a child access to it.

Is there no intervention anywhere along this chain of events that night have prevented the final outcome?

That gun violence has declined from 50 years ago is no excuse to pretend that being the number one ranked gun homicide nation in the first world is acceptable.

BTW, I read pretty well. Work on four writing skills. There, that added a lot to the conversation, didn't it? Save the petty insults for some who might be impressed.

[blueridge3210]

40. You posted:

"So your position is that absolutely nothing that can be done to decrease gun violence in the US. "; which is something I never said.

So, either your reading comprehension skills are not very good or you are putting words in my mouth, which does not impress me.

What, exactly, would you propose to prevent this chain of events?

[flamin lib]

43. That is precisely what you wrote.

In #31 you wrote that no "precrime" department exists which I interpreted to mean you believe nothing can be done to prevent gun violence. In #33 you wrote that there are laws on the books that are broken implying that nothing can prevent crime and by extension gun violence. If that is not what you meant please clarify.

I've posted a number of policies in the past but in the name of discussion I am soliciting your input if you have any. Again, is there no place in the chain of events that a change in policy could have prevented the outcome? If so, what?

[blueridge3210]

44. That is not "precisely what I wrote".

Your "interpretation" is badly flawed.

You seem to be confusing the concept of the inability to prevent a specific act with the inability to have an impact on the overall level of a specific criminal activity. Look at DUI. If I am determined to drink and drive there is little anyone can do to prevent me from doing so. However, as a result of increased law enforcement attention and training, and more important a change in societal attitude towards driving while impaired the level of DUI has fallen sharply. It is not prevented in every case, but the overall incidence is lowered.

You are the one advocating some form of change; it would seem to be incumbent upon you to posit some of your ideas in this thread. I have no interest on combing though a number of threads to search out your ideas; if you have them put them on the table.

[flamin lib]

45. And I am not interested in continuing a conversation with you. nt

[blueridge3210]

46. I think someone has a sadz. (nt)

[DashOneBravo]

54. FL

My input. There are a lot of us who have been touched by gun violence or losing someone because some ass hole couldn't secure a weapon. I was waved down on the road when a 8 y/o boy shot his 13 y/o sister in the back with a .410 single shot. That was one day in my life and I've never forgotten it. That family deals with that loss everyday and I don't.

It made such an impact that in every class I've taught for over 15 years, I've told that story. I've never met one gun person who wanted to see another dead child.

We need to find common ground that we agree on and ignore the NRA and Bloomberg types.

[clffrdjk]

42. Wrong

Care to try again?

[clffrdjk]

41. What laws do you propose would prevent this from happening?

[ManiacJoe]

47. As with other laws, prevention is done by threat of prosecution.

This begs the question, how does society prevent this from happening?
Yeah there are laws but those laws are intentionally unenforceable. How could the laws be changed to make them more enforceable? Got any suggestions?

The biggest problem with gun laws is the lack of prosecution.
Illegal possession is one of the first offenses to be plea bargained away.
The only time you hear about illegal sales being prosecuted is in big news cases, and then not always in those.

If one does not fear being prosecuted for the crime, the law does not prevent the crime from happening.

The ATF budget needs to be increased.
The public needs to hold the prosecutors' feet to the fire to actually prosecute the crimes.
The NICS system needs to be opened to the public so that the non-dealers can actually do background checks.
The current law regarding illegal buyers needs to be reworded to that willful ignorance on the sellers part is no longer a valid excuse.

[flamin lib]

48. While I agree with all you say the problem I see is that the current laws are not enforceable

even if all you said were accomplished. Why don't we prosecute the prohibited persons that NICS turns up? Because all records of application must be destroyed in 24 hours. A denied buyer would have to be Jeffry Dalhmer to generate the urgency to make that happen in 24 hours.

As long as the private market is unregulated opening the NICS to civilians won't make any difference. Guns have to be tied to the people who posses them or no one would bother using NICS. Why bother if you and the gun aren't in the system why bother? Then there's the privacy issue, if everyone has access everyone can pry into your history without a warrant whether a gun is involved or not. Record keeping also becomes a problem. If a sale goes through NICS the source of the gun and the identity of the buyer both have to be kept until the FL terminates (or a private seller dies) and then turned over to the FBI. Faced with that onerous duty how many people, even those with good intentions, would use the NICS?

The only way I can see controlling the private market is a national registry. As things are now guns are tracked from the manufacturer or importer through the FL to the final buyer. Once in the hands of of the buyer the gun vanishes. Sales aren't tracked so if the gun shows up at a murder scene and the first buyer is located s/he just says the gun was sold or lost.

A national registry would force sellers to report sales to free themselves of further responsibility. A registry would also provide for the location and confiscation of guns owned by people who become prohibited or from those who become a danger to themselves or others.

I know that a lot of people would not register their guns. Even so, over a generation or three guns would fall into one of three categories; found in a criminal act and destroyed, not registered and hidden in the closet where it is not a danger to anyone or legally registered.

Nothing short of a complete ban or a national registration will curb the US gun violence issue. It won't happen in my lifetime (another 20-30 years) but as the number of households with guns continues to decline the political cost of acting will decline with it.

