Crime & Courts

Richmond Co. | Columbia Co. | Aiken Co. |

Boy brings gun to church event

Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013 5:55 PM
Last updated 10:03 PM
  • Follow Crime & courts

A 14-year-old boy brought a gun to an event for children at First Baptist Church of North Augusta on Friday, according to a North Augusta Public Safety incident report.

A public safety lieutenant found the .45-caliber Glock 21 in the boy’s jacket after another juvenile told him others had spotted the gun in the area where they left jackets and backpacks.

The boy admitted the jacket was his but said he forgot the gun was there, according to the report. The boy was released to his mother, who told the lieutenant the gun belonged to her husband and should not have been in her son’s possession.

Comments (35) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
AutumnLeaves
7696
Points
AutumnLeaves 02/24/13 - 07:07 pm
8
0
Why was...

Why was this weapon not secured in the home?

Jake
32530
Points
Jake 02/24/13 - 11:30 pm
7
0
Guns don't kill people.....

.....people do. Parents, please secure your weapons just like Autumn Leaves suggests.

my.voice
4823
Points
my.voice 02/25/13 - 08:15 am
6
0
How does someone not know the

How does someone not know the firearm is in their coat pocket? They don't, and we are fortunate this didn't turn tragic.

Adam Bomb
357
Points
Adam Bomb 02/25/13 - 09:53 am
7
0
A fish story?

He didn't know the gun was in his pocket. Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, guns weigh less than postage stamps (and cost less too). They fold up so you can slip them into a corner of your pocket. Easy to overlook. Unless the kid was trying to impress somebody by having the gun in his front pocket. "Interesting bulge you got there sonny".
Come on already.

MarinerMan
2107
Points
MarinerMan 02/25/13 - 11:00 am
4
2
My Previous Post Was Removed
Unpublished

The "person" who did not secure their weapon, should be slapped with a fine for said offense. The 14 year-old kid even having the gun in his possession is illegal. WGAC stated that the kid said he had been hunting. Except for a backup, just in case, no one "hunts" with a .45 cal, and again it was illegal for the kid to have it, in the first place. A "Come to Jesus" meeting should be held for both guilty parties, whomever they are. Now, how politically correct is THIS post ??

joytotheworld
46
Points
joytotheworld 02/25/13 - 10:55 am
3
1
Why is this child not being

Why is this child not being evaluated? Do we know if he was being bullied or was afraid of someone. What is his mental state? They released him to his parents and he will be back in school today. How safe is that for our children and grandchildren?

daphne3520
950
Points
daphne3520 02/25/13 - 11:47 am
0
1
North Augusta Cops are notoriously lazy, thats
Unpublished

why the kid will not be charged....Yet, I get charged for sending TWO condoms to schoolteachers (unused!). I wonder what the North Augusta Cops did with the First Amendment?

Sweet son
10397
Points
Sweet son 02/25/13 - 12:33 pm
3
0
Hey MarinerMan,

I bet you called the child's parents stupid. LOL! That will get a Sean note everytime! We can't be bashing someone! :-)

Sean Moores
376
Points
Sean Moores 02/25/13 - 12:52 pm
3
2
Family members are off limits

Family members are off limits unless the police charge or implicate them. We rarely have information about family members of criminal suspects. It is not fair to let them be accused or attacked, especially by anonymous commenters.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 01:32 pm
4
0
Sean - gotta disagree strongly....

It was a careless act. My post only referred to the ANONYMOUS "father". I read the short article several times. Neither the mother, the father or the child were named. Who knows who they are? I certainly don't! But the advice I gave should be good for anyone.

Suggesting that the "owner" of the weapon practice discretion is not an attack on an individual any more than it is when criticizing an unnamed welfare mother for EBT abuse.

You should be able to run a battalion of young kids through a house full of guns (such as mine) and they should come out without a single weapon.

We are criticized on this site almost every day for being gun nuts, but then are slapped on the wrist for suggesting gun safety to someone who obviously needs the advice.

