Authorities say a Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver pleaded not guilty after becoming the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns.

A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week pleaded not guilty after becoming the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns.

Michael Tolbert, 44, of Flint, was arraigned Monday on nine felony charges including single counts of first-degree child abuse and violation of Michigan’s gun storage law, said John Potbury, Genesee County’s deputy chief assistant prosecuting attorney.

Tolbert’s daughter remained hospitalized Wednesday in critical condition from the Feb. 14 shooting, Potbury said. The youngster shot herself the day after Michigan’s new safe storage gun law took effect.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    215·
    9 months ago

    The Supreme Court has ruled that you’re allowed “bearable arms”, so essentially anything that can be carried, for self defense. And that requiring a weapon be kept locked up defeats the purpose of self defense.

    Oregon has a law that requires guns be locked up, but dodges the self defense aspect by allowing an exception for guns under the direct control of the owner.

    So if I’m home and in direct control of my guns, they don’t have to be secured. If I leave home or am not otherwise present, they do.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          5·
          9 months ago

          Could’ve at least quoted Heller’s common use if you wanted to make a point (even though I’d still disagree heavily), because “bearable arms” is a completely ambiguous term without a clear definition that is simply applied willy nilly to justify their gun fetishism.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              1·
              9 months ago

              First, it is supersedes. Secondly, I don’t see how Caetano is really replacing that ruling when it still uses the “bearable arms” mantra without being able to specify what “bearable arms” exactly are. Heller was at least able to say “all commonly used weapons today are bearable arms”. It’s still ridiculously stupid but at least it’s some form of definition. So if Caetano goes over Heller, then the US went basically backwards and has no clear definition of what “bearable arms” fall under the 2nd. Make it make sense?

        • Tbird83ii@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          5·
          9 months ago

          It would first have to pass the “dangerous and unusual weapons” test before even getting to the bearable test… At least according to ScaliaLaw.