Superior Court Judge Sam Cozza in Washington state has granted a temporary restraining order against Sean B. Fawcett to prevent him from giving his 9-year-old son access to a shotgun. The mother, Laura Vissydas, argued that her son came back with bruises on his shoulder and that Fawcett is unable to fully protect her son due to his deafness.
Visvydas insists that Fawcett would not be able to hear her son gain access to the shotgun if the boy wanted to play with the weapon. Moreover, she argued, “Guns are unquestionably dangerous.”
Fawcett’s attorney, Dennis Cronin, responded by noting that “Skiing downhill at Schweitzer (for) a child this age is inherently dangerous. We don’t have people coming in here asking for restraints on that. He added “You don’t see people coming in saying (the) child can’t go swimming in the lake at 9 because he might drown. Essentially what they are saying, with no facts, (is) ‘restrain him from letting his father teach him to be around and supervise his use of a firearm because he might get hurt.’ Show me the facts beyond speculation and this opinion of fear.”
This is the third judge to agree with the mother on the issue.
South Dakota recently moved to lower the age for hunters to 10, here. After all, kids in Illinois are already robbing banks by thirteen.
There is a whole line of “kiddie shotguns” for the diminutive hunter, here.
For the full story, click here.
Should we continue the fight??? We are completely within our civil rights… but the courts are so liberal.
Should we continue?
I need a gun for protection can I get that one? Hey dude, I will trade ya, barter, lets make a deal?
I need a gun to feel safe in my own home. I don’t trust the Government. Do you?
I’m not a gun advocate or anything, but this seems like an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of these individuals. I shot guns when I was young and it taught me to respect them, not to fear them. If the gun is properly secured, I don’t understand how the father’s disability has any effect on whether or not the child *could* access the gun. I imagine if I really wanted to get a gun out of my father’s (who is not deaf) cabinet, I could have done so if I wanted to without him noticing. What is next… not allowing people to see their children if their house is too big or they have multiple floors (since even the best hearing in the world won’t make you able to hear something that just isn’t loud enough)? Rafflaw states that the father’s physical disability prevents him from properly securing the weapon. I’m sorry but even people without any disabilities are unable to secure their own homes from children. How many kids drink bleach or fall in the pool and drown or get into their parent’s liquor cabinet?
My grandfather taught me to shoot when I was seven. It’s saved my life on at least two occasions.
Securing the weapon, yes. The father’s physical disability, yes. Guns are inherently dangerous? yes, in fact, but the father’s counsel in this case is 100% valid in noting that nearly everything in life is dangerous. statistically, children are many many times more likely to be killed by the pool in the backyard or their parents’ poor driving than by a firearm. It’s time to stop blaming guns for human folly. guns don’t kill people. stupid people kill people.
Guns Don’t Kill People, Bullet Kill People. Depending on their accuracy (low) many a Police Agency can get them a job.
Alright, the bottom line is control over the child. Can the father buy a gun cabinet? Most local law enforcement will provide you a gun lock.
I am a member of a group that has guns. Guns one part of the house bullets another. Keep the 2 apart. Makes sense to me, then you have no problem.
No if the parent has mental problems himself then maybe he should not have access to a gun. Just because the child is deaf does not mean that they should not learn to function properly in this world. Unless you are like Dick Cheney you can shoot somebody and won’t even have the smallest of an investigation.
You suppose Cheney has a Freudian Relationship with his 2nd amendment right?
I wish I had had a father that was willing to teach me how to shoot when I was nine. The first time I ever shot a shot gun was about 7 years old and it knocked me on my ass. I did not shoot one again until about 7th grade during thanksgiving with my grandfather.
I tought my son how to shoot when he was in 7th grade and I taught him gun safety and he went through the hunter education course with me. We had no accidents and he loves to shoot trap and skeet. Anyone that shoots a shotgun is going to have some bruises, big deal. What’s his mommy gonna do make him play soccer for the rest of his life? OOOh Johnny better not play football or hockey, he may get hurt. And God forbid riding a horse you may fall off and oh dont ride a bike either.
Just one more incident in the feminization of the American male. By the time it is done we will all be wearing skirts (not kilts) and using lipstick.
I am not a big gun guy and as my Marine son knows, we have never had a gun in the house and we never will. I am not surprised anymore that two estranged parents will fight in court over any issue, but I have to agree with the mother here that a 9 year should not have access to a shotgun, especially when the father is not physically capable of securing the weapon to the courts satisfaction. The father’s attorney’s claim that is analagous to allowing a 9 year to swim or ski is ridiculous.