Let me say that while I would not want to find myself playing "hall monitor" to a group of free-spirited adults, someone has to do it. I respect that.

On the other hand, maybe you could come up with some sort of protocol to assure that we (the great unwashed out here) would not feel we are walking through an unmarked minefield.

Thanks for "listening".....

bdouglas
5008
Points
bdouglas 02/25/13 - 01:54 pm
5
0
So why is it that if the kid

So why is it that if the kid would've killed someone or committed some other crime the parent would DEFINITELY be charged with something for not securing the gun...but if the kid is just found with it where he shouldn't be then nothing happens to the parent who irresponsibly left the weapon where the kid could get it in the first place?

MarinerMan
2107
Points
MarinerMan 02/25/13 - 02:00 pm
3
0
Too Bad...
Unpublished

@Sweet son, too bad you missed my non-PC post. Actually, I singled out only one, and did not call them stupid. The article in the AC, clearly stated who the owner of the weapon was. And they ARE clearly responsible for securing of said weapon. @Darby, I completely agree with you. We will wait to see if the judge does the right thing, and then we can "talk" more.

Sean Moores
376
Points
Sean Moores 02/25/13 - 03:41 pm
3
0
I have no problem with saying

I have no problem with saying the gun should have been secured, but when you say "the father...," you are making an accusation against someone who has not been charged or implicated by the police, who we have no information on and who has not been given the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. That's not fair. We don't know that he did anything wrong. He may be out of the country. The gun may have been secured properly but was stolen. Or any of a hundred other possibilities that leave him entirely innocent. You can say what you want on the street, but I don't think it is right to allow it on such a public forum...at least not one I am responsible for.

Sweet son
10397
Points
Sweet son 02/25/13 - 04:04 pm
3
0
Sorry Sean!

Didn't mean to get you right in the middle of a situation! Hey everybody if you get a note from Sean send him an email. He is very approachable and will always work with you on your comments! :)

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 04:20 pm
0
3
It's his Constitutional right.

It's his Constitutional right. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do people not understand?

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 04:30 pm
3
0
OK, Sean- I tried to make the point that the father....

is completely anonymous but you don't accept that and since you have the power and there is no "court of appeal", I have no choice but to accept your decision. As for the commentators on this board being anonymous, as you stated, that's not entirely true.

You know exactly who we are by name and account number. If I were to say anything libelous, which I did not, it wouldn't be that difficult to bring me to task.

If I had said "a father" or "any father", rather than "the father" would that have made a difference? I'd just like to clear up some of the ambiguity that hangs over our heads here. The rules, if there are rules, are very confusing.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 04:41 pm
4
0
"It's his Constitutional right. What part of

'shall not be infringed' do people not understand?"
.

Are you talking about the right of the underage kid to carry a concealed weapon without a license?

Liberals always seem to be so conflicted.....

MarinerMan
2107
Points
MarinerMan 02/25/13 - 04:47 pm
4
0
As This Thing Plays Out
Unpublished

@burninator - with his underage 14 year-old son caught with his loaded .45 cal pistol IN CHURCH, "he" has got a LOT more high priority things going on, than whether or not he has been "infringed". Believe me...

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 04:48 pm
0
3
Hey Darby, please check your

Hey Darby, please check your Constitution one more time. Does it say "of legal age, with proper licensure", or "shall not be infringed"?

Talk about conflicted.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 05:24 pm
3
0
"Does it say "of legal age, with proper....

licensure", or "shall not be infringed"?"
.

Hey, Burninator, can you tell me where in the First Amendment it says that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? When you find it, get back to me and we'll talk about who is conflicted...

I've noticed in my travels that the great majority of liberals also have trouble with logic and reasoning skills...

Always wondered about that....

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 05:33 pm
0
2
Interesting. So you are

Interesting.

So you are saying it is Constitutional to infringe upon a right defined as uninfringeable by the Constitution?

