Commentary: I applaud the Oakland County (Michigan) prosecutor’s decision to indict for involuntary manslaughter the parents of the boy who killed four fellow students last week.
If ever a case demanded such a charge, this is it. The parents bragged on social media that the dangerous weapon was the boy’s birthday present; when a worried teacher caught the boy ordering ammunition online, the boy’s mother texted him, “LOL. I’m not mad at you. You just have to learn not to get caught.” Next day, after the boy’s conduct worried school authorities, the parents “flatly refused” to take him out of school for the rest of the day. Then, . . . bang!
In New Mexico, “involuntary manslaughter” means the defendant should have known his/her conduct was dangerous, but “acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others,” causing someone’s death. That would cover the Michigan case. Still, our Legislature should review our law and consider changes clarifying the laws’ applicability to gun cases, without violating gun owners’ constitutional rights.
I suggest mandatory gun insurance, similar to mandatory automobile insurance; a safe-storage law; and including a notice with firearm licenses or permits that “the licensee acknowledges that s/he understands that firearms are dangerous and that permitting felons, children, and persons who are emotionally or mentally unstable to possess firearms endangers them and unknown third parties.” It may sound silly to have gun owners acknowledge that guns are dangerous, particularly in kids’ hands; but no dishonest lawyer could get someone like the Crumbleys off by arguing that they didn’t figure the safety of others was implicated when they let their troubled teenager have easy access to a semi-automatic weapon.
One benefit of mandatory gun insurance is that possessing an uninsured firearm would constitute an unlawful act. That would facilitate prosecution where someone acted with willful disregard for others’ safety.
Although the wrongly decided 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v D.C. vastly expanded individual gun rights, it conceded limitations. The Second Amendment couches the right as helpful to “a well-regulated militia.” Insurance and licensure constitute appropriate regulation, even if stronger gun laws that sharply restrict who can get those licenses would not be upheld. (A few states have considered mandatory insurance, and I think San Jose, CA passed such an ordinance this year, but I couldn’t find a Supreme Court decision one way or the other.) Rep. Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY) introduced in 2018 the Firearm Risk Protection Act, requiring proof of liability insurance before gun purchase, but it didn’t pass. Supporters noted that car fatalities had declined by 25 percent in a decade, but gun fatalities kept rising.
Insurance would rely on the market. Insurers specialize in weighing risks and calculating odds and charge appropriately. As car insurance premiums are based on car and driver, so that a 19-year-old man with a Porsche and two DWI’s pays more than the proverbial little old lady, a hunter who’s never had an incident with his shotgun would pay less than the first-timer buying a semi-automatic. People would be financially discouraged from buying the most dangerous guns, and encouraged to attend gun-safety classes and adopt safe practices.
Safe storage rules could save lives, by educating and encouraging well-intentioned gun owners to do right. More gun-owners would know the rules, and follow them; and ignoring them would help clarify responsibility for a shooting.
We need to do more. These steps are common sense.