Brandon O’Quinn Rasberry, 32, was shot in the head in 2022 while he slept at an RV park in Nixon, Texas, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of San Antonio, investigators said. He had just moved in a few days before.
The boy’s possible connection to the case was uncovered after sheriff’s deputies were contacted on April 12 of this year about a student who threatened to assault and kill another student on a school bus. They learned the boy had made previous statements that he had killed someone two years ago.
The boy was taken to a child advocacy center, where he described for interviewers details of Rasberry’s death “consistent with first-hand knowledge” of the crime, investigators said.
Which of these apply to the situation needs to be decided by a court, right?
Let’s try a different situation: the loaded gun is locked up in a cupboard. The child knows about the gun and the key. The key is easily accessible to the child.
Do you think the law applies in this case?
The way the law defines secured, that would be secured. If the law did not define secured, maybe not.
The law defines secure as follows:
46.13 3)
“Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
How do you see the described situation matching that description?
The container is locked, which is explicitly described as secured. How easy the lock is defeated is not mentioned.
How is that a step a reasonable person would take?
And how would that be a reasonable interpretation of the law?
Because it’s explicitly included in the definition as a step a reasonable person would take. It’s not the only step they may take (maybe they hide it instead), but the law is written to be that permissive.
They did not have to add that definition when they passed the bill. They did it to make the law more permissive as to what “secured” meant.
No reasonable person considers a box locked or secure when the keys are right next to it.
You would not consider your money safe in a lockbox under the same condition.
Arguing otherwise is quite obviously bad faith.
I’m trying to explain to you that the definition “steps a reasonable person would make” includes “in a locked container.” You could argue a container with the key literally in the lock isn’t locked but the definition you have to use when interpreting the law is the one the law itself provides.
No, it’s not. The locked container is just one of the examples for steps a reasonable person could take. The emphasis of the wording is clear.
The way in which you try to twist the wording is another display of bad faith arguing.