Perhaps your liberal friends are influencing your infallible conservative logic and reasoning skills.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 05:48 pm
0
3
Your ""Fire!" In a crowded

Your ""Fire!" In a crowded theatre" example indicates an uninfringeable right may be infringed when it represents a threat to public safety. This opinion has profound implications for the "shall not be infringed" portion of the Second Amendment.

Am I getting too logical and reasoned for you?

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 05:53 pm
3
0
No, I'm not saying that and you....

know I'm not. I'm saying that the Constitution has been tested and the Supreme court has ruled time and time again. You and your "friends" just have trouble accepting reality.

The path is open to you. Offer an amendment to the Second Amendment removing the "shall not be infringed" phrase or just accept the law as it is written.

My infallible logic and reasoning skills are intact and functioning at peak levels. I'm sure that many liberals possess those same skills, but like the body's muscles, if not used, they atrophy.

It's never been an "infringement" on the Second Amendment to keep guns out of the hands of children, any more than it is to keep kids from playing with fire. It's only common sense. And there's a reason for the word "common".

Maybe you can guess what it is.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 05:56 pm
3
0
"Am I getting too logical and.....

reasoned for you?"
.
If that is what is troubling you, then you can rest easy. The sun will never rise on the day when you become that logical...

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 06:11 pm
2
0
Sorry, must have hit the save key

by accident...

How do you delete one of these things....????

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 06:14 pm
0
3
"No, I'm not saying that and

"No, I'm not saying that and you know I'm not".
-------
But that's exactly what you are saying. You argue by analogy that having age restrictions on gun carry is Constitutional in the same way that banning certain forms of speech is Constitutional. Therefore, it is your logical and reasoned opinion that it is Constitutional to infringe on a right defined by the Constitution as uninfringeable.

That is exactly what you are saying.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 06:07 pm
3
0
"Fire!" In a crowded theatre" example indicates.....

an an uninfringeable right may be infringed when it represents a threat to public safety."
.
Actually, there you go again. There is NO MENTION of the word infringed or uninfringeable (your word) anywhere in the First Amendment. That may be because, although we have free speech in this country (for now) it has always been recognized that there were limitations.

So I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that word (uninfringeable) if I were you. On the other hand, since I'm not you......

See how generous I am with your First Amendment right...

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 06:10 pm
0
1
Actually, there you go again.

Actually, there you go again. There is NO MENTION of the word infringed or (your word) anywhere in the First Amendment.
-------
That is true, but not from your position. You introduced the infringement of speech as analogous to the infringement of the individual right to bear arms. The two can only be analogous if they represent the same type of right. As the right to bear is uninfringeable, so must the right to speech be for it to be an analogous case (as you claim).

That is, if your intent was to be logical and reasoned.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 02/25/13 - 06:19 pm
0
1
Even if you retract the idea

Even if you retract the idea that the restriction of certain forms of speech is analogous to the restriction of the individual right to carry, you still have the same problematic position:

By claiming that age restrictions and licensure, which are infringements on the right to carry, are Constitutional, you are taking the legal position that it is Constitutional to infringe on a right defined by the Constitution as uninfringeable.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 02/25/13 - 06:30 pm
2
0
"The two can only be analogous....

if they represent the same type of right."

.
I'm sure the courts would disagree with you there... but if that's your position and you won't listen to reason, then we'll have to just agree to disagree.

However, even Webster takes a different approach than you do.
1: showing an analogy or a likeness that permits one to draw an analogy.
Nothing there about being exactly the same.

Since you appear to attempt to defend the concept of children running wild in the streets with loaded guns, based on what you apparently believe to be the intent of the founders, then I'll let you run with that.

I think that parents should be responsible for children's behavior. Obviously, you do not. Again, COMMON SENSE. And not talking Thomas Paine here either.

I'll let it go at that.... Again, see Webster for analogy.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Scots reject independence in historic vote

EDINBURGH, Scotland — Scottish voters have rejected independence, deciding to remain part of the United Kingdom after a historic referendum that shook the country to its core.
Search Augusta jobs