[clffrdjk]

49. Finally we get to the point

A national registry and ban on private sales. Both huge concessions which by and large we will not willingly make. What do you offer in exchange for the registry and banning of private sales?

[gejohnston]

50. Nothing short of a complete ban or a national registration will curb the US gun violence issue

judging from the experiences of other countries (like UK, anywhere in Europe, Jamaica, Brazil, Mexico for starters) it won't even happen then. History and basic criminology says it won't happen.
Gangs will still get guns. It might curb the rare person that goes off the deep end of using a gun, but it won't stop them from committing mass murder.

[flamin lib]

51. There are no first world countries that approach our industrial level or

level of education come close to our level of carnage. Many of the countries you mention and their gangs get their weaponry from the US gun industry either directly or secondarily.

Now post some more crap, mention criminology as if it were the holy grail and declare victory.

You are simply wrong. Nothing else needs be said.

[gejohnston]

52. not true

There are no first world countries that approach our industrial level or level of education come close to our level of carnage.

There is no such thing as a first world. In terms of wealth inequality, we are actually closer to Mexico. Our industrial level isn't what it once was (and not really relevant) and what do you mean by "level of education"? Also, if you look at European murder rates from 100 years ago, until they passed registration etc. laws, they were just as low. West Germany did not require registration from 1956-1972. From 1945-1956 private ownership of guns were banned. Murder and violent crime rates basically remained the same other than what may have been affected by leaded gas and a lot of males 17-25 being killed off.

Many of the countries you mention and their gangs get their weaponry from the US gun industry either directly or secondarily.

Actually no. Some are stolen from Mexican government, some are European and Chinese, many smuggled through their southern border. The cartels are also making their own.

Now post some more crap, mention criminology as if it were the holy grail and declare victory

. That and history certainly is, or at more so than ideological assumptions based on nothing.

You are simply wrong. Nothing else needs be said.

I am quite right. I can pull out the history facts and figures, you can't.

[Revanchist]

53. From what I've read Bauer had no previous criminal record

If that is indeed the case, what would make him a "prohibited person" and disqualify him from purchasing or owning firearms? Granted, he should of practiced proper firearm safety and not have allowed easy access by having a safe or at the very least, a trigger lock in order to prevent the situation from happening in the first place. But your argument on NICS background checks would of done nothing to prevent this situation from occurring.

[gejohnston]

2. After her 14 month stint

will she then be handed over to the US attorney, where she would fact a mandatory min. of five years under the Gun Control Act?

[Duckhunter935]

3. since you have stated you refuse to discuss

the cut and paste article with us, can you post at least a comment so we know your position?

[IronGate]

4. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

Did your post in GD get locked again for violating the SOP?

[SecularMotion]

5. My response to the lock

Why is it always a pro-gun nut that locks my posts?

Is it a pattern of suppression I'm seeing or simply cowardice?

[IronGate]

6. Except it's not always pro 2A hosts that lock your threads.

The way to keep from getting your posts locked is to follow Skinner's and GD's SOP.

Also, if I remember right, it takes a consensus to lock a thread, so that would mean that a majority of hosts agreed that your thread didn't meet the SOP of GD.

[SecularMotion]

7. It's always gun nuts

[IronGate]

8. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025472821

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by etherealtruth (a host of the General Discussion forum).

[Duckhunter935]

15. wow, a gun nut

I would have never thunk it. I am sure it is shocking to etherealtruth also

[beevul]

9. Was it a "gun nut" that overrode the lock on one of your posts?

Would you like to discuss that?

[blueridge3210]

10. He appears to lack the basic cognitive ability

to actually discuss issues. If he isn't making personal attacks, making off topic comments or whining to ATA he's largely silent.

[Eleanors38]

20. I remember that one. I remember that one.

[NYC_SKP]

13. You just called fellow DU Hosts "Gun Nuts". How very classy. nt

I don't think you would even be a member any longer under DU rules.

This would be called a "group attack" or "group insult".

You really seem to enjoy pushing the envelope.

Good day.

[blueridge3210]

14. Business as usual.

As he appears to lack the cognitive ability to actually discuss the issue and must resort to personal attacks or off-topic posts in lieu of actual discussion. Of course he has repeatedly posted that he has no intention of discussing the issues in this group.

[Duckhunter935]

16. it appears to be a pattern of a host

trying to sneak gun related posts into GD even after Skinner posted updated guidance that you seem to be ignoring. the posts have been found in violation and locked. You even went so far to go to ATA and complain to Skinner and he agreed with the hosts calls.

[Fred Sanders]

17. The usual suspects I see, sir/Madame, to only confirm your well founded suspicions.

[MicaelS]

21. It's because you keep trying to run this website..

And keep getting your head handed to you. And you can't seem to understand that. You even try to tell the Admins that they should do things "your way", not theirs.

[Eleanors38]

23. Gun control is elites talking to other elites.

[ileus]

25. If I said it once I've said it a thousand times...

You took the first step in effectively protecting yourself and family when you acquired a personal defense firearm. To keep it from being a danger to yourself or other you need to either have it on your person or locked up.

Right now I have one gun unlocked...it's on my person and heading to my job.


Better training for the Mother and Child are what were lacking in this case.